We stand firmly against injustice in all its forms. Nothing can justify the current war crimes committed by Israel in occupied Palestine. Equally, nothing can excuse the continued support offered by other nations to this apartheid regime. If you believe in human rights, dignity, and justice, then we urge you to boycott this rogue state. Silence is complicity, do what’s right.
In a small house on Rafah’s ground, A child sat gently sharing life’s round, At the dining table, he sat like a dream, In his eyes, a glimmer of hope and gleam.
Years of hunger and deprivation’s toll, A dry piece of bread, his soul consoled, He hoped for a morsel, a simple delight, But fate brought a dark and different night.
Lived hungry, died hungry, life’s cruel embrace, No moment of fullness, no saving grace, On his last day, a tear in his eye, In his mouth, remnants of bread so dry.
Killed by the occupation, an innocent life, Left joy in his eyes fading, filled with strife, Gone to tell the story of a little boy, Who dreamed of a better tomorrow, a life of joy.
At the dining table, he became a martyr, In his eyes, a tear, narrating the pain, Died with dry bread in his mouth, Hoping for a bite, but departed south.
O child of Gaza, symbol of sacrifice, Your spirit soars in the eternal skies, You have gone but are never forgotten, In our hearts and souls, your light has risen.
O world that sees and remains still, A child from Gaza has left, will you fulfill? We tell his story to every living conscience, May it awaken, may it find its essence
Background:
The Jenin Horse (Al-Hissan), was a sculpture built in 2003 by the population of Jenin, in the West Bank, along with German artist Thomas Kilpper. It was made from scrap metal and pieces of wrecked cars and ambulances. The sculpture was considered as one of the landmarks of Jenin, but was destroyed by IOF (Israeli occupational forces) during invasion of the city on 29/12/23.
In Jenin's embrace, Al-Hissan stood bold,
Forged from wreckage, a tale to be told.
Thomas Kilpper and Jenin's hands combined,
An emblem of resilience, transcending mankind.
Ambulance remnants, echoes of strife,
A silent roar in the sculpture's life.
Landmarks rising, hope by its side,
Yet on October's eve, it crumbled in pride.
Despite the IOF's ruthless sweep,
In verses, Al-Hissan's spirit seeps.
A symbol enduring, in hearts, it'll stand,
A testament to strength across the land.
When Israel was established in Palestine in 1948, it ethnically cleansed over 70 per cent of the Palestinians, occupied 78 per cent of Palestine, destroyed 531 towns and villages, including 47 villages in the Gaza district, and displaced their 80,000 residents.
A group of civil servants from the United States and EU member nations releases an unsigned letter declaring their governments’ policies concerning the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza are “wrong.”
The letter, which The New York Times says has over 800 supporters, complains that concerns the officials privately expressed “were overruled by political and ideological considerations” and they therefore “are obliged to do everything in our power on behalf of our countries and ourselves to not be complicit in one of the worst human catastrophes of this century.”
The missive goes on to accuse Israel of showing “no boundaries in its military operations in Gaza” and ignoring “all important counterterrorism expertise gained since 9/11.”Science DoseKeep Watching.
The letter’s supporters call to hold Israel “accountable to international humanitarian and human rights standards applied elsewhere,” and to “use all leverage available — including a halt to military support — to secure a lasting ceasefire and full humanitarian access in Gaza and a safe release of all hostages.”
“Develop a strategy for lasting peace that includes a secure Palestinian state and guarantees for Israel’s security, so that an attack like 7 October and an offensive on Gaza never happen again,” they add.
According to the letter, the officials that endorsed it hail from 12 different countries and EU institutions.
Embroidery or tatreez in Arabic is an ancient technique of beauty and complexity and one of the most important cultural materials of Palestine. Historically, each area of Palestine was known for different motifs, techniques and textiles.Embroidery constituted a visual language among rural women, and their clothing reflected their origins and identity.
Tatreez, an ancient art, threads the heart,
Palestinian stories in each stitch, a vibrant start.
The attacks by Hamas in Israel on October 7 and the military response by Israeli forces in Gaza have tested the system of international law to its limits. This is why, as international lawyers, we felt compelled to assist when the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, asked us to advise whether there was sufficient evidence to lay charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Today, the prosecutor has taken a historic step to ensure justice for the victims in Israel and Palestine by issuing applications for five arrest warrants alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity by senior Hamas and Israeli leaders. These include applications for a warrant of arrest against the political and military commanders of Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
For months, we have engaged in an extensive process of review and analysis. We have carefully examined each of the applications for arrest warrants, as well as underlying material produced by the prosecution team in support of the applications. This has included witness statements, expert evidence, official communications, videos and photographs. In our legal report published today, we unanimously agree that the prosecutor’s work was rigorous, fair and grounded in the law and the facts. And we unanimously agree that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects he identifies have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
It is not unusual for the prosecutor to invite external experts to participate in an evidence-review, under appropriate confidentiality arrangements, during the course of an investigation or trial. And this is not the first time an international prosecutor has formed a Panel of Experts to advise on potential charges related to a conflict. But this conflict is perhaps unprecedented in the extent to which it has given rise to misunderstandings about the ICC’s role and jurisdiction, a particularly fractured discourse and, in some contexts, even antisemitism and Islamophobia.
It is against this backdrop that, as lawyers specialised in international law hailing from diverse personal backgrounds, we felt we had a duty to accept the invitation to provide an impartial and independent legal opinion based on evidence.
We were selected because of our expertise in public international law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law, and, in the case of two of us, experience as former judges of international criminal tribunals. Our common goal is advancing accountability and we have reached our conclusions based on an assessment of the warrant applications against an objective legal standard. We have reached these conclusions unanimously. And we believe it is important to publish them given the extent to which discourse has been politicised, disinformation has been rife and international media has been denied access to the front lines.
The Panel unanimously agrees with the prosecutor’s conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that three of Hamas’s most senior leaders — Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh — have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity for the killing of hundreds of civilians, the taking of at least 245 hostages and acts of sexual violence committed against Israeli hostages.
The Panel also unanimously agrees that the evidence presented by the prosecutor provides reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Israel’s minister of defence Yoav Gallant have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. This includes the war crime of intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the murder and persecution of Palestinians as crimes against humanity. Our reasons for reaching these conclusions are set out in our legal report. It is important to understand that the charges have nothing to do with the reasons for the conflict. The charges concern waging war in a manner that violates the long-established rules of international law that apply to armed groups and the armed forces in every state in the world. And, of course, the warrant applications announced today are just the first step.
We hope that the prosecutor will continue to conduct focused investigations including in relation to the extensive harm suffered by civilians as a result of the bombing campaign in Gaza and evidence of sexual violence committed against Israelis on October 7. There is no doubt that the step taken today by the prosecutor is a milestone in the history of international criminal law.
There is no conflict that should be excluded from the reach of the law; no child’s life valued less than another’s. The law we apply is humanity’s law, not the law of any given side. It must protect all the victims of this conflict; and all civilians in conflicts to come. The judges of the ICC will ultimately determine which warrants, if any, should be issued. And as investigations continue, we hope that state authorities, witnesses and survivors will engage with the judicial process.
Ultimately, we hope that this process will contribute to increased protections for civilians and sustainable peace in a region that has already endured too much.
NEW YORK (AP) — Student editors at the Columbia Law Review say they were pressured by the journal’s board of directors to halt publication of an academic article written by a Palestinian human rights lawyer that accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and upholding an apartheid regime.
When the editors refused the request and published the piece Monday morning, the board — made up of faculty and alumni from Columbia University’s law school — shut down the law review’s website entirely. It remained offline Tuesday evening, a static homepage informing visitors the domain “is under maintenance.”
The episode at one of the country’s oldest and most prestigious legal journals marks the latest flashpoint in an ongoing debate about academic speech that has deeply divided students, staff and college administrators since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
Several editors at the Columbia Law Review described the board’s intervention as an unprecedented breach of editorial independence at the periodical, which is run by students at Columbia Law School. The board of directors oversees the nonprofit’s finances but has historically played no role in selecting pieces.
In a letter sent to student editors Tuesday and shared with The Associated Press, the board of directors said it was concerned that the article, titled “Nakba as a Legal Concept,” had not gone through the “usual processes of review or selection for articles at the Law Review, and in particular that a number of student editors had been unaware of its existence.”
“In order to preserve the status quo and provide student editors some window of opportunity to review the piece, as well as provide time for the Law Review to determine how to proceed, we temporarily suspended the website,” the letter continued.
Those involved in soliciting and editing the piece said they had followed a rigorous review process, even as they acknowledged taking steps to forestall expected blowback by limiting the number of students aware of the article.
In the piece, Rabea Eghbariah, a Harvard doctoral candidate, accuses Israel of a litany of “crimes against humanity,” arguing for a new legal framework to “encapsulate the ongoing structure of subjugation in Palestine and derive a legal formulation of the Palestinian condition.”
Eghbariah said in a text message that the suspension of the law journal’s website should be seen as “a microcosm of a broader authoritarian repression taking place across U.S. campuses.”
Editors said they voted overwhelmingly in December to commission a piece on Palestinian legal issues, then formed a smaller committee — open to all of the publication’s editorial leadership — that ultimately accepted Eghbariah’s article. He had submitted an earlier version of the article to the Harvard Law Review, which the publication later elected not to publish amid internal backlash, according to a report in The Intercept.
Anticipating similar controversy and worried about a leak of the draft, the committee of editors working on the article did not upload it to a server that is visible to the broader membership of the law journal and to some administrators. The piece was not shared until Sunday with the full staff of the Columbia Law Review — something that editorial staffers said was not uncommon.
“We’ve never circulated a particular article in advance,” said Sohum Pal, an articles editor at the publication. “So the idea that this is all over a process concern is a total lie. It’s very transparently content based.”
In their letter to students, the board of directors said student editors who didn’t work on the piece should have been given an opportunity to read it and raise concerns.
“Whatever your views of this piece, it will clearly be controversial and potentially have an impact on all associated with the Review,” they wrote.
Those involved in the publishing of the article said they heard from a small group of students over the weekend who expressed concerns about threats to their careers and safety if it were to be published.
Some alluded to trucks that circled Columbia and other campuses following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, labeling students as antisemites for their past or current affiliation with groups seen as hostile to Israel.
The letter from the board also suggested that a statement be appended to the piece stating the article had not been subject to a standard review process or made available for all student editors to read ahead of time.
Erika Lopez, an editor who worked on the piece, said many students were adamantly opposed to the idea, calling it “completely false to imply that we didn’t follow the standard process.”
She said student editors had spoken regularly since they began receiving pushback from the board on Sunday and remained firmly in support of the piece.
When they learned the website had been shuttered Monday morning, they quickly uploaded Eghbariah’s article to a publicly accessible website. It has since spread widely across social media.
“It’s really ironic that this piece probably got more attention than anything we normally published,” Lopez added, “even after they nuked the website.”
