SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
east jerusalem
Outrage as Israeli Police Raid Beloved Palestinian Bookstores in Occupied East Jerusalem
"The attempt to crush the Palestinian people includes harassment and arrest of intellectuals," said the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem.
Feb 10, 2025
The leading Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem was among those voicing outrage Monday in response to an Israeli police raid on a pair of renowned Palestinian-owned bookstores in illegally occupied East Jerusalem over the weekend.
Haaretzreported that after confiscating books they claimed were "inciteful," Israeli officers on Sunday arrested the owners of the two branches of the Educational Bookshop.
"The Educational Bookshop chain is the most well-known bookstore chain in East Jerusalem, with three locations on Salah al-Din Street and in the American Colony Hotel complex," the Israeli newspaper noted. "The stores specialize in Arabic and English books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the history of Jerusalem, and they are well-known to researchers, diplomats, journalists, and tourists."
Mourad Muna, the brother of Mahmoud Muna—one of the shop owners who was detained—said Israeli police "used Google Translate" to determine which books to seize. Among the books confiscated was one titled, "From the River to the Sea: A Colouring Book."
"They even found a Haaretz newspaper with a picture of the hostages and asked what it was, saying it was incitement," said Mourad Muna. "They took every book with a Palestinian flag on it."
The owners were arrested on suspicion of "violating public order."
B'Tselem said in response to the raid that "Israel is continuing its war on the entire Palestinian people."
"The attempt to crush the Palestinian people includes harassment and arrest of intellectuals," the group said. "Mahmoud and Ahmad Muna, well-known figures in the Jerusalem cultural scene, run the Educational Bookshop—a meeting point for cultural and political discussion. Israel must immediately release them from detention and stop persecuting Palestinian intellectuals."
In the wake of the raid and arrests of the Educational Bookshop owners, Haaretz reported that "protesters gathered outside the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court" in a show of opposition ahead of a hearing on the detention of Mahmoud and Ahmad Muna.
"Diplomatic representatives from the Netherlands, the U.K., Belgium, Brazil, France, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, and the E.U. all visited the courthouse in Jerusalem where the hearing is due to take place, to show support for the bookshop owners," the Israeli newspaper added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Israel's Move to Ban UNRWA, 'A New Way Has Been Found to Kill Children'
"It'll likely see the collapse of the humanitarian system in Gaza," warned a spokesperson for the U.N. Children's Fund.
Oct 29, 2024
Humanitarian groups and United Nations officials issued dire warnings Tuesday about the potentially catastrophic consequences of Israeli lawmakers' vote to ban the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, the body primarily responsible for delivering lifesaving aid to the people of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
James Elder, a spokesperson for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), said Tuesday that if the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is unable to operate due to the measures passed overwhelmingly by the Israeli Knesset on Monday, "it'll likely see the collapse of the humanitarian system in Gaza."
"So a decision such as this suddenly means that a new way has been found to kill children," said Elder.
The legislation that Israeli lawmakers passed in a 92-10 vote bars UNRWA—a frequent target of Israeli smear campaigns and military attacks—from operating or providing "any service" within "in the sovereign territory of the state of Israel."
Israeli lawmakers also passed a measure declaring UNRWA a "terror" group, barring Israeli officials from engaging in any contact with the agency.
The Guardiannoted that the newly passed measures—which are set to be implemented within 90 days—are "expected to lead to the closure of UNRWA's East Jerusalem headquarters and would effectively block the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza via Rafah."
"The severing of diplomatic relations would preclude Israel from issuing entry and work permits to foreign UNRWA staff and prevent coordination with the Israeli military to permit aid shipments," the newspaper added.
"Humanitarian actors rely on coordination with UNWRA to deliver aid and alleviate suffering. UNWRA cannot be replaced by NGOs."
Agnès Callamard, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, warned in a statement Tuesday that the measures represent "an outright attack on the rights of Palestinian refugees."
"It is clearly designed to make it impossible for the agency to operate in the occupied Palestinian territory by forcing the closure of the UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem and ending visas for its staff," said Callamard. "It amounts to the criminalization of humanitarian aid and will worsen an already catastrophic humanitarian crisis."
"This appalling, inhumane law will only exacerbate the suffering of Palestinians, who have endured unimaginable hardship since the horrific attacks by Hamas and other armed groups in southern Israel one year ago, and whose need for global support is greater than ever. The international community must be quick to condemn it in the strongest possible terms and exert any influence they have on the Israeli government to repeal it.”
The U.N. General Assembly established UNRWA in the aftermath of the 1948 Nakba, and the agency is central to humanitarian operations in the famine-stricken Gaza Strip—a role that aid groups described as necessary and irreplaceable. According to a World Health Organization official, roughly a third of the healthcare workers assisting the polio vaccination campaign in Gaza work with UNRWA.
"UNRWA plays a critical role in serving civilians in desperate need in Gaza," the International Rescue Committee (IRC) said Tuesday. "Humanitarian actors rely on coordination with UNRWA to deliver aid and alleviate suffering. UNRWA cannot be replaced by NGOs like IRC."
"The bill passed in the Israeli parliament is an unprecedented attack on a U.N. agency and, if implemented, would only worsen the humanitarian catastrophe," IRC added. "We strongly urge that this legislation is not applied. We continue to advocate for an immediate ceasefire to get aid in, to release the hostages, and to meet the growing and dire needs of the civilian population."
Sam Rose, deputy director of UNRWA affairs in Gaza, said in a CNN interview that "the entire humanitarian system" in the Palestinian enclave "relies every minute of every day on UNRWA to deliver services to 2 million people living in the worst possible conditions."
Implementation of the ban, Rose warned, "would be devastating for us, devastating for other aid agencies—but more importantly, for the population here that's suffering so much."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the ICJ Ruling on Israel’s Occupation of Palestine Matters
This level of judicial consensus in such a politically polarized atmosphere lends support for viewing the court’s decision as authoritative when it comes to evaluating Israel’s behavior as an occupying power in relation to international humanitarian law.
Jul 25, 2024
The International Court of Justice overwhelmingly decided last week that Israel is no longer legally entitled to act as the occupying power in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, noting that its further presence in these territories is unlawful.
The decision took the form of an “advisory opinion” in response to two “legal questions” put to the ICJ by the United Nations General Assembly in 2022.
Israel declined to take part in the court proceedings except by way of a written statement objecting to the whole process as improper, arguing that Israel’s consent was needed before its governmental conduct could be legally evaluated by the ICJ, even in a process labelled as “advisory.”
Israel gives every sign of ignoring the ICJ as it works to “finish the job” in Gaza, while continuing the policies and practices associated with its approach to occupation since 1967.
Does being an “advisory opinion” rather than a formal judgment in a “contentious” case make a decisive difference in the political weight or legal authoritativeness of the outcome in this comprehensive legal scrutiny of Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territories?
An important question is raised by the formal, obligatory format of the ongoing South African ICJ case alleging Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
From Israel’s point of view, these two cases are not very different, beyond the ICJ focusing on the alleged legal wrongdoing associated with 57 years of prolonged occupation in one instance, and in the other, South Africa seeking the court’s support to end the Gaza genocide that started last October.
In both instances, Israel has denounced the ICJ for reaching legal conclusions that it says compromise its security and right to defend itself. With such reasoning, Israel gives every sign of ignoring the ICJ as it works to “finish the job” in Gaza, while continuing the policies and practices associated with its approach to occupation since 1967.
‘No One Will Stop Us’
Israel’s language of rejection is clear, with the prime minister’s office noting in a statement: “Israel does not recognize the legitimacy of the discussion at the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding the ‘legality of the occupation’—a move designed to harm Israel’s right to defend itself against existential threats.” Or in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cruder language, “No one will stop us.”
On a superficial level, this near-convergence of outcomes seems to neglect the intended distinction between what is “advisory” (and hence non-binding) and what is “obligatory” and binding. Upon more reflective consideration, this convergence is far deeper, grounded more in the evolving jurisprudence of the ICJ than in Israel’s criticisms of the process and refusal to implement the rulings in either case.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the U.S. and Australian judges cast their votes in line with the ICJ consensus, despite their governments being ardent supporters of Israel.
In its lengthy landmark decision on the issue of the Israeli occupation, the ICJ reached nine conclusions, none of which were opposed by more than four of the 15 participating judges.
This level of judicial consensus in such a politically polarized atmosphere lends support for viewing the court’s decision as authoritative when it comes to evaluating Israel’s behavior as an occupying power in relation to international humanitarian law—especially the Fourth Geneva Convention governing belligerent occupation—and international human rights law, especially the treaty prohibiting racial discrimination.
Such a consensus is strengthened by additional comments from judges from Global South countries (including Somalia and Lebanon) that go further than the advisory opinion itself to explore the relevance of the colonial background that informs the occupation of Palestine.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the U.S. and Australian judges cast their votes in line with the ICJ consensus, despite their governments being ardent supporters of Israel, with eyes closed to Israeli criminality in both the long occupation and the Gaza genocide.
Primacy of Geopolitics
As with the South African case, the ICJ gained widespread approval for so clearly putting law ahead of national identity. This kind of prioritization is missing from the political organs of the U.N., especially the Security Council, where affiliated flags take unquestioned precedence—and to be sure that the primacy of geopolitics is sustained, the permanent members, P5, get a veto (prompting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to object with the pithy words: “The world is greater than five.”)
The ICJ formulates the substance of its legal analysis in language that intends to be obligatory with respect to Israel. It directs all states and the U.N. itself to implement its rulings on matters of illegality and the consequences of Israeli unlawfulness. While the decision is labelled “advisory,” as required by the ICJ framework, its pronouncements on the law are stated as if authoritative, and they are supported by the overwhelming majority of judges.
The ICJ also appears to be claiming the authority to tell three categories of political actors—Israel, all states, and the U.N.—what their obligations are with respect to its central finding that Israel’s prolonged presence is no longer legal and should be terminated as rapidly as possible.
This advisory opinion lends important authoritative support to several central Palestinian grievances with respect to international humanitarian and human rights law.
In the process of reaching this weighty conclusion, the ICJ found that Israel was responsible for blocking the Palestinian right to self-determination, wrongfully annexing Palestinian territory by force, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention through its large-scale settlement project, and relying upon discriminatory policies and practices to administer the occupied territories.
The few judges who refused to go along with these findings argued that the ICJ proceedings took insufficient account of Israeli security concerns and counter arguments.
Regardless, this advisory opinion lends important authoritative support to several central Palestinian grievances with respect to international humanitarian and human rights law, particularly concerning the lawfulness of controversial Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories—and the legal duty of Israel, other states, and the U.N. to follow this decision up with concrete action.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular