The Situation in Palestine
Today, the dispossessed State of Palestine remains a site of some of the world’s most egregious human rights violations. The most recent killings in Nablus by Israeli defence forces have only marked a continuation of an utter disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians in Israeli-occupied territories, as well as the modalities that guarantee a relatively sovereign Palestinian state.
Palestine is very often viewed in relational terms to Israel and discussions that have emerged on political conduct within its very fragile borders and the safety of Palestinian peoples both in Israel and Palestine, have typically centred on arbitrary practices by the Israeli state against Palestinians. While this can be seen to be a somewhat logical response to Israeli hegemony in the region, it is important to note that on the matter of human rights infringement, the Palestinian Authority and a passive international community have also had some part to play.
The multidimensional nature of human rights violations in Palestine invites a systematic understanding of normative perspectives about the protection of Palestinian rights. The overwhelming lack of serious opposition to the targeted denial of Palestinian rights seems counter-intuitive when compared to the severity of the situation.
Rosaura Sanchez, in her 2014 article on comparative settler-colonialism in Latin America, South Africa, and Palestine, described the situation in Palestine as an “ongoing Nakba”. This eerie comparison between apartheid and indigenous genocide reflects the current reality of the situation.
The ethnically charged discrimination against Palestinians has taken various forms. The state of Israel through sinister securitized practices has normalized (i) the violent suppression of Palestinian demonstrations (ii) the forced transfer of Israeli settlers into Palestinian land (iii) the systemic denial of clean, usable water to Palestinians (iv) the state-sanctioned restricted movement of Palestinians, and (v) the deprivation of Palestinian rights to “self-determination and right of return”
A Standard of Human Rights
Human rights abuses in Palestine reiterate the importance of discursive impulses within the international community on the subject of standardization. In a “society of states”, the political practice of complying with the tenets embedded within human rights emulates the complicated nature of the context it operates in. There are intriguing arguments that stem from the varied semantics of human rights discourse, some of which have touched upon the multilayered problem of implementation and the question of sovereignty.
We can say that this further compounds a bigger problem of ambiguity concerning the legal and institutional foundation of human rights in the first place. Since the emergence of an unmoored yet tangible international community post-1945, the discourse on human rights has evolved dramatically. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which served as a starting point for the concept of a generalised consideration for the protection of lives and properties of people around the world, was the first significant attempt to modernise human rights by making it a global norm – its ideal impulse being the unassailability of these rights upheld under the rule of law.
The UDHR and the socio-political project accompanying its dissemination were formed under a paradigm of state precedence. However, it failed to properly account for the will of states as being sometimes independent of, or contradictory to the desires of the masses for whom it was designed to protect.
The Legal Obligations and Violations of Israel as an Occupier
In a recent statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was described as a “tragedy, above all, for the Palestinian people”. Under international humanitarian law, there are rules and conventions explicitly designed to safeguard against war crimes. One such rule involves the expected obligations of occupying powers within an occupied territory to uphold human rights. Israel, as an occupying power is thus expected to refrain from unlawful acts of dispossession that infringe upon the rights of civilians within its occupied territory.
After years of prolonged conflict in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war, the UN decided to step in to formulate a plan intended to redistribute land in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Oslo Accords, established in the mid-nineties, divided these territories into three areas namely; A, B, and C. Settlers from Israel would be granted exclusive control and access to a section of the West Bank described as Area C while Area A remained under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Area B would house a Palestinian majority yet remain subject to Israeli military presence.
Unfortunately, the Oslo Accords did not serve as the catalyst for peace that it was designed to be and there have been wanton violations of human rights in these areas since its inception. 2022 saw a dramatic re-escalation in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as casualties saw a huge spike to pre-2005 levels. There were over 200 deaths on both sides last year, an alarming figure because minors, unarmed women, and even a notable Palestinian journalist were all victims of widespread violence in these territories.
As things stand, the West Bank remains a hotbed of anti-democratic practices, arbitrary appropriation of property, and political repression. In November of last year, the State of Palestine submitted a request to seek the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Israel’s occupational status. Eventually adopted as a resolution in December 2022, the burgeoning international support for Palestine’s appeals to mitigate threats to its people’s “right to self-determination” is a step in the right direction for human rights.
The OHCHR and its Mandate to Safeguard Human Rights
In December 1993, the UN General Assembly created the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) with a specific mandate, as outlined in resolution 48/141. This decision came shortly after the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action, which was endorsed by 171 countries and affirmed the global community’s dedication to safeguarding human rights. Among its goals, the Vienna Declaration emphasized the need to enhance and coordinate the UN’s monitoring capabilities in the realm of human rights.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also known as UN Human Rights is “the leading UN entity on human rights”.
It has been charged with the task of promoting and protecting the rights of humans everywhere. The roles of the OHCHR exist within a range of monitoring, assistive, and specialised duties. As the primary body concerned with human rights in the UN it is expected to:
- Provide recommendations to the UN on practices that promote the enjoyment of human rights.
- Provide technical and financial support through the proper channels operating under a state-approved jurisdiction.
- Create awareness of the legal modalities that have been designed to safeguard human rights through education, research, and “advocacy activities”.
- Offer salient contributions to governments for the improvement of human rights considerations and innovative policy decisions.
- Ensure that the subject of human rights is not relegated to a secondary function in UN deliberations.
To this end, the OHCHR has operationalised an “extensive framework of results” to enhance grassroots participation in capacity-building activities (as was seen in Cambodia for instance), to embrace paradigmatic shifts within human rights discourse, and improve accountability to a consistent standard of human rights norms.
The OHCHR’s agile strategy for effective implementation
The onset of a global pandemic in 2020 and the increasingly relevant dimension of ubiquitous, high-level information technology has led the OHCHR to adopt a more robust approach to fulfil its performance standards. The OHCHR’s Organizational Effectiveness Action Plans (OEAP) encompass a set of new strategies intended to maximise institutional output and employ a broader range of talent, to ultimately improve compliance with human rights obligations from State and Non-State actors.
This multi-pronged strategy has been designed to reflect the OHCHR’s renewed understanding of contemporary issues. In areas where it is relevant, it centres on inclusivity, diversity, and environmental sustainability.
In other areas, particularly where the use of digital technology is involved, it has decided to improve how it uses this technology. This includes adopting “agile delivery methods”, addressing loopholes in systems integrity, and ensuring staff and non-staff stakeholders can utilise these technologies effectively. Furthermore, it has broadened its reach toward the private sector, offering its dynamic knowledge-building resources to improve engagement on human rights issues.
The OHCHR in Palestine
The idea of “normalising” human rights becomes a bit complicated when conflict is involved. In such cases, we might often see State and Non-State actors play obtrusive roles that deny fundamental human rights to people living in conflict zones. Most of these situations tend to achieve the opposite effect, as the regularity of human rights violations sets a negative precedent of violence.
Conflict zones are unusually predisposed to the unlawful suspension of human rights. States involved are happy to make all kinds of justifications for extrajudicial violence. The international community which comprises liberal democracies, quasi-democracies, authoritarian regimes, and an increasingly salient smattering of NGOs, civil societies, and special organisations have all made attempts in various forms and to varying degrees of commitment, to reduce violence against unarmed citizens.
The OHCHR forms a relatively small yet perennially significant part of a thematic move to promote and protect human rights around the world. Palestine, it is the “only internationally-mandated entity” charged with the task of compiling public reports and monitoring issues relating to human rights in the region. It has its main office in Ramallah, a city that currently houses a lot of Palestinian government buildings.
The UN Human Rights Office in the occupied Palestinian territory operates under the “broad mandate” of the High Commissioner. As it is an office designed to implement the OHCHR’s directives, it works with Palestinian Authorities, NGOs, and grassroots organisations. It is also in constant communication with other UN bodies, offering technical and informational support.
Suggestions to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967
The post of Special Rapporteur in Palestine is immensely important for the implementation of the OHCHR’s mandate. The mandate assigned to this official makes her the eyes and ears of UN Human Rights in Palestine. Her reports and findings in these areas may also serve as useful resources in future UN deliberations.
Ms Francesca Albanese, the current holder of the OHCHR’s mandate in Palestine, has called for inputs from State and Non-State actors to offer their ideas on the ways she could use the modalities of her mandate to address human rights violations in Palestine.
Before I discuss my ideas, I must begin by saying Ms Albanese has been doing a fantastic job to the best of her abilities. As the specifics of her jurisdictions do not allow implementation strategies to commence without State permission, it has proved somewhat difficult for her to work in such a limited capacity with governmental authority.
However, I believe that since my ideas are on the normative importance of human rights agendas, Ms Albanese, with the wealth of her experience, can achieve some success in further creating awareness on the Palestinian rights issue.
Firstly, her office, as it already does to a degree, can serve as a repository for ideas intended to open up a broader conversation about human rights in conflict zones and departures from a few structural orthodoxies. These ideas may centre a re-examination of functionality that has often bogged down parties interested in the promotion of human rights.
Secondly, and given that my Master’s dissertation is on the subject, I believe that future reports should be embedded with some serious research on the legal ramifications of Israeli occupation.
Lastly, the use of new technology, within the boundaries of cyber law, can prove an innovative endpoint for gaining access to witnesses and/or victims. This is an area I believe her office can excel at, as it underscores UN Human Rights strategies.
What I Hope to Learn
- Discovery methods for accessing findings that might be politically charged.
- Ways to expand knowledge-building activities in the current socio-political clime.
- Possible legal loopholes that would allow for more decisive action in Occupied Palestinian Territories.
- Feasible strategies for sensitization campaigns to get Israeli and Palestinian citizens on board.
Fisayo Orekoya