October, 26 2023, 10:47am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7413 5566,After hours: +44 7778 472 126,Email:,press@amnesty.org
Demand a ceasefire by all parties to end civilian suffering
The unparalleled escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hamas and other armed groups has taken a devastating toll on civilians. The level of casualties is unprecedented. Countless lives have been shattered, ripped apart, and upended.
With each day that passes more lives are lost and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is getting worse. Sign our petition to call for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to end civilian bloodshed and ensure humanitarian aid access to Gaza.
What is the problem?
Civilian deaths in Gaza continue to rise at a staggering rate amid relentless Israeli bombardment, in response to the horrific attacks in Israel by Hamas and other armed groups that resulted in 1,400 people killed and the abduction of civilians. More than 6,500 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Gaza including through indiscriminate and other unlawful attacks. More than a third of casualties in Gaza are children and countless bodies are still trapped beneath the rubble. Millions more face further displacement, dispossession and suffering.
At least 200 Israeli hostages taken by Hamas and other armed groups and held in Gaza remain in danger, and ongoing indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel places civilians at risk.
Israel’s tightened siege of Gaza has blocked the entry of goods, including water, food and fuel leaving more than 2 million people in the Gaza Strip struggling to survive. The humanitarian catastrophe stemming from Israel’s 16-year-long illegal blockade on the occupied Gaza Strip only get worse if the fighting doesn’t stop immediately.
Serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes, by all parties to the conflict continue unabated.
In the face of such unfettered devastation and suffering, humanity must prevail.
A ceasefire would put a stop to unlawful attacks by all parties, halt the mounting death toll in Gaza and enable aid agencies to get life-saving aid, water and medical supplies into the Strip to address the staggering levels of human suffering. It will also allow hospitals to receive life-saving medicines, fuel and equipment they desperately need and to repair damaged wards.
A ceasefire would also provide opportunities to negotiate the release of hostages detained in Gaza and for independent international investigations to take place into the war crimes committed by all parties in order to end long-standing impunity, which will continue to breed further atrocities. Tackling the root causes of this conflict, by dismantling Israel’s system of apartheid imposed on Palestinians is now more urgent than ever.
What can you do to help?
Sign our petition and urge world leaders to call for an immediate ceasefire and put an end to the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
LATEST NEWS
SCOTUS Ruling on Emergency Abortion Care Called 'Dangerous Preview for What Could Come'
"If Trump is elected again, he will appoint even more justices who could uphold future abortion bans and endanger our fundamental freedoms for decades."
Jun 27, 2024
Reproductive rights advocates across the United States on Thursday were "hardly celebrating" the Supreme Court's one-sentence decision in a case regarding whether emergency departments can provide abortion care to people who have urgent pregnancy complications, and the court left open the possibility that such care could ultimately be banned.
In Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, Idaho officials asked the court to intervene in an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which temporarily blocked the state's near-total abortion ban after the Biden administration argued it violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
EMTALA requires hospital emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" to all patients, and the Biden administration argued abortion care is included in that requirement and that federal law should override Idaho's abortion ban.
But a day after a draft decision was mistakenly posted on the Supreme Court's website, the release of the ruling confirmed that the court had dismissed the case without ruling on its merits and was sending it back to the lower courts.
The decision temporarily restores Idaho medical providers' ability to provide emergency abortions, but as the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) said, "it still leaves millions of people in states with abortion bans vulnerable."
"Hospitals in the fourteen states that completely ban abortion, as well as many others with bans and restrictions, have shown they are afraid to provide emergency abortions due to the risk of severe criminal penalties under their states' vague and confusing abortion bans," said the organization. "For patients needing abortion care in those states, they will continue to largely rely on their state's medical exceptions, which often do not work in practice."
Nancy Northrup, CRR's president and CEO, explained that the court had "kicked the can down the road on whether states with abortion bans can override the federal law requirement that hospitals must provide abortion care to patients in the throes of life-threatening pregnancy complications."
"The court's refusal to clearly affirm the rights of all pregnant people to emergency abortion care, and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential health care, is a dangerous preview for what could come."
"The Supreme Court created this health care crisis by overturning Roe v. Wade and should have decided the issue," said Northrup. "Women with dire pregnancy complications and the hospital staff who care for them need clarity right now."
Two of the court's liberal members, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, agreed with Northrup and other advocates in a dissenting opinion that the panel should have ruled on the merits of the case.
Kagan wrote that EMTALA "unambiguously requires" hospitals to provide emergency treatment including abortion care, while Jackson said Idaho's ban on nearly all abortions created a "monthslong catastrophe" when it was in effect.
"Idaho physicians were forced to step back and watch as their patients suffered, or arrange for their patients to be airlifted out," Jackson wrote of the state's law, which bans abortions expect in cases of rape, incest, certain nonviable pregnancies, and those in which a pregnant patient's life is at risk. "There is simply no good reason not to resolve this conflict now."
"While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires," Jackson continued.
Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito also objected to the court's refusal to rule on the case's merits, but said Idaho's ban should apply to abortion care, arguing that EMTALA requires hospitals "to treat, not abort, an 'unborn child.'"
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said Alito's dissent, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, "will embolden those who are pursuing a strategy to give legal rights to embryos and fetuses that will override the rights of the pregnant person and ban not only abortion, but other forms of reproductive health care like fertility treatment and birth control as well."
With the official release of the ruling, said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, "it is now clear that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to hold once and for all that every pregnant person in this country is entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, and it failed to do so."
"The court's refusal to clearly affirm the rights of all pregnant people to emergency abortion care, and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential health care, is a dangerous preview for what could come," said Kolbi-Molinas. "This fight is far from over–anti-abortion politicians are trying to ban abortion in all 50 states, including in emergencies. These extremist politicians went all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to put doctors in jail for providing life-and health-saving emergency abortion care, and they will do it again, if we let them."
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court's right-wing majority in June 2022, a number of cases from states with abortion bans and restrictions have garnered national attention, with women speaking out about being denied abortion care when they were experiencing severe, sometimes life-threatening, complications or had learned their fetuses had fatal abnormalities.
Despite those cases, Indivisible co-executive director Leah Greenberg said Thursday's ruling leaves an "open question" on whether or not emergency rooms can "just let women die instead of treating them."
Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said the ruling should "serve as a reminder of what's at stake this November."
"While the Biden administration is fighting tooth and nail to ensure people can get the emergency abortion care they need, anti-abortion extremists will continue to do whatever they can to stop them," said Timmaraju. "We must secure reproductive freedom majorities in Congress and send President Biden back to the White House to restore the federal right to abortion and expand access for all."
Judicial reform group Stand Up America pointed to the Supreme Court Voter campaign it launched Monday, aiming to mobilize voters "on the impact the next president will have on the future of the U.S. Supreme Court."
"The Roberts court's decision to take up Idaho v. United States endangered the lives of pregnant Americans and did irreparable harm," said Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey. "By staying the lower court's decision, the Supreme Court allowed Idaho's extreme abortion ban to take effect while it considered the case. In the meantime, for months, the lives of women in Idaho were callously put at risk, with multiple patients having to be medevacked out of the state to receive care.
"By overturning Roe, the MAGA majority on the Court opened the door to extreme abortion bans like the one in Idaho," she added. "If Trump is elected again, he will appoint even more justices who could uphold future abortion bans and endanger our fundamental freedoms for decades."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court's Right-Wing Majority Delivers Gift to Corporate Criminals
Decision in SEC v. Jarkesy decried as a "victory for the wealthy and powerful" delivered by a right-wing majority that once again put "corporations, Wall Street, and billionaire benefactors over everyday Americans."
Jun 27, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled along ideological lines that the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot use in-house legal proceedings to civilly penalize fraudsters, a decision that could strike a devastating blow to federal agencies' ability to fight corporate crime.
In the 6-3 decision, the high court's conservative supermajority deemed the SEC's in-house proceedings unconstitutional, siding with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other big business-aligned organizations that weighed in on the side of the plaintiff—conservative radio host and hedge fund manager George Jarkesy, who was accused by the SEC of defrauding investors and ordered to pay a $300,000 civil penalty.
Jarkesy argued the SEC proceedings violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. But as Vox's Ian Millhiser observed, "the Constitution treats civil trials very differently from criminal proceedings."
"While the Sixth Amendment provides that 'in all criminal prosecutions' the defendant is entitled to a jury trial," Millhiser wrote, "the Seventh Amendment provides a more limited jury trial right, requiring them 'in suits at common law.'"
Millhiser argued that with its ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, the high court effectively "lit a match and tossed it into dozens of federal agencies."
The Supreme Court's three liberal judges dissented from Thursday's decision, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor denouncing the ruling as "a power grab" with potentially "momentous consequences."
"Today's ruling is part of a disconcerting trend: When it comes to the separation of powers, this court tells the American public and its coordinate branches that it knows best," Sotomayor wrote, warning that the decision "means that the constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress."
Congress would have to give a bunch of federal agencies VASTLY more money and personnel to handle all the jury trials they would need to conduct to patch the hole that SCOTUS just blew in their enforcement powers. It won't happen. This case will just let lawbreakers off the hook.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 27, 2024
Consumer advocates and watchdog organizations warned the high court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy could have implications that extend well beyond the Securities and Exchange Commission, given that other key agencies—including the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency—use internal legal proceedings overseen by an administrative law judge.
The Associated Pressnoted Thursday that the SEC "had already reduced the number of cases it brings in administrative proceedings pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the case."
"Today's decision is another step in the long-term corporate project of neutering federal agencies' ability to protect the public from fraudsters, rip-offs, dangerous products, carbon polluters, and more," Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. "The decision will have near-term consequences for the financial system, as it hinders the SEC's ability to seek critical penalties."
As a result of Thursday's ruling, said Weissman, some federal agencies "will need new authority from Congress, which is not doing much legislating, in order to be able to enforce the law."
"The decision extols the Seventh Amendment, but shows little respect for the separation of powers that is at the heart of our constitutional system," Weissman added. "There's also more than a little irony in this court touting the right to access the court system, when it has broadly allowed companies to require consumers to use arbitration rather than protecting their right to access the courts."
"In gutting the federal government's ability to enforce laws enacted by Congress, this ruling gives special interests even more power to set the rules for the rest of us."
As Politicoreported last month, an "alliance of tech billionaires, conservative legal activists, and the business lobby" joined the fight to strip the SEC of the key enforcement tool.
The outlet noted that "since Jarkesy was filed, companies including Meta, SpaceX, and Amazon have escalated it into a broader fight against federal power by suing other agencies over their own courts—a way of fighting unfavorable judgments by attacking the system that delivered it."
The Revolving Door Project noted in an analysis released Thursday that at least 13 organizations with "ties to court-whisperers and judicial gift-givers like Leonard Leo, Charles Koch, Paul Singer, Harlan Crow, and wealthy elites in the Horatio Alger Association in which Clarence Thomas is a key member" submitted amicus briefs supporting Jarkesy's fight against the SEC.
"Some of the organizations that supported the weakening of the SEC have direct ties to the powerful friends and benefactors of the court," the group said. "The very same people who are flying Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to vacation destinations on private jets are closely tied to organizations that are urging the court through amicus briefs to rule in a manner favorable to corporate wrongdoers."
Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement Thursday that the Supreme Court's decision "is a victory for the wealthy and powerful, delivered by a Supreme Court conservative majority all too used to putting corporations, Wall Street, and billionaire benefactors over everyday Americans."
"In gutting the federal government's ability to enforce laws enacted by Congress, this ruling gives special interests even more power to set the rules for the rest of us," said Ciccone. "Let's be clear: This is a power grab that will ultimately harm ordinary people by making it harder for federal agencies to hold corporations accountable for misdeeds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Genocide Denial': Tlaib, Lee Slam Bipartisan Effort to Suppress Gaza Death Toll
"They want to erase the Palestinians who are living," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib, "and now they are trying to erase the Palestinians who are dead."
Jun 27, 2024
Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Barbara Lee took to the House floor Wednesday to denounce an amendment to next year's State Department spending bill that would ban U.S. officials from using agency funding to cite casualty figures provided by the Gaza Ministry of Health.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz's (D-Fla.) amendment to H.R. 8771, the State Department Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2025, passed by a vote of 269-144 on Thursday with broad bipartisan support. The bipartisan measure—co-sponsored by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), and Carol Miller (R-W.Va.)—bans State Department officials from using agency funds to cite any statistics from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.
"How absolutely unconscionable that my colleagues are offering an amendment to prevent our U.S. government from even citing the Palestinian death toll," said Tlaib (D-Mich.). "Since 1948... there has been a coordinated effort, especially in this chamber, to dehumanize Palestinians and erase Palestinians from existence."
"The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians did not end in 1948," Tlaib continued. "Today... we are witnessing the Israeli apartheid government carry out a genocide in Gaza, and in real time, and this amendment is an attempt to hide it."
Noting the "more than 15,000 Palestinian children" killed by Israel's bombs, bullets, and starvation-inducing siege, Tlaib said that "six children... are killed in Gaza every single hour."
"But Palestinians are not just numbers," she said. "Behind these numbers are real people—mothers, fathers, sons, daughters who have their lives stolen from them and their families torn apart, and we should not be trying to hide it."
"These are innocent children and babies who have been bombed in their tents, burned alive, dismembered, and deliberately starved to death. Where is our shared humanity in this chamber?" Tlaib asked. "There is so much anti-Palestinian racism in this chamber that my colleagues don't even want to acknowledge that Palestinians exist at all—not when they're alive, and now, not even when they're dead."
"It's absolutely disgusting," she said. "This is genocide denial."
"I won't remain silent as the only Palestinian-American serving in Congress, while folks attempt to erase those who were killed with our own weapons," the congresswoman vowed, holding up a thick ream of paper that she said was a list of Palestinians killed during the war, to be entered into the Congressional Record.
"The list is too long that I can't even submit it because of the text limit," she added.
Lee (D-Calif.) said that the Gaza Health Ministry's data is "often the only information available about what is happening on the ground in Gaza."
"This amendment would severely inhibit the United States government's ability to assess the situation," she warned.
"Israel has sealed Gaza's borders barring foreign journalists and others who can offer this reporting," Lee added. "The journalists and medical professionals who are there are unable to account for all of the bodies trapped under rubble and discovered in mass graves."
Lee noted that the Gaza Health Ministry's figures "have been found to be credible in the past, holding up to United Nations scrutiny, independent investigations, and even Israel's tallies."
Israel Defense Forces officials have also concurred with the roughly 2:1 civilian-to-militant fatality figure claimed by the Gaza Health Ministry.
In February, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acknowledged that "over 25,000" Palestinian women and children had been killed in Gaza up to that date, although the Pentagon subsequently attempted to walk back his admission.
President Joe Biden has been accused of genocide denial for casting aspersions on Gaza Health Ministry casualty reports.
"The president paved the way for horrific amendments like these when he questioned Palestinian death counts that were deemed credible by independent human rights organizations and our own State Department," said Tariq Habash, a former U.S. Education Department official who resigned earlier this year over the Biden administration's support for Israel's war on Gaza.
Moskowitz—whose all-time top campaign contributor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—contended Wednesday that "at the end of the day, the Gaza Ministry of Health is the Hamas Ministry of Health" while disdaining "the idea that the United States government would rely on a terrorist organization for statistics."
However, the State Department has repeatedly—and uncritically—cited the ministry's figures in past reports on previous Israeli attacks on Gaza.
In November, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf testified before Congress that the true death toll from the current Israeli war on Gaza is likely "even higher" than reported, as thousands of Palestinians are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out buildings.
According to the Gaza Health Ministry, at least 37,765 Palestinians—mostly women and children—have been killed during Israel's 265-day assault on the embattled strip. More than 86,400 Gazans have been wounded, and over 11,000 others are missing.
Israel's conduct in the war is the subject of an ongoing genocide trial at the International Court of Justice. The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is also seeking to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity including extermination and forced starvation, as well as three Hamas leaders for alleged extermination and other crimes.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also recently added Israel and Hamas—whose political wing has governed Gaza for a generation—to its "List of Shame" of countries and governments that kill and harm children.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular