Opinion Archives - Page 23 of 40

Israeli Prisons: Places of Torture

CrossFireArabia
March 5, 2025

Since its establishment, Israel has been accused of policies aimed at displacing Palestinian communities and altering the demographic landscape of the occupied territories. The occupation has employed lethal tactics against Palestinians including killings, torture, and arrests. Since 1967, over 1 million Palestinians have been prosecuted under Israel’s military court system and subjected to detention.

For decades, Palestinian political prisoners have been used by the Israeli occupation as bargaining chips during negotiations of the so-called “peace process.” They have exercised all forms of brutality and torture against Palestinian prisoners in interrogation and detention centers in an attempt to extract confessions – whether true or false – by force, using both psychological and physical methods against them, in a blatant disregard for international law and countless international treaties and laws related to human rights. The current level of abuse, torture, and maltreatment of Palestinian detainees is unprecedented in terms of scale and frequency.

After Oct. 7, 2023, Palestinians saw a severe spike in the occupation’s long-standing violent policies and practices. The crisis extends beyond Gaza. Reports indicate systematic abuses within Israeli prisons and military camps, amounting to crimes against humanity, as defined under international law. At least 58 Palestinian political prisoners, including 37 people arrested from Gaza, have been murdered and martyred in the occupation’s custody since Oct. 7, 2023, including through torture, lethal beatings, starvation, and severe deprivation of medical treatment. The 58 people killed are only the ones whose identities have been revealed by the occupation. Dozens more have been killed and subject to enforced disappearance in Israeli custody with authorities refusing to reveal their identities. All of this is occurring amid international inaction, with the UN, and international human rights institutions and bodies, proving their inability to protect the Palestinian people and their rights.

Enforced disappearance and mass arrests

It is worth mentioning that Israeli occupation authorities are committing the severe crime of enforced disappearance against thousands of Palestinian detainees who have been arrested from Gaza since the start of the genocide, particularly from the beginning of the ground invasion. Thousands of civilians, including men, women, and children, have been abducted from different parts of the Gaza Strip, as well as thousands more who were working as laborers in the 1948-occupied territories prior to the outbreak of the war.

The crime of enforced disappearance is one of the main features of the genocide that went on for close to 500 days. Additionally, dozens of medical personnel were targeted with arrests during the Israeli army’s repeated invasions of hospitals, the largest of which was the invasion of the Shifa Hospital. Numerous videos circulated on social media showing Palestinian detainees in degrading conditions, including being stripped naked, blindfolded, and shackled in overcrowded spaces. Many were forced into tight groups in open areas, on the streets, and in military transport vehicles while restrained and exposed. They appeared in conditions that were highly degrading to human dignity and showed a severe disregard and contempt for Palestinian lives.

The Israeli judicial system has contributed to cementing the crime of enforced disappearance, further enabling the use of torture against detainees who were abducted from Gaza. Thousands of detainees from the strip were arrested and detained based on the “illegal combatants” law issued by the Knesset (Israeli parliament) in 2002, which fundamentally violates fair trial procedures and human rights. At the start of the genocide, the occupation made legal amendments to the “illegal combatants” law, which is similar in nature to its “administrative detention” military order used in the occupied West Bank.

Among the most significant amendments made to the illegal combatants law were as follows: Extending the detainee’s initial detention period for 45 days, judicial review after 75 days, and prohibition of detainees from meeting with their lawyers for 180 days. It is important to note that since the start of the genocide, the occupation has continued to refuse to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit detainees and prisoners in jails and camps as per its mandate. These amendments further institutionalized policies associated with enforced disappearance, as Israeli authorities continue to withhold information on detainees from Gaza, including their identities and locations. As a result, several human rights organizations filed petitions to the Israeli Supreme Court demanding the identities of the detainees and their places of detention. In every instance, the Supreme Court affirmed its long-standing role as a fundamental tool in cementing crimes against Palestinians.

To this day, there is no clear or accurate information about the total number of Palestinians arrested from Gaza, including women and children, nor about the martyrs who were killed through torture or executions. The only available data, up until the beginning of February 2025, shows that at least 1,882 Palestinians arrested from Gaza are categorized as “illegal combatants,” and this data does not include all of the detainees held in military camps.

Prisoner rights groups highlighted that the occupation built and restored special military camps used to detain Palestinians abducted from Gaza, alongside the existing central prisons. Among the most notorious of these military camps was the Sde Teiman camp, where detainees were subject to severe sexual assault, including rape. Other military camps being used to hold detainees from Gaza are the Anatot and Ofer camps, which have also witnessed extreme violations against Palestinian prisoners. In November 2023, when the occupation began releasing laborers from Gaza who had been held in Israel’s military camps, the prisoners’ testimonies began to reveal the level of inhumane and humiliating violations they endured. This included severe beatings, starvation, dehydration, denial of medical treatment, and keeping detainees blindfolded and handcuffed 24/7, causing many of them to need limb removal surgeries.

As time went on and more prisoners were released from Israeli custody, the testimonies only increased in terms of how horrific and shocking the crimes being committed were. The images of the detainees upon their release serve as a living testimony to the unfathomable violations committed against them. These revelations continued through several reports and journalistic investigations conducted about the Sde Teiman camp, including the leaking of a video showing soldiers gang-raping a Palestinian detainee.

International responsibility

As the genocide continues, some legal teams and human rights lawyers have been allowed limited access to a small portion of Gaza detainees. Their reports confirm systematic crimes, including extrajudicial executions, torture, and enforced disappearance. In this context, the Israeli occupation is employing the severe crime of enforced disappearance against thousands of detainees abducted from Gaza, which constitutes a crime against humanity according to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This convention defines enforced disappearance as “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.”

We reiterate our call to the international human rights system to overcome its ongoing impotence in the face of this genocide, and to take clear decisions and actions to hold the Israeli occupation accountable. This all-out war and aggression against our people, including those held in the occupation’s military camps and central prisons, must be halted now, and not a second later.

Raed Mohammed Mahmood Amer is the president of the Palestinian Prisoners Association and wrote this article for the Anadolu news website.

Opinion

Mad President and Street Brawl

CrossFireArabia
March 1, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

People from my generation remember a pop group which used to sing a song called the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Now, they were not themselves lunatics but merely performing for their audience and their fans, in the same manner. Neither Trump nor his band wagon are necessarily a bunch of thugs, but they are merely performing for their fans and audience.

However one cannot find any reason for world leaders to go to the Oval Office in order to provide US president Donald Trump with the material to entertain his fans and audience.

He ambushed King Abdullah of Jordan with the entry of journalists when that was not supposed to happen in order to market his absurd Gaza plan, president Emmanuel Macron of France provided him with the opportunity of posturing as an antagonist to the EU, prime minister Keir Starmer provided him with the opportunity of showing what Britain was groveling for – a free trade agreement and a role of being a bridge between the US and EU.

Ironically however, the worst of the Trump performance was left for Volodymr Zelensky, though his trip was the only one that made sense.

Zelensky for all intents and purposes, went to sign an agreement to hand the resources of Ukraine to America, but suddenly the situation deteriorated to almost a street brawl. Why? The whole thing was agreed upon by both sides from the start.

Of course, Zelensky expected a protection commitment from the USA in exchange for the mineral resources, but in fairness, without an explicit US commitment protection would have been implicitly there since supposedly, American companies and workers would be working in Ukraine, so what has actually happened to derail the whole agreement?

Of course, any such agreement with potential implicit US protection of Ukraine, is totally against Russian interests, especially according to some speculation, Putin has the intention to occupy the whole of Ukraine, therefore the talk in the corridors, is that Putin has offered Trump the exploitation of Ukrainian resources in the occupied territories of Russia, which in effect sabotaged the minerals agreement between US and Ukraine, and rescued Trump from having to give security guarantees; albeit implicit to Ukraine.

Now, at the peril of repeating the usual cliche of the EU facing a crossroad on its path, something which had happened frequently, this time it’s in fact different. The truth is that the US has been distancing itself from the EU at least from the days of president Obama, but the difference now is that the EU is being attacked by both the US and Russia, and finds itself as the large leviathan with clay feet unable to move.

The dilemma of differences within the EU are prominent, with full support for Ukraine, with some having lukewarm support, while some with no support at all, moreover the NATO future is hanging in the balance, to keep or not to keep that is the question, but what is the alternative? A European army which is yet to crystallize as an idea, or just drop all the effort?

What it boils down to now, is the idea of leadership of the “Free World”, certainly this notion has always been a nebulous idea, still, the US stood by it and projected its image accordingly, but now, it seems the US is not interested in world affairs except in what it can exploit and use and abuse for its own interests, which means, who will be the new leader of the Free World?

In fact, is there a need for a leader of the free world assuming that there is such a world? If the EU has any such pretensions, then big changes are necessary within its membership as it must be realized the road is very long for such an objective. But in the mean time, we have to settle for the theory of the mad president, ie. Trump would do anything, and peace by force with an oxymoron.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Opinion

Putting The Cart Before The Horse

CrossFireArabia
February 26, 2025

With the approach of the Cairo Summit to discuss the Palestinian issue and the reconstruction of Gaza, Arab leaders find themselves facing three main scenarios to make decisive decisions that determine the future of Gaza and the fate of the Palestinians the day after the cessation of the war. The dilemma is no longer limited to reconstruction only but also includes the political and administrative arrangements that ensure the stability of the sector and prevent the recurrence of the devastating conflict.

From the American side, it seems that the Trump administration is adopting a more stringent approach, as it recently stated the necessity of displacing Palestinians from Gaza as a “solution” to ensure regional security, which reflects its traditional position biased towards Israel and complicates any Arab efforts to find an independent solution for the sector.

This American position raises great concerns in Arab and international circles, given the disastrous consequences it carries for the Palestinians and the entire region, especially in light of the widespread international rejection of forced displacement policies.

The first scenario involves adopting a comprehensive regional solution led by Arabs, aiming to place Gaza under temporary Arab administration, which may include Egypt and perhaps some Gulf states, in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. In this scenario, a transitional body would be established to administer the Strip, which would undertake reconstruction operations, organize basic services, and reorganize the security situation in a way that prevents the recurrence of the conflict.

This body could also work to pave the way for comprehensive Palestinian elections to be held later, so that Gaza would be part of a unified Palestinian entity.

This temporary administration would work to restructure institutions within the Strip, ensure the regular provision of health and education services, and rehabilitate infrastructure damaged by the war. It would also undertake the tasks of securing the crossings and ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid, while imposing strict control to prevent the infiltration of any elements that might contribute to destabilization.

It is expected that the contributing Arab states would have different roles, as Egypt could handle security aspects, while the Gulf states would contribute to financing and reconstruction. This option requires Arab and international consensus, as well as internal Palestinian acceptance, which may be difficult in light of the differences between the factions.

Israel may not view this scenario favorably, as it strengthens the Arab role in Gaza and limits its influence there. In addition, the success of this scenario depends on the Arabs’ ability to impose a unified vision and work to reduce external interventions that may hinder this solution. Ultimately, this scenario remains a realistic option, but it is fraught with challenges that require active diplomacy and strong political will.

As for the second scenario, it is to support the restructuring of the Palestinian Authority and grant it full control over Gaza after reaching internal understandings with the various factions, including Hamas. In this framework, the security services are integrated into a unified framework under the supervision of the Authority, and the administrative institutions are unified, with an Arab and international commitment to provide financial and logistical support to ensure the success of this transition.

One of the main pillars of this scenario is rebuilding trust between the various Palestinian factions, which requires intensive efforts from regional and international mediators, especially Egypt and the United Nations. This proposal also requires providing guarantees that the faction leaders will not be targeted or excluded from the political scene, which necessitates establishing a joint governance mechanism for a transitional period.

This scenario depends primarily on the ability of the Palestinian Authority to impose its effective control over the Strip, which is doubtful, especially in light of the deep differences between the West Bank and Gaza, and the lack of trust between the Palestinian parties.

In addition, Hamas’s acceptance of this proposal may be conditional on effective participation in governance, which may not be acceptable to Israel or some regional powers. Moreover, this solution faces obstacles related to the extent of the international community’s ability to commit to funding reconstruction, and to ensuring that Israel does not obstruct any efforts aimed at strengthening the Palestinian Authority’s control over the Strip.

The third scenario, which may be the most complex, is to impose an international solution under the auspices of the United Nations, whereby international peacekeeping forces are deployed to oversee the administration of Gaza for a transitional period, during which the Strip is rebuilt, and the political conditions are prepared to find a comprehensive Palestinian settlement.

In this scenario, the infrastructure is rehabilitated, security guarantees are provided to prevent the outbreak of new confrontations, while the way is opened for an internal Palestinian dialogue under international auspices to reach an agreement on the future of governance in Gaza.

This scenario also includes international supervision of the rehabilitation of civilian institutions in Gaza, ensuring the distribution of aid, and preventing the use of resources in any military activities that may lead to a renewal of the conflict.

It could also contribute to reactivating the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis through an international mechanism that ensures the implementation of any understandings reached.

However, this option faces several obstacles, most notably the rejection by some Palestinian forces of any direct international intervention in Palestinian affairs, and Israel may refuse to deploy international forces near its borders, preferring to keep Gaza under siege or in a state of instability that keeps it weak and unable to pose a security threat.

Moreover, any international intervention will require consensus among the major powers, which may be difficult to achieve in light of global political tensions. Each of these scenarios carries its own challenges, and the optimal choice remains linked to the extent of the Arabs’ ability to unify their positions and make bold decisions that go beyond narrow political calculations.

The main challenge lies in reaching a solution that spares Gaza further destruction, establishes a new phase of stability and development, and ensures that the Palestinian issue is not exploited in regional conflicts. The question remains: Will the Cairo Summit be able to overcome Arab differences and present a unified vision to save Gaza and its future?

Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University

Opinion

Seismic Shift Across The Atlantic

CrossFireArabia
February 25, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Even before Trump’s coming of age, which is a long way away, or more accurately so, coming to power, one often wondered about the status of the European Union (EU) in the world of changing circumstances and the existential meaning of its presence on the world power map among the increasing differences among its member states.

Although and frankly, differences always existed within the Union, the Russian invasion of Ukraine made those differences more acute, sharper and penchant materializing between those Europeans fearing being next on the Russian menu, those who want an assertive position against Moscow, those reluctant either way, and those who are out rightly pro-Russia.

Evidently, having unity among the 27 European countries which are not necessarily different in their political structures, yet having necessarily different strategic interests end up with infighting, recriminations and threats.

As well what makes things near-impossible, is that the EU does not have a mechanism to expel a fellow-member from the Union, so one is always beleiving that there is hope that an obtrusive member of the Union would walk out voluntarily in the manner made by the British Brexit.

Now it is more complicated. Not only the EU is having to deal with a possible Russian threat, but also a looming trade war with the US that is compounded with the distinct possibility that America may be withdrawing its protection umbrella from Europe.

Of course, this legitimately raises the question about the future of NATO; a question which was raised before especially after the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. This ultimately means a new form of a military alliance will be required for the EU.

Ideally, one would have thought a smaller EU entity, leaner and meaner, with incorporation of Britain in it, would the best option, while the rest of Europe, from its center to its eastern side, hitched by accords with Russia and the USA.

This would be far better instead of the current large European crippled Levathian with Britain running like a headless chicken proposing to be the bridge between the USA and EU, a link both sides of the Atlantic believe it’s too far a gap for any meaningful effect.

Having said all that, there is a window of opportunity now with the new government in Germany, showing more courageous initiatives in wanting to see a reset of the Atlantic relationship, which falls well with President Macron of France, the other core member of the EU which has the idea of creating a single European army to protect the EU and its interests.

When it comes to transnational trade, the absurdity of the war of tariffs will hurt all including the American economy, though European companies whose main market is in the USA will go and invest in America, but those US companies whose main market is Europe, will invest in the EU.

Essentially, the seismic shift in relations across the Atlantic is set to commence with most probably less profits but more fairness.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Opinion

Who is Going to Rebuild Gaza?

CrossFireArabia
February 25, 2025

No official announcement was made following the Riyadh Summit, which was considered fraternal, friendly, and consultative rather than formal. The summit, held a few days ago, was attended by the Gulf states, along with Jordan and Egypt, in anticipation of the Cairo Summit scheduled for March 4. The Cairo Summit is expected to approve and announce a new Arab plan for rebuilding Gaza as an alternative to Trump’s plan. However, more importantly, the Arab plan presents a comprehensive political approach linking the Gaza issue to the establishment of a Palestinian state and a peaceful resolution in the region. This approach counters Israel’s new policies, which are based on political hegemony—not only in Palestine by eliminating the two-state solution but also by expanding Israel’s security boundaries to include parts of Syria and Lebanon and inciting the U.S. into a confrontation with Iran.

The Egyptian-Arab approach is still in its final stages of preparation. It takes into account a combination of financial, technical, political, and security aspects concerning Gaza. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa has proposed modifications to the plan originally put forward by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the European Union, which estimated the cost of rebuilding Gaza at over $50 billion in a rapid and preliminary needs and damage assessment report (IRDNA). Instead, Mustafa proposed a more realistic and feasible plan costing no more than $20 billion, to be implemented in three phases. The Egyptians have incorporated this into their reconstruction plan, which includes dividing Gaza into three safe zones, using temporary housing (caravans) and tents, and developing a technical vision for redesigning the sector’s infrastructure through specialized Egyptian companies.

The Arab approach links the reconstruction plan to several key elements. The first is the technical, logistical, and financial aspect of rebuilding. The second is reforming the Palestinian Authority (PA) to counter Israeli claims of its incompetence, with reform measures covering political and security aspects. The third element concerns the administration of Gaza in the post-occupation phase. A significant development has occurred with the Palestinians agreeing on a temporary administrative committee responsible for technocratic affairs. Hamas has accepted this arrangement, and President Mahmoud Abbas has reluctantly agreed to it, as it implicitly means that the PA will not return to Gaza.

The most challenging aspect of the Arab plan lies in the security arrangements during the reconstruction phase. Arab states refuse to deploy security forces or enter Gaza without a clear vision for ending the Israeli occupation and establishing a Palestinian state. As Arab diplomats emphasize, what is needed is not just a roadmap for resolving the Palestinian issue, but rather an agreement on final-status issues and recognition of a Palestinian state—followed by a roadmap for implementation, not the other way around.

The most contentious issue in the Arab approach is Hamas’s weapons. Israel, along with the United States, will not accept Hamas retaining its weapons in Gaza. Israel has made it clear that it links the second phase of the process to this condition, and the U.S. has accepted this demand. On the other hand, the Arab side ties the issue of disarming non-state actors to the establishment of a Palestinian state that would have the exclusive right to possess weapons. The key question remains: Who would disarm Hamas? The only legitimate entity that could do so is a recognized Palestinian state, which remains the missing piece in U.S. policies that align with Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision.

The Arabs hope that this approach will establish a new framework for relations with the United States and offer alternative strategic options. They even believe it could persuade President Donald Trump to secure several achievements—perhaps even earning him a Nobel Peace Prize in the end.

This is undoubtedly a highly optimistic approach, but it represents a new Arab attempt to present a united position and alternative strategic options. However, the biggest challenge this vision overlooks lies in the details. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” What kind of Palestinian state is actually possible under the current circumstances? What was previously proposed by Trump himself? Is there a single Palestinian—any Palestinian—who could accept a state comprising only 30% of the West Bank, without East Jerusalem, and without control over borders? How could Hamas and its supporters—or even the majority of Palestinian refugees—be convinced of such a proposal, even if there were Israeli and American acceptance of the new Arab approach?

Mohammad Abu Rumman is a columnist in The Jordan Times.