SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_2_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_0_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:calc(100% - 84px);--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_1_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Saudi Arabia should abolish the Specialized Criminal Court, set up in 2008 to try terrorism cases, but increasingly used to try peaceful dissidents and rights activists on politicized charges and in proceedings that violate the right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said today. In April, it sentenced two people to prison for their peaceful activism, and the trials of at least four others are ongoing, in violation of their rights to freedom of expression.
"Trying Saudi political activists as terrorists merely because they question abuses of government power demonstrates the lengths the Saudi government will go to suppress dissent," said Christoph Wilcke, senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The trial of peaceful reformers in a terrorism court underlines the political nature of this court."
The charges against the rights activist and the dissident do not allege that they used or propagated violence.
On April 10, 2012, Judge Abd al-Latif al-Abd al-Latif sentenced Muhammad al-Bajadi to four years in prison and banned him from foreign travel for another five years. The court charged al-Bajadi, who has been on a hunger strike since March 11, with unlawfully establishing a human rights organization; distorting the state's reputation in media; impugning judicial independence; instigating relatives of political detainees to demonstrate and protest; and possessing censored books.
On April 11, 2012, the court also sentenced Yusuf al-Ahmad, an academic and cleric, to five months in prison for "incitement against the ruler, stoking divisions, harming the national fabric, diminishing the prestige of the state and its security and judicial institutions, and producing, storing, and publishing on the internet things that can disturb public order."
On July 7, al-Ahmad published a video on his Twitter account in which he called on King Abdullah to release arbitrarily detained persons. Security forces arrested him the next day. Domestic intelligence agents arrested al-Bajadi on March 20, when several dozen families of detainees had gathered in front of the Interior Ministry in Riyadh to press officials for the release of their relatives, some of whom had been detained for seven or more years without trial. Al-Bajadi is a founding member of the Saudi Association for Civil and Political Rights (ACPRA), which the government has not licensed.
On February 22, 2012, the Specialized Criminal Court began the trial of Khalid al-Juhani, who spoke to international journalists on the designated Saudi Day of Rage of March 11, 2011, to which only a handful of protesters showed up, in part because of heavy police presence. The Interior Ministry, on March 5, 2011, reiterated its ban on public protests. Al-Juhani demanded democracy and freedom of speech in his interview with the BBC, and was immediately arrested and has been detained ever since. He is charged with being present at the place of a prohibited demonstration; distorting the kingdom's reputation; and being in touch with Sa'd al-Faqih, a Saudi dissident abroad, according to a person familiar with the case who said officials designated the charge sheet "secret." His second trial session is due to be held at the end of April.
"Given their experience with the real harm caused by terrorist attacks, one would expect Saudi authorities to know the difference between peaceful political speech and acts of violence," Wilcke said.
Also in February, the court stopped the trial of Sa'id bin Zu'air, a former university professor arrested in 2007, begun about two months earlier, for a long list of charges related to the religious and political positions he had supposedly publicly adopted. A relative of bin Zu'air told Human Rights Watch that the prosecution could not substantiate its claims, which he said were based on statements by fellow prisoners. This is the only time to Human Rights Watch's knowledge that the court has not convicted a defendant accused before it of crimes related to peaceful expression. Bin Zu'air was released in February.
In December 2011, the court began the trial of Mubarak bin Zu'air, a lawyer and Sa'id's son, for "encumbering" the affairs of the ruler, not complying with rules and regulations, attending an unlicensed gathering, spreading sedition, and not obeying religious scholars. Mubarak's arrest came on March 20, 2011, as he was driving to the Interior Ministry to persuade a small crowd gathered there to meet officials to disperse. Mubarak, as the leader of a group of relatives of long-term detainees, had met Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, assistant minister of interior for security affairs, one day earlier to discuss the release or speedy and fair trial of their relatives, and was on his way to deliver Prince bin Nayef's promises of releases and trials.
Mubarak was released on bail in February 2012, but his trial continues. The same relative told Human Rights Watch, however, that a royal decree had ordered trials of peaceful dissidents to be transferred to regular Sharia (Islamic law) courts away from the Specialized Criminal Court, and that this had occurred with Mubarak's case.
This order, if it exists, is not being consistently followed, Human Rights Watch said. For example, in March and April, three trials of peaceful dissidents began before the Specialized Criminal Court. Mikhlif al-Shammari is being tried on seven charges: attempting to distort the reputation of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in foreign public opinion and belonging to suspicious organizations; producing and sending things that can disturb public order and religious values through the internet; stoking divisions and inciting public opinion against various public institutions of the country; doubting and impugning the fairness and integrity of officials in government agencies without sound proof; defaming instructions of religious scholars and describing them as calling for fragmentation, hatred, and takfir (declaring a Muslim an unbeliever) in international television; using his writings, which he claims to be nationalistic, for gain for himself and his tribe and using them to put pressure on the rulers of the country; and lying about belonging to the Human Rights Commission in the Eastern Province. The evidence the prosecution listed for these charges consisted entirely of al-Shammari's published articles or media interviews, and no claim was made that they incited violence, according to a copy of the charge sheet on file with Human Rights Watch.
Security forces arrested al-Shammari in June 2010, and held him in pretrial detention, initially on the charge of "annoying others," before his release on bail in February 2012. He received the new charges at his first trial date in March.
In April 2012, the trials against Fadhil al-Manasif, a human rights activist, and Fadhil al-Sulaiman, a religious activist, also began before the Specialized Criminal Court. Al-Sulaiman was arrested in March 2011, for participating in two protests in the Eastern Province's city of Hofuf where he spoke to the assembled crowd (his defense lawyers claim the prosecution confused the protests - they say he protested at the first, for which the local governor issued an amnesty, and tried to prevent the second).
Continued protests, since February 2011, in the heavily Shia Muslim-inhabited Eastern Province, have called for an end to religious discrimination and equal rights with the Sunni Muslim majority. Al-Sulaiman is now also charged with resisting arrest and breaking the camera of a member of the security forces at one of the protests, which he denies. Shia protesters on several occasions have tried to prevent intelligence forces in the protest crowd from filming protesters, leading a suspected member of the intelligence forces to draw a gun, shoot, and injure three protesters in a peaceful march in Qatif, another Eastern Province city, in March 2011, according to eyewitnesses Human Rights Watch spoke to at the time. Shia activists in Qatif told Human Rights Watch that security forces had made arrests of protesters based on their identification through film material.
Al-Manasif is charged with a long string of nonviolent political offenses, including withdrawing allegiance to the rule, stoking divisions (among the people), inciting public opinion against the state, and disturbing public order by participating in marches. Al-Manasif is also accused of supporting a person on a government-issued list of persons in the Eastern Province wanted for their alleged involvement in riots.
Al-Manasif was arrested on October 2, 2011, but the Interior Ministry published its list of 23 Shia men wanted for alleged acts of violence in relation to the protests only in January 2012. In response, several of the wanted men published detailed accounts online denying the Interior Ministry's allegations against them.
Al-Manasif's arrest came after he attempted to speak with the police in Qatif about their detention of two elderly persons, whose sons were wanted for participation in protests. When one of the elderly men collapsed, al-Manasif followed by car the ambulance taking the man to the hospital, and was stopped and arrested at a checkpoint.
"The charges against these peaceful critics are vague, overbroad, and of a political nature," Wilcke said. "By putting the rulers beyond any form of criticism the charges only serve to underline the lack of tolerance of political dissent."
Proceedings at the Specialized Criminal Court also violated the right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said. The Specialized Criminal Court was established in 2008 by the Supreme Judicial Council to try thousands of terrorism suspects, many of whom had languished in the kingdom's domestic intelligence jails for years without charge, trial, or prospect of release. It has no statute or other law setting up the court or specifying its jurisdiction that has been made public. Judges are individually selected to sit on a panel constituting the court, housed on one floor of the central Riyadh General Court, but sometimes also travel to other destinations such as Jeddah for hearings.
Saudi Arabia has no written criminal law and prosecutors and judges are free to criminalize any act in accordance with their own interpretation of precepts of Islamic law. The lack of clear and predictable criminal law violates international human rights principles prohibiting arbitrary arrest and guaranteeing fair trials, Human Rights Watch said. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be held guilty of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed." International human rights standards also prohibit the criminalization of speech that does not directly incite violence.
Furthermore, defendants do not have adequate means to defend themselves. All defendants were initially kept in incommunicado detention and were unable to meet with their lawyers before the start of a trial. Al-Bajadi wrote in a signed letter, which ACPRA said it received from him in prison, that Judge Abd al-Latif al-Abd al-Latif repeatedly prevented him from appointing a lawyer of his choice.
In August 2011, ACPRA members tried to attend the SCC trial of al-Bajadi, but they initially did not find the court, which was located in an unmarked villa in the Ubhur suburb north of Jeddah. When they arrived, the ACPRA members showed the court their legal power of attorney for the defense of al-Bajadi, but a clerk informed them that the judge refused to recognize their notarized document, claiming instead that al-Bajadi wanted to defend himself. In a telephone call the next day from prison, al-Bajadi informed ACPRA co-founder Muhammad al-Qahtani that he had been sitting blindfolded in a windowless truck outside the court and was not informed that his defense lawyers had come 1,000 kilometers from Riyadh to represent him.
Mubarak bin Zu'air, speaking to Human Rights Watch from his prison cell, said that he was not informed in advance of the start of his trial in December 2011 or of the charges he faced. In court, he said the judge also prevented him from appointing his defense counsel.
The trial of Abd al-'Aziz al-Wuhaibi, another ACPRA member arrested in February 2011, was held entirely behind closed doors, with the judge denying al-Wuhaibi the right to seek legal assistance to defend himself against politicized charges of disobeying the ruler for attempting to set up the first political party in the kingdom, in February 2011. The court did not supply al-Wuhaibi with a written verdict when he was sentenced to eight years in prison in September 2011. Al-Wuhaibi suffered a mental breakdown and is currently in a military hospital, according to a relative and two persons close to the family.
"If the trials were fair, there would be no reason to close them to the public," Wilcke said. "But it seems like the authorities are trying to obscure their injustices by hiding the courts, trial dates, and defendants from public view."
Lawyers were in attendance for the initial trial sessions of Fadhil al-Sulaiman and Khalid al-Juhani, lawyers and relatives told Human Rights Watch.
Articles 4 and 70 of the Saudi Law of Criminal Procedure guarantee the accused the right to seek a lawyer at all stages of investigation and trial, and prohibit officials from restricting access to the lawyer. Saudi Arabia is a party to the Arab Charter of Human Rights whose article 16(d) also guarantees that right. Article 13 of the Charter guarantees the right to a fair trial. The Charter furthermore guarantees the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly (articles 26, 27, and 29).
Human Rights Watch opposes all special courts for so-called national security crimes because they frequently try peaceful dissidents on politicized charges and in unfair proceedings.
A number of other dissidents have remained in detention for prolonged periods without referral to court, in violation of article 114 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, which mandates the release of a defendant unless the trial begins within six months of detention.
Tawfiq al-'Amir, a Shia activist, was arrested in August 2011 for calling for a constitutional monarchy. On April 17, 2012, Nadhir al-Majid completed one year in pretrial detention on charges of corresponding with a foreign journalist, taking part in demonstrations, and vague charges related to his published writings critical of Shia religious doctrine over the past seven years, according to al-Majid's wife. His trial has not yet begun.
On March 4, security forces arrested Muhammad al-Wad'ani as he protested silently, holding up a placard at a Riyadh mosque. In a late February YouTube video, al-Wad'ani had spoken about his demands for democracy and an end to the rule of the Saud family. No further information about his fate was available.
"It is time Saudi Arabia stopped politicized persecution of peaceful dissidents through the courts and respected its own laws on court proceedings and international human rights obligations," Wilcke said.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"As usual, President Trump appears more concerned with buoying business interests than reforming our broken system to deliver safe, affordable food," one advocate said.
In her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate on Thursday, President Donald Trump's agriculture secretary nominee Brooke Rollins expressed support for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, work requirements for federal food aid, and a law that would prohibit states from passing independent regulations of agricultural products.
Her testimony sparked concern from food justice and sustainable agriculture advocates, who said her lack of agricultural experience and pro-corporate worldview would harm farmworkers, animals, public health, and families in need.
"Rollins, as secretary of agriculture, will be a serious setback for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities already burdened by extreme weather events; livestock disease outbreaks; challenges in accessing land, capital, and new markets; food insecure families who rely on federal assistance to reach their nutritional needs; and for small and family farms being squeezed out by powerful food and agriculture corporations," Nichelle Harriott, policy director at Health, Environment, Agriculture, Labor (HEAL) Food Alliance, said in a statement.
"Her history demonstrates a disregard for and lack of commitment to supporting Black, Indigenous, and other farmers and ranchers of color, as well as small and family farmers, farmworkers, and the working people who sustain our food system."
Rollins, who testified before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry at 10:00 am Eastern Time on Thursday, was a surprise choice to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for many agricultural groups as well as other members of the Trump team. While she grew up on a farm in Texas, participated in the 4-H and Future Farmers of America, and earned a bachelor's degree in agricultural development from Texas A&M University in 1994, her career diverged from the agricultural world once she graduated from the University of Texas School of Law. She worked for then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry, served under the first Trump administration in the White House Office of American Innovation and then as acting director of the U.S. Domestic Policy Council, and co-founded the right-wing America First Policy Institute think tank after 2020.
"Essentially, in more than three decades, Rollins has never had a job solely focused on food and agriculture policy," Karen Perry Stillerman, director in the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), wrote in a blog post ahead of Rollins' hearing.
One statement that particularly concerned food and agriculture justice campaigners was Rollins' support for the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act. This act would repeal California's Proposition 12, which bans the sale in the state of pork, veal, or eggs from animals "confined in a cruel manner." It would also prevent other states from passing similar laws and is backed by agribusiness lobby firms like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, and the Farm Bureau.
"Brooke Rollins is a well established Trump loyalist, ready to bow to corporate interests on Day One. Her endorsement of the EATS Act signals the dangerous pro-corporate agenda she appears ready to bring USDA, if confirmed to lead the key agency," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf said in a statement.
"The USDA has massive leverage in shaping our food system, but, as usual, President Trump appears more concerned with buoying business interests than reforming our broken system to deliver safe, affordable food," Wolf continued. "Congress must stand up to Trump's corporate cronies and their dangerous legislation. That means stopping the EATS Act, which threatens to exacerbate consolidation in the agriculture sector and drive an archaic race to the bottom in which consumers, animals, and our environment lose out to enormous profit-grubbing corporations."
During the hearing, senators questioned Rollins on how her USDA would handle key aspects of Trump's agenda that are likely to impact farmers. His planned 25% tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada could lead to retaliation from those countries that would block U.S. access to their markets, as happened with China in 2018.
Rollins said that the administration was prepared to give aid to farmers as it did during Trump's first term.
"What we've heard from our farmers and ranchers over and over again is they want to be able to do the work. They want to be able to export. They don't want to solve this problem by getting aid," Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Co.) responded.
Rollins answered that she would also work to expand access to agricultural markets.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), meanwhile, raised the question of how Trump's USDA would respond to his plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, given that around 40% of U.S. farmworkers are undocumented.
"The president's vision of a secure border and a mass deportation at a scale that matters is something I support," Rollins answered. "My commitment is to help President Trump deploy his agenda in an effective way, while at the same time defending, if confirmed secretary of agriculture, our farmers and ranchers across this country... And so having both of those, which you may argue is in conflict, but having both of those is key priorities."
Another major policy area that Rollins would oversee as agriculture secretary is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly referred to as food stamps. SNAP makes up the bulk of federal spending in the Farm Bill, which has been delayed as Congress debates both nutrition and work requirements for the program, according toThe Texas Tribune. While most SNAP recipients are already required to work unless they have child- or eldercare responsibilities, lawmakers are debating stricter requirements.
Rollins told senators that she thought work requirements were "important."
In her pre-hearing article, UCS's Stillerman also expressed concerns about Rollins' history of climate denial and marriage to the president of an oil exploration company.
"In 2018, then-White House aide Rollins told participants at a right-wing energy conference that 'we know the research of CO2 being a pollutant is just not valid'—a perspective that is extreme even in the Trump era," she wrote.
Further, Stillerman noted Rollins' history of repeating "hateful and dangerous conspiracy theories," in particular about Democrats, left-wing organizations, and movements for women's and Black rights.
"Given her apparent antipathy for social justice movements, I have to wonder what Rollins thinks about the 66 recommendations made in early 2024 by the USDA Equity Commission to address a long history of racial discrimination and level the playing field for farmers of all kinds," Stillerman wrote.
After the hearing, Harriott of HEAL Food Alliance said: "Our food and farming communities deserve leadership that champions the needs of everyone, regardless of where we live or what we look like. The next secretary of agriculture must ensure that all farmers, ranchers, farmworkers, and food system workers have the resources they need to thrive."
"Unfortunately, despite her testimony today, Brooke Rollins lacks the agricultural expertise required to effectively lead the USDA. Her history demonstrates a disregard for and lack of commitment to supporting Black, Indigenous, and other farmers and ranchers of color, as well as small and family farmers, farmworkers, and the working people who sustain our food system," Harriott continued.
In the case that Rollins is confirmed, Harriott called on her to "prioritize disaster relief for farmers facing climate-related disruptions; invest in small farms and those practicing traditional, cultural, and ecological farming methods; ensure protections for food and farmworkers; and safeguard vital nutrition programs like SNAP to reduce hunger nationwide."
The Palestinian group Al-Haq outlined the "targeting of hospitals and health centers, the denial of adequate medical provisions into and around the Gaza Strip, and the abduction, torture, and killing of medical personnel."
Less than a week into a fragile cease-fire between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq on Thursday released a report detailing how "Israel has systematically targeted and attacked the healthcare system to the point of its collapse in a campaign of genocide."
The new report—titled The Systematic Destruction of Gaza's Healthcare System: A Pattern of Genocide—builds on previous publications, including from United Nations entities, and testimonies from medical professionals who have worked in Gaza since Israel launched its U.S.-backed assault in retaliation for the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack.
"The Israeli occupying forces' (IOF) targeting of hospitals and health centers, the denial of adequate medical provisions into and around the Gaza Strip, and the abduction, torture, and killing of medical personnel is evidence of Israel's genocidal intent to: (i) inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, and (ii) impose measures intended to prevent Palestinian births in the Gaza Strip," states the 116-page report.
"The concerted policy to destroy the healthcare system in Gaza is directly and causally linked to statements made by Israeli officials," the document continues, offering various examples and highlighting how it wasn't just hospitals—Israel also attacked "civilian residences, schools, shelters, mosques, churches, and other protected areas under international humanitarian law."
The report argues that "Israel's systematic campaign against Gaza's healthcare infrastructure as a whole is exemplified by the targeted destruction of al-Shifa Hospital," which is the largest hospital in the occupied Palestinian territory and "older than Israel." The document also addresses Israel's attacks on Adwan, al-Amal, al-Aqsa, al-Awda, Indonesian, Kamal, and Nasser hospitals.
Along with offering a summary of facts and legal analysis of "Israel's systematic attacks on Gaza's healthcare system as acts of genocide," war crimes, and violations of international humanitarian law, the publication features recommendations for other countries and blocs, international tribunals, U.N. experts, companies, and healthcare professionals.
Al-Haq called on the international community to "name and condemn Israel's ongoing genocide," impose an arms embargo, support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and demand the release of Palestinian political prisoners and those who have been arbitrarily detained by Israel, including healthcare workers.
The report was published as the death toll in Gaza continues to grow, as displaced residents of the Palestinian enclave return to the remnants of their homes and communities decimated by more than 15 months of Israeli bombings and raids.
The Gaza Ministry of Health said Thursday that the official death toll rose to 47,283, after 120 bodies "were recovered from under the rubble" in the past 24 hours, and 111,472 people have been injured. Global experts warn the true death toll is likely far higher.
Israel faces a genocide case led by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its military assault and restrictions on the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.
Al-Haq's report notes both the ICC warrants and the ICJ case, urging other governments to formally support the latter effort.
Throughout the 15-month assault on Gaza, Israeli settlers and troops also targeted Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank—where Al-Haq is based. However, since the cease-fire took effect Sunday, attacks in the West Bank have sparked fresh alarm.
In addition to pushing for the investigation of Israel's assault on Gaza, the new report urges a U.N. commission to probe "genocidal acts in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, including but not limited to killings of Palestinians, causing serious bodily or mental harm to Palestinians, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinian people."
"It's laughable that the party that once prided themselves on being champions of state and local government are now trampling state and local authority," said Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
The top Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee issued a statement Thursday condemning the Trump administration's threat that state and local officials could be criminally prosecuted for refusing to cooperate with the president's planned immigration crackdown, which is already drawing legal action and vows of opposition from advocacy groups and communities across the country.
"This policy will lead to chaos, division, and protracted litigation that will unnecessarily cost both state and federal taxpayers huge amounts of money that could be used to keep America safe," wrote Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who also argued that the "federal government doesn't own the states."
Raskin's comments were in response to a Tuesday memo from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to Justice Department employees that was obtained by The Washington Post.
"Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands," wrote Bove, who stated that the supremacy clause of the Constitution and other legal authorities "require state and local actors to comply with the executive branch's immigration enforcement initiatives."
The memo also makes mention of a "Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group" which will identify state and local policies and laws that are inconsistent with White House immigration initiatives.
On Monday, his first day in office, Trump announced sweeping changes to U.S. immigration enforcement via executive actions, including attempting to end birthright citizenship, reinstating his "Remain in Mexico" policy, suspending refugee resettlement, and moving to restrict federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities.
In response to the memo, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said that the move is a "scare tactic," according to The Los Angeles Times. Bonta said that his team is reviewing the memo and will be "prepared to take legal action if the Trump administration's vague threats turn to illegal action."
Raskin challenged the memo for its "failure to cite any authority for this proposition."
"The Constitution and Supreme Court precedents make clear that the 10th Amendment and constitutional federalism protect state and local government and their officials from being 'commandeered' by the federal government as instrumentalities to carry out its policies," he wrote.
"It's laughable that the party that once prided themselves on being champions of state and local government are now trampling state and local authority by commandeering state and local governments to serve a federal agenda," he added.