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
human rights watch
FIFA Can No Longer Be Silent on Israel's Human Rights Atrocities in Gaza
It’s past time for football federations across the globe to stand up for freedom and legal rights. With tyranny on the rise globally, sport can help raise awareness that we need to draw the line on injustice.
Jun 26, 2025
Although you might not know it from reading mainstream media in the U.S., Gaza continues to be under siege. Israel has installed a blockade of humanitarian aid, weaponizing food for everyday Gazans who desperately need it, while the Gaza Humanitarian Organization—a shadowy, Israeli-backed organization that relies on private US security contractors—continues to slow-roll the delivery of food. Securing basic foodstuffs has become akin to “a perverted Squid Games” where all too often death is the outcome, according to Dr. Mark Braunner, a volunteer at Nasser Hospital in Gaza.
With U.S. media attention swiveling away from Gaza and toward Iran, this is an all-hands-on-deck moment. Enter a gaggle of leading legal experts and scholars who this week ramped up pressure on FIFA, the world’s governing body for soccer, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee address a well-documented complaint against Israel for holding matches in settlements inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
FIFA has long demonstrated a conspicuous deference toward Israel. FIFA has consistently looked the other way when it comes to Israel’s attacks on Palestinians, even when doing so means ignoring its own stated commitments to human rights.
It’s past time for football federations across the globe to stand up for freedom and legal rights. With tyranny on the rise globally, sport can help raise awareness that we need to draw the line on injustice.
Let’s be absolutely clear: Israel is carrying out human-rights atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank, bombing hospitals, killing Palestinians as they attempt to collect aid, barring doctors from entering Gaza, green-lighting the most aggressive expansion of West Bank settlements in decades. It’s no wonder that Israel’s former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently characterized Israeli actions as “war crimes.”
On the football front, the Israeli Football Association (IFA) has staged matches in occupied Palestinian territory. Meanwhile, the Israeli Defense Forces have killed hundreds of Palestinian players and coaches while engaging in the systematic destruction of sport facilities, even converting Gaza’s storied Yarmouk stadium into a temporary interrogation site. These actions violate numerous FIFA Statutes.
FIFA’s response? One might say crickets, but crickets actually make noise. For more than a decade it has foot-dragged investigating good-faith claims against Israel. As Fair Square, the London-based rights group, asserted, “FIFA’s ongoing failure to enforce sanctions against the Israeli Football Association despite long-standing and irrefutable evidence that the IFA is in violation of FIFA Statutes is further evidence of the organisation’s ad hoc and selective enforcement of its rules.”
FIFA’s inaction is a grim example of what Henry Giroux calls “The violence of organized forgetting.”
FIFA’s free pass for Israel is deeply hypocritical. In February 2022, only a few days after Russia invaded Ukraine, both FIFA and UEFA, Europe’s governing body for soccer, moved swiftly to suspend Russian football clubs and national teams from all competition. In a joint statement, FIFA and UEFA insisted that “Football is fully united here and in full solidarity with all the people affected in Ukraine.” And yet, no such solidarity has been forthcoming for Palestinians.
The main reason FIFA and UEFA stood up in the face of Ukraine’s invasion was that numerous European countries refused to take the field against Russia in World Cup qualifying matches. Leaders from places Poland, Sweden, England and the Czech Republic insisted that the powerbrokers of soccer take principled action, forcing FIFA and UEFA’s hand. The president of France’s football association stated, “The world of sport, and in particular football, cannot remain neutral.”
This brings us back to Israel. It’s not too late for soccer barons to take action. And it turns out that UEFA is actually a key player. The Israeli Football Association was originally part of the Asian Football Confederation, given its geographical location in the Middle East. But after Indonesia, Sudan, and Turkey all refused to play 1958 World Cup qualifying matches against Israel, and other countries applied political pressure, the IFA was eventually expelled in 1974. This placed Israel in the soccer wilderness until, in the early 1990s, UEFA invited the Israeli national team to participate in its competitions. In 1994, Israel became a full member of UEFA.
After Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023, UEFA halted all matches in Israel for the foreseeable future. This meant that Israel was forced to play recent World Cup qualifying “home” matches in Hungary.
Rights groups—from Human Rights Watch to Fair Square to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner—insist that Israel has openly violated FIFA Statutes. Therefore, individual Football Associations from around the world need to stand up and press FIFA to follow its own rules.
Norwegian Football Federation President Lise Klaveness moved in the right direction recently when she stated, “None of us can remain indifferent to the disproportionate attacks that Israel has subjected the civilian population in Gaza to.” When Susan Shalabi, the vice president of the Palestinian Football Association, urged FIFA to take action against Israel at its recent meetings in Paraguay, the Norwegian Football Federation issued a statement that it “stands in solidarity with the Palestinian Football Association and supports their right to have this long-standing issue properly addressed by FIFA.” We need more of this sort of political courage.
Sport should not be allowed to supersede human rights. For too long, FIFA has executed behind-the-scenes maneuverings that have allowed it to avoid reckoning with Israel’s human-rights violations. As FIFA whistleblower Bonita Mersiades put it, “True reform demands more than new systems—it requires new values.” At the very least, football honchos and fans alike must align their stated values with principled actions.
With authoritarianism on the march globally, now is the time to fix the limit on human-rights abuses, using sports as a way to immobilize the jackboots. As Nelson Mandela put it, “Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Strikes on Yemen Oil Port That Killed 84 Civilians Called 'Apparent War Crime'
Human Rights Watch said the April bombings, which also wounded more than 150 civilians, demonstrated "a callous disregard for civilian lives" and should be investigated.
Jun 04, 2025
The April bombing of a Yemeni oil port by U.S. forces that killed and wounded hundreds of civilians and disrupted the delivery of lifesaving aid to one of the world's most war-torn nations was "an apparent war crime" that should be investigated, a leading international human rights group said Wednesday.
On April 17, a series of U.S. airstrikes destroyed the Ras Isa oil Port on the Red Sea north of Hodeidah, killing 84 people and wounding more than 150 others, according to first responders, local officials, and a probe by the U.K.-based independent monitor Airwars.
The bombings were part of the Trump administration's response to resistance by Houthi rebels to Israel's annihilation of Gaza, which has included ballistic missile strikes targeting Israel and Red Sea shipping related to the key U.S. ally.
"The U.S. has been implicated in laws-of-war violations in Yemen since it began 'targeted killing operations' in 2002."
"U.S. forces took action to eliminate this source of fuel for the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists and deprive them of illegal revenue that has funded Houthi efforts to terrorize the entire region for over 10 years," U.S. Central Command said at the time, adding that "this strike was not intended to harm the people of Yemen."
However, the first four U.S. strikes on the port happened while workers were still on the job. Officials said first responders including paramedics and rescue workers who rushed to the scene were killed in subsequent strikes, known as "double taps" in military parlance.
Human Rights Watch said Wednesday that of the strikes' victims, "49 were people who worked at the port, several were truck drivers, and two were civil defense personnel. Others may have been workers' family members. Three were identified as children."
"The list contained one person identified as a 'colonel,' but who was not necessarily a military member," HRW continued. "The Hodeidah branch of the government-owned Yemen Oil Company posted photographs of 49 employees they said were killed."
HRW Yemen and Bahrain researcher Niku Jafarnia said Wednesday that "the U.S. government's decision to strike Ras Isa Port, a critical entry point for aid in Yemen, while hundreds of workers were present demonstrates a callous disregard for civilians' lives."
"At a time when the majority of Yemenis don't have adequate access to food and water, the attack's impact on humanitarian aid could be enormous, particularly after Trump administration aid cutbacks," Jafarnia added.
U.S. airstrikes on Yemen, which averaged around a dozen per month during the final year of the Biden administration, soared to more than 60 in March under President Donald Trump, according to the Yemen Data Project.
Other recent U.S. massacres in Yemen include a series of March 15 strikes on residential areas in the capital Sanaa that killed at least 53 people including numerous women and children, an April 20 strike on the Farwah market in the Shuub neighborhood of the capital Sanaa that killed at least 12 people and wounded 30 others, and the April 28 bombing of a detention center for African migrants in the city of Sa'ada that left at least 68 people dead and dozens more wounded.
These strikes came after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth loosened the U.S. military's rules of engagement to allow the bombing of a wider range of targets and people. In March, Hegseth announced that the Pentagon's Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Office and Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, which was established during the Biden administration, would be closed.
Hegseth—who has supported pardons for convicted U.S. war criminals—lamented during his Senate confirmation hearing that "restrictive rules of engagement" have "made it more difficult to defeat our enemies," who "should get bullets, not attorneys," according to his 2024 book The War on Warriors.
The U.S has been bombing and conducting ground raids in Yemen since the beginning of the so-called War on Terror launched by the George W. Bush administration in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Airwars says hundreds of Yemeni civilians have been killed in 181 declared U.S. actions since 2002.
In 2015, then-President Barack Obama announced that U.S. forces would provide "logistical and intelligence support" to the Saudi-led coalition intervening in the ongoing Yemeni civil war on behalf of the national government as it battled Iran-backed Houthi rebels. That assistance included refueling Saudi and Emirati warplanes that were bombing Yemeni targets and killing thousands of civilians while a blockade fueled famine and illness that claimed hundred of thousands of lives.
"The U.S. has been implicated in laws-of-war violations in Yemen since it began 'targeted killing operations' in 2002 against Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," HRW said Wednesday. "Those strikes continued until at least 2019 and killed many civilians, including 12 people attending a wedding in 2013. To Human Rights Watch's knowledge, the U.S. has never acknowledged or provided compensation for civilians harmed in this or other unlawful attacks."
The Pentagon has only acknowledged 13 civilian deaths caused by U.S. military action in Yemen since 2002. The Trump administration has been especially tight-lipped about civilian casualties resulting from its operations, a stance some critics have called ironic given that top administration officials including Hegseth discussed highly sensitive plans for attacking Yemen on a Signal group chat in which a journalist was inadvertently included.
"The recent U.S. airstrikes in Yemen are just the latest causing civilian harm in the country over the past two decades," Jafarnia said. "The Trump administration should reverse past U.S. practice and provide prompt compensation to those unlawfully harmed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is What Autocrats Do': Concern Grows Over Single Paragraph Buried Deep in GOP Bill
The provision would force those challenging Trump "to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."
May 31, 2025
A single paragraph buried deep in a spending bill that passed the GOP-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month is causing growing concern among democracy watchdogs who warn the provision will make it so only the well-to-do would be in a good position to launch legal challenges against a Trump administration that has shown over and over again its disdain and disregard for oversight or judicial restraint of any kind.
Coming just about half-way through what President Donald Trump has dubbed the Republican Party's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—which progressive critics point out is a giant giveaway to the nation's wealthiest at the expense of the working class and the common good—the language in question is slight, but could have far-reaching impacts.
"This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."
On Saturday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted in a detailed social media thread how the provision "hasn't gotten nearly enough scrutiny" from lawmakers or the public.
A recent piece by USA Today columnist Chris Brennan put it this way:
One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond.
Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court.
HRW details how the provision, if included in the final legislation, "would make it more expensive to fight Trump's policies in court by invoking a federal rule that effectively punishes anyone willing to stand up against the administration."
Anyone seeking a legal action that would involve an injunction request against a presidential order or policy, the group said, would to face a much larger barrier because Republicans would make it so that anyone challenging Trump in court in this way would "have to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, was among the first to highlight the buried provision, calling it both "unprecedented" and "terrible" in a May 19 essay in which he argued that the ultimate effect of the provision is to shield members of the administration from contempt of court orders through the extraordinary limit on those who can bring challenges in the first place. Chemerinsky writes:
By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."
But federal courts understandably rarely require that a bond be posted by those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions. Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review. It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.
Given his critique, Chemerinsky argued, "There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power."
Human Rights Watch appeared to agree with the profound dangers to the rule of law if the provision survives to Trump's desk for signature.
"This is yet another sign of Trump's brazen attempts to stop the judicial branch from holding him accountable," the group warned. "This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular