Five Years After the Beirut Port Explosion—Justice in the Courts Will Not Be Enough for Survivors
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Lebanese have never seen accountability for any of the country's gravest crimes. Justice—when pursued at all—is politicized, obstructed, and often denied. Five years since the Beirut explosion, this legacy of impunity has become a national sin that cannot be forgiven. As Lebanon and the broader region push to recover from war and atrocities, justice must lead the rebuilding of statehood and the rule of law.
Law Without Accountability—A History of Failed Practice
For decades, Lebanon's most consequential crimes have gone unpunished. Thirty-five years after the 1982 assassination of President Bachir Gemayel, Syrian Socialist National Party (SSNP) operatives Nabil al-Alam and Habib Shartouni were sentenced to death in absentia. Under Syrian protection, the verdicts were never enforced, and both remain at large. No criminal trial followed the 1983 bombing of the United States Embassy by Hezbollah's Islamic Jihad arm; some victims' families could only pursue civil lawsuits against Iran in U.S. courts. The 1989 assassination of Lebanese President René Mouawad also never reached court.
Citizens from across the country rushed to Beirut, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, to clear the rubble, sort through the wreckage, and find the missing.
Citizens from across the country rushed to Beirut, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, to clear the rubble, sort through the wreckage, and find the missing.
Photo courtesy of Rita Kabalan
This cycle of unchecked crimes was challenged after the 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Lebanon pushed for the unprecedented United Nations-backed special tribunal for Lebanon (STL). Despite judicial innovation, 14 years of legal proceedings, and over $ 1 billion in funding (49 percent paid by Lebanon), the masterminds were never convicted. Only co-perpetrators Salim Ayyash, Hassan Merhi, and Hussein Oneissi were sentenced to five concurrent life terms. Hezbollah refused to surrender them, and Lebanon had no power to enforce the rulings. The subsequent assassinations and attempted political killings also never saw court. Political weaponization ensured that justice remained hostage to a system willing to destroy a country rather than establish and enforce criminal responsibility.
Israeli Extrajudicial Enforcement—Impunity Expanded
In this vacuum of accountability, Israel executed extrajudicial strikes in its war against Hezbollah. On July 30 and September 20, 2024, 1983 co-perpetrators Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah's Radwan Force commander and head of operations) and Fuad Shukr were killed by Israeli precision drone strikes in Haret Hreik, Southern Beirut. On November 9, Hariri assassination co-perpetrator Salim Ayyash was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Syria.
By adopting a policy of assassinating assassins, Israel sought international legitimacy, and perhaps even the quiet approval of some Lebanese. The court of public opinion usurped the courts of law. But Israel's actions significantly undermined international law and further eroded Lebanese sovereignty and credibility. Lebanon lost its chance to set legal precedent against decades of heinous crimes.
The Beirut explosion ripped through Lebanon's capital on Aug. 4, 2020, devastating homes, cultural sites, places of worship, and more.
The Beirut explosion ripped through Lebanon's capital on Aug. 4, 2020, devastating homes, cultural sites, places of worship, and more.
Photo courtesy of Rita Kabalan
Israel is instead authoring a dangerous new rulebook, normalizing "might is right" as the region's arbiter of justice. Even with a president and government, Lebanon remains disempowered, stripped of agency and avenues for accountability. Beyond Lebanon, this threatens the broader Middle East, weakening international legal norms and inviting state and non-state actors to bypass rule-based governance.
A Chance To Exit Lebanon's Judicial Purgatory
Justice for the Beirut explosion must take a different path.
In a recent meeting with the victims' families, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said, "From now on, justice will take its course, the responsible will be tried, and the innocent will be exonerated. ... We must uncover the whole truth and hold accountable those who caused this catastrophe."
Yet, formidable obstacles persist. Judge Tarek Bitar's mandate is under threat, the general prosecutor is abusing power and obstructing the investigation, suspects have been released without trial, elected officials are still shielded from prosecution, judicial summons are routinely defied, critical evidence remains uncollected, and inaction continues to evade accountability.
On Aug. 8, 2020, thousands rallied in Beirut, demanding justice after the port explosion and protesting government negligence. Security forces responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and pellet rounds, injuring over 700 protesters.
On Aug. 8, 2020, thousands rallied in Beirut, demanding justice after the port explosion and protesting government negligence. Security forces responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and pellet rounds, injuring over 700 protesters.
Photo courtesy of Rita Kabalan
Without urgent, comprehensive reforms—lifting immunities, restoring full judicial independence, ensuring trial, and enforcing sentences—Lebanon's pursuit of justice remains pending in purgatory. But victims' families and survivors cannot wait for justice to only begin after Lebanon's state institutions are reclaimed and reformed.
Unlike past assassinations, one of the world's largest non-nuclear explosions was not a case of targeted killings. It was an act of criminal negligence, culpable omission, and gross dereliction of duty—implicating some of the highest levels of the Lebanese state, Hezbollah, and their allies. Legal proceedings alone cannot deliver justice, accountability, and reparations. A credible path to justice requires that Hezbollah disarm, relinquish control over state institutions, and surrender their economic stranglehold.
Today, Lebanon, more than ever, needs judicial innovation, state fortitude, and moral courage. The country has a rare chance to reclaim its sovereignty and define justice on terms set by survivors and citizens, and not by geopolitical and non-state agendas. The international community bears an immense responsibility to help Lebanon seize this moment. Only then can the Lebanese claim justice and Lebanon reclaim itself.
Lynn Zovighian is a philanthropist, humanitarian diplomat, and founder of the Zovighian Public Office, partnering with communities facing genocide and crises in the Middle East and South Caucasus through research, culture, and diplomacy. She is also co-founder of the Zovighian Partnership.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
31 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Hed:Israel Considers Reoccupying Gaza as the Food Shortage Ebbs - Opinion: Potomac Watch
Full Transcript This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated. Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. This is Potomac Watch. Paul Gigot: It's a new Middle East, or at least it was supposed to be after Israel's successful war against Iran and the US and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear sites. But six weeks later, old tensions are rising again and Israel is facing new international pressure over its continuing war in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there. What's next for Israel and the US in the Middle East? That is our subject for today on Potomac Watch. I'm Paul Gigot with the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, and I'm here with a member of the editorial board, Elliot Kaufman. Let's start with Gaza. Steve Witkoff, the US envoy, President Trump's envoy, left the region recently frustrated that there was no deal saying Hamas just doesn't seem to want a ceasefire deal with Israel that would release the hostages and at least have some stop to the fighting. What explains this continuing Hamas resistance, which, if anything, has gotten more strident in recent weeks? Elliot Kaufman: Well, first, I think you are right to frame this in the backdrop of the war with Iran because when I talk to senior Israeli political officials, they are immensely frustrated right now. They say, "We just took out Iran's nuclear program. We have talked about this for 20 years as our country's number one priority, and all we hear is what have you done for us lately?" Because they are sort of stuck in the mire in Gaza and Hamas does not want a deal. And so when it is said, Israel should just get out, cut a deal, free the hostages, disarm Hamas, they would love to do just that, but that deal is not available for them. Paul Gigot: Because Hamas will not cooperate. Elliot Kaufman: Hamas will not cooperate. And they had made progress. Witkoff went to the region hoping previously to close it out himself, but the circumstances changed as Israel has long known, a humanitarian crisis in Gaza equals a Hamas victory, not an Israeli victory. And so the idea has always been you can't allow starvation to take hold. That's how Hamas wins. Hamas has encouraged the crisis in various ways, but once that becomes the dominant international narrative, both in the media and from western states even, it becomes all pressure on Israel, no pressure on Hamas. And Hamas backed off. It not only went back on terms that it had provisionally agreed to, but it said, "We don't want to talk. Flood the territory with aid. Give us all we could possibly want to sustain our own fighters, and then maybe we'll talk once again." And so that's where things are at and that's why Witkoff is out of the region. There isn't much to talk about there. Paul Gigot: To your point, Witkoff was sounding very optimistic a couple of weeks ago, so was Donald Trump saying we're very close to a deal. Some of the Arab intermediaries, interlocutors had been saying, "We think there'll be a deal." Why do you think Hamas feels now that it doesn't need to cooperate? I mean, obviously the humanitarian food problem is playing as you suggest in its favor as a global diplomatic public relations catastrophe for Israel. It's really hurting them, I think. And most of the press doesn't really dig into the root causes of that. The United Nations recently reported, I think, that 86% of their trucks that bring in food aid to the Strip, they've been ransacked or raided. That's the UN, that's not Israel's data. That's the United Nations data. A lot of that is Hamas, no question about it. And Hamas, they continue to benefit from the suffering of the Gazan people, which gets blamed on Israel. But what's turned Hamas here, obviously if they give up the hostages, they feel that they've lost this advantage that they have negotiating leverage. But meanwhile, Israel can continue to prosecute the war and continue to degrade Hamas fighters. Elliot Kaufman: It's a very good question, and I think the way to answer it is to look at when Hamas has actually made a deal, what have the factors been? And so the first deal was in November 2023, so not long after the October 7th attack massacre that started this war. And the way Israel views that first deal is that Hamas faced a combination of military and political pressure that was much stronger than what it had expected, meaning Israel was rolling on the ground in those days and came in heavy attacking Northern Gaza, Gaza City, the capital in a way that was so aggressive that it even scared the Biden administration, which afterward told them, "Don't fight that way again, please tone it down." But at the same time, those disagreements with the Biden administration were kept private in those early days. It hadn't yet been the sort of daily public confrontation between the US and Israel. And so Hamas saw this unprecedented military pressure and also political backing for Israel's war effort and said, "We have to stop this, reset things." And it released a lot of hostages in that first deal and on worse terms than it got later on and on worse terms than Israel is willing to give now. So that's how they got a first deal following that, military pressure weakened Israel's political backing weakened and there was a long period without a deal. And that probably would have continued because Hamas figured Israel's paying a worse price than we are from this, and that Israel will buckle first until President Trump got elected. And that changed the whole political horizon going forward to the point where Trump was saying, "Release the hostages, or else the gates of hell will open, or else we will unleash hell, or else I'll give full backing to Israel." Hamas looking at that prospect of a totally different political situation, made a second deal at the very end of the Biden administration leading right into President Trump's inauguration. Since then, has Israel been able to put on new military pressure, substantially change the political situation? Well, it had this offensive that it hyped, but it's moved very slowly and Israel has still been unwilling to fight in the 25, 30% of Gaza that it has never fought in for 22 months. Paul Gigot: Elliot, that's a real surprise to me, that figure of that amount of territory that it hasn't fought in. It cleared out Gaza City then it went and cleared out Rafah. It's cleared out that Philadelphi Corridor. It cut to Gaza in half, well over a year ago to control the north. Obviously then people flowed back after Israeli troops withdrew from the north substantially. But where are these territories that they haven't gone into and why haven't they? Elliot Kaufman: Right. So Gaza City in the north, Rafah in the south, Khan Younis still south. It's the central camps in the middle of Gaza. Paul Gigot: Those would be too high risk to go into for Israeli soldiers because Israel obviously got to be wary about casualties. Elliot Kaufman: That's right. But the main idea is that Israeli hostages are being held there. Paul Gigot: I see. Elliot Kaufman: And Israeli intelligence has long assessed this, and the Israeli military accordingly has judged again for 22 months that it would be too dangerous to the hostages for Israel to operate on the ground in those areas. And that's a major sacrifice because if you think about insurgencies, which this has certainly become, one of the main issues always is if the enemy has a safe haven, if the Taliban can cross over into Pakistan, if the North Vietnamese can cross over into Cambodia, you have a real problem. And Israel has been allowing in effect a safe haven within Gaza. And then last point on this is that Israel can say, "Well, we control even 75% of Gaza." But very few of the people of Gaza live in those areas because everywhere Israel goes, it says the, "People, you have to move." And where do the people move? Exactly to that Hamas run area- Paul Gigot: Because they want to reduce civilian casualties. Elliot Kaufman: Reduce casualties, but at the same time, it's kept the entire population under Hamas control. Paul Gigot: All right, we're going to take a break and when we come back, we'll talk about the rumblings that perhaps Israel will go back into Gaza and reoccupy it when we come back. Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot here on Potomac Watch the daily podcast of Wall Street Journal Opinion. And I'm here with editorial writer Elliot Kaufman talking about events in the Middle East. Let's talk about the food crisis for a second, but first, let's listen Donald Trump talk about delivering US aid for food deliveries in Gaza, and then also the discussion, some of the leaks that Israel intends to reoccupy all of Gaza. Let's listen. Speaker 4: Would you support Israel reoccupying all of Gaza as been suggested by some Israeli officials? Donald Trump: Well, I don't know what the suggestion is. I know that we are there now trying to get people fed. As you know, $60 million was given by the United States fairly recently to supply food and a lot of food, frankly, for the people of Gaza that are obviously not doing too well with the food. And I know Israel's going to help us with that in terms of distribution and also money. We also have the Arab states are going to help us with that in terms of the money and possibly distribution. So that's what I'm focused on. As far as the rest of it, I really can't say. That's going to be pretty much up to Israel. Paul Gigot: Let's take these one at a time, Elliot. First the food problem, is that easing in Gaza? Elliot Kaufman: It is easing. More aid has been coming into Gaza in recent days. More aid is being distributed in Gaza and food prices are falling. So that is a good sign and it was made clear to the Israelis by the US, by the Trump administration that whose ever fault this is, you have to fix it. And because you can make all kinds of arguments, it's the UN's fault, Hamas's fault. They're all true to some extent. And yet Israel pays the cost. Like we said, if there is a real humanitarian crisis and starvation, and I would say serious hunger had become a major risk and was developing in parts of Gaza, especially in the north of Gaza. Paul Gigot: But there is an attempt by several nations to deliver food to Gaza to get it there, to ease starvation issues that have been developing. What about this issue of reoccupying Gaza? Israel got out of Gaza. I mean, when I visited there, I think I was in Gaza in the early nineties in the wake of the Clinton-Oslo Accords. Israel was still there and there were still settlements in Gaza. Of course it left in mid-2000s or so, and Hamas won the election that was held over the Palestinian authority or Fatah and has ruled it ever since. That's not something that Israel seems to want to do because occupying it would make them vulnerable to terrorism attacks, car bombs, what have you. And instead Israel had been talking about, "We're going to occupy or police part of this Philadelphi Corridor between Egypt and Gaza that had been the corridor because of smuggling and so on." Hamas had been able to smuggle in arms, rockets, and materials to build the tunnel network, and they were also going to build a kind of a buffer zone elsewhere between Israel proper and Gaza. Do they have to go in and occupy it? I can't imagine that they want to do this. Elliot Kaufman: So everything you say about the costs and unpleasantness of occupying Gaza is true. The problem is that the costs and unpleasantness of not occupying Gaza was also demonstrated in the years since Israel left. So Egypt occupied Gaza from the end of the 1948 war until 1967, Israel conquered Gaza in 1967, occupied it. Paul Gigot: And said to Egypt, "Take it please." And Egypt said, "No." Correct? Elliot Kaufman: "No, thank you," they said, because it's a problem. And sort of always has been. Now Israel had a full military occupation until 1994 when it withdrew troops from Gaza City. And then like you said, 2005, Israel withdrew everyone, all of the Israeli civilian settlers, troops, and they said, "We will sit behind our border. We don't want to run your affairs. Please leave us alone." And of course, they got the opposite, exactly the opposite. And so the question now, now that the other ways of pressuring Hamas into releasing hostages have failed, and they're not going to do it with aid. I think it's clear they can try to get the aid only to the civilians and not to Hamas, but if they work too hard at that, some civilians do suffer. And then Israel buckles first, not Hamas. Israel buckles first on that question every time. And so that's not going to work. The question becomes what can they do to finally pressure Hamas? And internally, Israeli political leaders have been discussing several options. One of them was, "We can tell Hamas every week that you don't release hostages." Israel will annex land along the border or the buffer zones of Gaza and say, "You have lost this land." And maybe losing land, maybe that will get through to them, or not, or maybe it won't. Another option was this full occupation option, meaning fight in that remaining 25, 30% of Gaza and put real military pressure on Hamas. Maybe that will do it. Paul Gigot: Well, on the other hand, the risk there is obvious, a lot more Israeli casualties and Hamas may end up killing the hostages. Elliot Kaufman: It's a real risk. It's a real risk and it's huge. And it's also not clear if Israel would stay there so it could fight in those areas and then leave. And so that would avoid a lot of the problems of not having to run the lives of 2 million Palestinians. But if you're going to leave, are you really pressuring Hamas? Can't it just wait you out? Then again, if you stay, you have all the problems of being responsible for Gaza. This has been a long-term problem in the war that the IDF, for better or for worse- Paul Gigot: Israeli defense forces. Elliot Kaufman: That's right, has really resisted being responsible for Gaza. Paul Gigot: Well, and you can imagine why. Elliot Kaufman: They're soldiers. They don't want to be dealing with handing out food and the sewer systems and everything else. Paul Gigot: And thinking that every civilian that approaches them is a potential death threat. Elliot Kaufman: And so they've kept it safe and they have cleared civilians out of their zones. But like I said, at the same time, that has allowed Hamas to stay in power because it controls the civilian lives. And so Israel's now facing a real choice, and will Prime Minister Netanyahu force this on the army, force it to take responsibility for Gaza? He's been talking about it and leaking about it, but he hasn't actually decided it yet. And were this threat to work on Hamas and Hamas would say, "Please don't occupy us. We'll make a deal." I would say that Netanyahu would take that in a second. However, I don't think Hamas is going to bail him out in that way. And so he's going to have to make a very difficult choice. Paul Gigot: We are going to take another break, and when we come back, we'll talk about how much support is eroding for Israel in the United States when we come back. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." That is, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. This is Potomac Watch. Paul Gigot: Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot here on Potomac Watch, and I am here talking about Israel, Gaza, and the United States interests with Elliot Kaufman in the wake of the Iranian conflict. And that successful attack by Israel and disarming Hezbollah and muting with US help the Houthis to some extent. And of course, Hamas has been set back. A former American defense official, very sympathetic to Israel, said, "Look, Hamas is no longer a threat." Military threat, you can be contained. The best Israeli approach would be back off and just say, "Let the Palestinians run Gaza, and with Qatar and some others providing money for rebuilding, just quarantine them and then move on to try to get back to a more normal life for Israelis and then reach out and try to extend the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and so on." Is that just not possible? Speaker 1: It is possible to some extent. It also comes with risks. I think it's right that Israel has accomplished a great deal here in the region and is actually in a strategic position as it's been in many years. Paul Gigot: I think since the early seventies at least. Elliot Kaufman: Yes. And the problem is it doesn't feel that way because in Gaza there are no good solutions right now. And so one thing that people talk about is could Israel say the war's over, but just continue doing raids into Hamas territory, keep a military presence in various buffer zones and corridors, preventing Hamas from Rearming and preventing it from amassing the kind of forces that could ever do another October 7th attack. So that's not the full withdrawal. It won't satisfy the United Nations, but it could provide Israel the security it needs while allowing it to move on and actually enjoy some of the gains of this by now, very long war. It's an intriguing option, but the risks come from that rebuilding process, especially if the money comes from Qatar whom Israel does not trust. And they say, if you rebuild too early, does Hamas use that to rebuild its tunnels, its infrastructure to sort of reconstitute the governance of Gaza? Can you force Hamas to disarm or go into exile before rebuilding starts? Paul Gigot: Probably not. Elliot Kaufman: Probably not. I think that would be a very difficult political move to pull off. Paul Gigot: Well, look, there are risks on both sides here, and increasingly, I hear from a lot of Americans, many of whom are sympathetic to Israel. That Israel is paying a political price here and not just global opinion with the French and the United Kingdom and Canada saying they'll endorse in September at the United Nations, a Palestinian state. That of course doesn't exist yet, but they'll endorse it nonetheless. In US public opinion, we've seen it in the Democratic Party, which is much more anti-Israel than it has been. There's still some pockets of pro-Israel support in Congress among Democrats, but we're beginning to see a little bit of breaking even among Republicans, certainly not the Trump administration, although there's some frustration sometimes between the Israel government and the US. I mean, is there a real danger for Israel here of losing what has long been bipartisan support in the United States? Elliot Kaufman: The danger is real. In fact, it may be too late to save the bipartisan support. By now that may be baked in. This could have been true before the war. I think certainly now it's very difficult Paul Gigot: Because of the erosion among Democrats. Elliot Kaufman: Yes. Paul Gigot: And particularly younger Democrats. Elliot Kaufman: That's right. And in the Republican Party, I think you still see overall strong support among voters. However, when you talk about Republican influencers online, low-level and mid-level staffers in the Trump administration, it gets more dicey. And so there are risks there as well. I would- Paul Gigot: Some of the isolationist voices inside the administration really do want us to pack away from Israel. Elliot Kaufman: Yes. And represented more there than outside. I would just say that I think the larger risk for Israel is ending this war with Hamas still running Gaza. If that's the case, I think Israel will pay for it diplomatically because people will look at the past two years and say, "What was all that for? Why did you kill all these people for if you didn't even achieve anything?" Paul Gigot: Well, they will have achieved some form of retribution for October 7th, and they will have achieved some sense of greater security because Hamas is not in anywhere near a position to be able to do what it did on October 7th. So they would've accomplished that. Elliot Kaufman: Yes, and that's important, and it needs to make that case. However, I think even if it means fighting on for one month more or two months more, I think in the long run, this will be less important diplomatically even than what the actual result is and what the future of Gaza is. So I think Israel needs to get that right, and the options are very difficult, but big choices right now in the next few days and weeks. Paul Gigot: Yes, some momentous ones for Israel and certainly some repercussions for not just US-Israel relations, but also US interests in the Middle East. All right. Thank you Elliot Kaufman. Thank you all for listening. We're here every day on Potomac Watch. Hope to have you with us tomorrow.
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
US to Scale Back Human Rights Accusations Against 3 Countries: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The administration of President Donald Trump is scaling back criticism of certain foreign governments over their human rights records, including their treatment of LGBTQ+ people, in a shift from the traditional U.S. promotion of rights, The Washington Post reported. The newspaper reviewed leaked draft reports on El Salvador, Israel and Russia being prepared for the State Department's annual report on human rights practices in countries around the world. Newsweek reached out to the State Department for comment Wednesday night. Why It Matters The leaked reports for the three countries underscore how the Trump administration is rethinking the U.S. role in global human rights advocacy. The apparent shift on human rights reflects a pattern of disengagement from international conventions and comes as the administration has already moved to abandon long-held positions and norms in areas like trade, the environment and relations with allies. Diplomats in U.S. embassies around the world have drawn up the annual rights report for almost 50 years. Their findings are considered the most thorough and wide-ranging of their kind. President Donald Trump, left, greets Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador, as Bukele arrives at the White House on April 14 in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump, left, greets Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador, as Bukele arrives at the White House on April 14 in Washington, D.C. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP What To Know The Post said the documents it reviewed are consistent with internal guidance circulated this year by State Department leaders who advised staff to shorten the reports to the minimum required by statutory guidelines and executive orders and to remove references to government corruption, gender-based crimes and other abuses the U.S. government historically has documented. "The 2024 Human Rights report has been restructured in a way that removes redundancies, increases report readability and is more responsive to the legislative mandate that underpins the report," the newspaper cited a senior State Department official as saying. According to the Post, the reports it reviewed are significantly shorter than the ones prepared last year by the administration of former President Joe Biden. They cut all references to LGBTQ+ people or crimes against them, and the descriptions of government abuses that remain have been softened. The draft for El Salvador says it had "no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" in 2024. The previous report for El Salvador, documenting 2023, identified "significant human rights issues" there—including government-sanctioned killings, instances of torture and "harsh and life-threatening prison conditions." "A comparison of the documents covering El Salvador shows the Trump administration downplaying the country's history of prison violence, emphasizing that there has been a reduction overall while stating that purported deaths were under government review," the newspaper reported. El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, a close ally of Trump, has offered to house people from other countries deported by the U.S. in a mega-prison built to detain gang members. "Scrutiny of corruption and judicial independence also is significantly scaled back in the draft report for Israel," the newspaper said, adding that the Israel draft is 25 pages compared with more than 100 pages last year. The draft for Israel makes no mention of corruption or threats to the independence of its judiciary. The 2023 report compiled by the Biden administration addresses the corruption trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and judicial overhaul efforts, which critics say threaten the independence of the judiciary. Previous reports also mentioned Israeli surveillance of Palestinians and restrictions of their movement but the issue is not addressed in the draft, the Post said. Keifer Buckingham, who worked on LGBTQ+ issues at the State Department until January, told the Post that the failure to include any mention in the reviewed reports of gender-based violence or violence against LGBTQ+ people was a "glaring omission" in the case of Russia, where its Supreme Court had banned LGBTQ+ organizations and labeled them "extremist," with raids and arrests last year. What People Are Saying Buckingham, also managing director at The Council for Global Equality, said: "Secretary (of State Marco) Rubio has repeatedly asserted that his State Department has not abandoned human rights, but it is clear by this and other actions that this administration only cares about the human rights of some some countries, when it's convenient to them." The senior State Department official cited by the newspaper said: "The human rights report focuses on core issues." What Happens Next It is not clear if the reports eventually transmitted to Congress and released to the public will mirror the drafts. The ones for El Salvador and Russia are marked "finalized," while the draft for Israel is marked "quality check," the Post reported.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dozens killed seeking aid in Gaza as Israel weighs further military action
DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip — At least 38 Palestinians were killed overnight and into Wednesday in the Gaza Strip while seeking aid from United Nations convoys and sites run by an Israeli-backed American contractor, according to local health officials. The Israeli military said it had fired warning shots when crowds approached its forces. Another 25 people, including several women and children, were killed in Israeli airstrikes, according to local hospitals in Gaza. The military said it only targets Hamas. The latest deaths came as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to announce further military action — and possibly plans for Israel to fully reoccupy Gaza. Experts say Israel's ongoing military offensive and blockade are already pushing the territory of some 2 million Palestinians into famine. A new U.N. report said only 1.5% of Gaza's cropland is accessible and undamaged. Another escalation of the nearly 22-month war could put the lives of countless Palestinians and around 20 living Israeli hostages at risk, and would draw fierce opposition both internationally and within Israel. Netanyahu's far-right coalition allies have long called for the war to be expanded, and for Israel to eventually take over Gaza, relocate much of its population and rebuild Jewish settlements there. U.S. President Donald Trump, asked by a reporter Tuesday whether he supported the reoccupation of Gaza, said he wasn't aware of the 'suggestion' but that 'it's going to be pretty much up to Israel.' Of the 38 Palestinians killed while seeking aid, at least 28 died in the Morag Corridor, an Israeli military zone in southern Gaza where U.N. convoys have been repeatedly overwhelmed by looters and desperate crowds in recent days, and where witnesses say Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire. The Israeli military said troops fired warning shots as Palestinians advanced toward them, and that it was not aware of any casualties. Nasser Hospital, which received the bodies, said another four people were killed in the Teina area, on a route leading to a site in southern Gaza run by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an American contractor. The Al-Awda Hospital said it received the bodies of six people killed near a GHF site in central Gaza. GHF said there were no violent incidents at or near its sites, and that the one in central Gaza was not open on Wednesday. It said the violence may have been related to the chaos around U.N. convoys. Two of the Israeli airstrikes hit Gaza City, in the north of the territory, killing 13 people there, including six children and five women, according to the Al-Ahli Hospital, which received the bodies. The Israeli military says it only targets fighters and blames civilian deaths on Hamas because its fighters are entrenched in heavily populated areas. Israel facilitated the establishment of four GHF sites in May after blocking the entry of all food, medicine and other goods for 2 1/2 months. Israeli and U.S. officials said a new system was needed to prevent Hamas from siphoning off humanitarian aid. The United Nations, which has delivered aid to hundreds of distribution points across Gaza throughout the war when conditions allow, has rejected the new system, saying it forces Palestinians to travel long distances and risk their lives for food, and that it allows Israel to control who gets aid, potentially using it to advance plans for further mass displacement. The U.N. human rights office said last week that some 1,400 Palestinians have been killed seeking aid since May, mostly near GHF sites but also along U.N. convoy routes where trucks have been overwhelmed by crowds. It says nearly all were killed by Israeli fire. This week, a group of U.N. special rapporteurs and independent human rights experts called for the GHF to be disbanded, saying it is 'an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas in serious breach of international law.' The experts work with the U.N. but do not represent the world body. The GHF called their statement 'disgraceful,' and urged the U.N. and other aid groups to work with it 'to maximize the amount of aid being securely delivered to the Palestinian people in Gaza.' The Israeli military says it has only fired warning shots when crowds threatened its forces, and GHF says its armed contractors have only used pepper spray and fired into the air on some occasions to prevent deadly crowding at its sites. Israel's air and ground war has destroyed nearly all of Gaza's food production capabilities, leaving its people reliant on international aid. A new report by the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.N. satellite center found that just 8.6% of Gaza's cropland is still accessible following sweeping Israeli evacuation orders in recent months. Just 1.5% is accessible and undamaged, it said. The military offensive and a breakdown in security have made it nearly impossible for anyone to safely deliver aid, and aid groups say recent Israeli measures to facilitate more assistance are far from sufficient. Hospitals recorded four more malnutrition-related deaths over the last 24 hours, bringing the total to 193 people, including 96 children, since the war began in October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Jordan said Israeli settlers blocked roads and hurled stones at a convoy of four trucks carrying aid bound for Gaza after they drove across the border into the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Israeli far-right activists have repeatedly sought to halt aid from entering Gaza. Jordanian government spokesperson Mohammed al-Momani condemned the attack, which he said had shattered the windshields of the trucks, according to the Jordanian state-run Petra News Agency. The Israeli military said security forces went to the scene to disperse the gathering and accompanied the trucks to their destination. Hamas-led fighters killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in the Oct. 7 attack and abducted another 251. Most of the hostages have been released in ceasefires or other deals. Of the 50 still held in Gaza, around 20 are believed to be alive. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed over 61,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not say how many were fighters or civilians but says around half were women and children. It is part of the now largely defunct Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals. The U.N. and independent experts consider it the most reliable source for the number of war casualties.
