Today, raise your voice and join the action

10 April marks six months since the Gaza ceasefire agreement was announced.

But Palestinians are still being killed, displaced and denied the conditions needed to survive.

What is being called a “ceasefire” is not delivering safety, dignity or recovery. Airstrikes continue. Humanitarian access remains obstructed. Humanitarian action is routinely undermined.  Families are still living in tents, struggling to find food, clean water and medical care. In the West Bank, settlement expansion, settler violence and forced displacement are intensifying.

That is why today we are joining a coordinated public action to say clearly:

This is not a ceasefire.
A real ceasefire means protection, access, accountability and survival.

Why this matters today

Today, various humanitarian actors released a humanitarian scorecard assessing the six-month mark of the Gaza “ceasefire” as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025).

The scorecard evaluates progress against the agreement’s own stated objectives — including civilian protection, humanitarian access, reconstruction, economic development and freedom of movement — and concludes that, on almost every metric, the ceasefire is failing the people of Gaza.

This confirms what Palestinians and humanitarian organisations have been warning for months: what exists in Gaza is not a ceasefire worthy of the name, but a reality of continued violence, deprivation and obstruction.

Since the ceasefire agreement was announced:

• More than 600 Palestinians have been killed 
• Well over 1,500 have been injured 
• Hundreds of bodies have been retrieved from under the rubble 
• People continue to struggle to access safe drinking water 
• Sewage is flowing in the streets 
• Less than 42% of health service points are operational, most only partially 
• More than 18,500 patients, including 3,800 children, need specialized care unavailable in Gaza because the health system has been devastated 

Meanwhile, global attention is shifting elsewhere. This means that the ground reality confronting Palestinians is less and less visible and risks being pushed out of public view once again.

Today’s action is about refusing that erasure.

What the scorecard calls for

• measures to enforce a definitive ceasefire across the whole of Gaza 
• an independent UN-mandated mechanism to monitor, verify and report violations 
• an independent and transparent system for processing and verifying humanitarian goods at Gaza’s crossings 
• the full and consistent opening of all crossing points into Gaza 
• a predictable flow of aid, including at least 600 humanitarian aid trucks per day 
• the restoration of the medical corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem 
• the immediate restoration of freedom of movement for Palestinians into and out of Gaza, including for urgent medical evacuations 
• the lifting of new Israeli restrictions on INGO registration and the guarantee that international organisations can operate freely across Gaza and the West Bank 
• concrete action by states that endorsed the New York Declaration in support of Gaza’s recovery and reconstruction 
• recovery plans that do not deepen confinement, forced displacement or social disintegration, but instead guarantee freedom of movement and access to property 

What we are calling for

• an end to bombings and attacks on civilians 
• full protection of civilian life 
• unimpeded humanitarian access 
• real consequences for violations by all parties 
• Palestinian-led recovery, dignity and justice 

Join the action today

Today, 10 April, you can take part in the collective social media mobilisation and help amplify the reality on the ground:

• post on your own channels 
• use or adapt the campaign materials already prepared 
• create your own content in your own voice 
• share the key facts and messages with your networks 
• amplify the newly released Gaza Scorecard 2026 

Suggested messages to post today

What is being called a ceasefire in Gaza exists in name only. People are still being bombed. Aid is still being blocked. Families are still being displaced. Hospitals are barely functioning. Children are still living in fear. This is not a ceasefire. Today, 10 April, join us in demanding a real one.

This is what a “ceasefire” looks like in Gaza: airstrikes before dawn, one meal a day, families waking up in tents, lack of clean water, aid trucks turned away, children living in fear. #ThisIsNotACeasefire

Six months ago, a ceasefire agreement was announced. But the violence has not stopped. Palestinian civilians are still being killed and injured. Gaza remains devastated by destruction and displacement. A ceasefire in name only cannot rebuild homes or protect families. #ThisIsNotACeasefire

Scorecard and briefing

Today’s mobilisation is strengthened by the release of the Gaza Scorecard 2026 and the media briefing held this morning with speakers including representatives from Oxfam, Save the Children, Refugees International and humanitarian medical experts.

Thanks to all the speakers who contributed to that briefing, and especially to Refugees International, Save the Children and Crisis Action for helping facilitate it.

Hashtags and tags

#CeasefireNOW
#ThisIsNotACeasefire
#LetAidIn

Instagram: @nowceasefire

Today, be part of it

Raise your voice.
Share the facts.
Join the action.

A ceasefire that does not protect life is not a ceasefire at all.

The post This Is Not a Ceasefire! Gazans continue to die as they struggle to survive appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

As humanitarian and human rights organisations that have worked for years in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, we are appalled by the Israeli Knesset’s decision to approve a bill that makes death penalty effectively mandatory in the West Bank and which will de facto apply exclusively to Palestinians.

On 30 March, the Knesset approved a bill, introduced by the party of Minister of National Security Ben-Gvir, expanding the use of the death penalty in both military and civilian courts. Although Israeli law has long provided for the death penalty for cases of genocide and wartime espionage, Israel has not carried out executions nor imposed death sentences since 1962. This new legislation not only marks a significant regression: it also does so by imposing capital punishment on de facto ethnic or national grounds and by diluting basic legal safeguards.

In the West Bank – excluding East Jerusalem – the law imposes the death penalty as the default sentence for those convicted of intentional killings classified as acts of terrorism under Israeli legislation, allowing life imprisonment – and life imprisonment only – in “special circumstances” that are not specified in law. Military courts may impose capital punishment by a simple majority, even without a prosecutorial request. Sentences cannot be commuted or pardoned and must be carried out within 90 days. Notably, Israeli settlers in the West Bank are explicitly excluded from the scope of this provision.

Within Israel, civilian courts may impose the death penalty or life imprisonment for intentional killings, if they are committed with the aim of “negating the existence of the State of Israel.” 

Therefore, while the law does not explicitly reference ethnicity or nationality, it is effectively designed to target Palestinians exclusively. It also introduces an exceptional execution regime by hanging, characterised by secrecy, and limited access to legal counsel and external oversight.

The European Union has consistently held that capital punishment is cruel, inhuman, and incompatible with human dignity under all circumstances. But even beyond this principled stance, the new Israeli law breaches basic safeguards recognised by the international community to protect the rights of those facing the death penalty. Its discriminatory nature and lack of due process guarantee, violate the right to life and protections enshrined in international humanitarian and human rights law, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Regulations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture.

Diplomatic engagement by the EU and its Member States urging Israel to reverse course has so far proven ineffective. This appalling development occurs amid an ongoing manmade humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, which a UN Commission of Inquiry, multiple Palestinian, Israeli and international organizations, and independent experts have characterised as constituting genocide, and against the backdrop of an accelerating de facto annexation of the West Bank, as acknowledged by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The adoption of the death penalty law is thus part of a pattern of discriminatory policies and practices against Palestinians, which in the same Advisory Opinion the International Court of Justice has found to violate Article 3 CERD, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.

In furtherance of these policies, Israel has already crossed established EU red lines: the advancement of settlement construction in the E1 area, which breaks the territorial contiguity of the West Bank, with the intent to prevent a future Palestinian state; the ban on UNRWA and attacks on its facilities, including schools and clinics built and run with EU contributions; the expulsion of international NGOs through restrictive registration procedures; forced evictions of Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem; forced displacement of tens of thousands of Palestinians and widespread demolitions of Palestinian homes and infrastructure in the West Bank, including EU-funded projects; persistent impunity for abuses by Israeli security forces and state-backed settler violence; reports of widespread and systemic torture and mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners; restrictions on religious freedoms; attacks on journalists; and denial of access to EU officials.

As also recalled by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kallas in her statement of 31 March, the EU-Israel Association Agreement establishes respect for democratic principles as an essential element of EU-Israel relations. A review conducted by the EU in June 2025 based on Article 2 of the Agreement found Israel in breach of its human rights obligations for serious abuses against Palestinians and violations of the laws of war, both in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Nine months on, the time for action is long overdue. The European Union must uphold its stated principles and legal obligations by finally suspending, as a minimum immediate measure, the trade component of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and adopting other measures, as proposed by President von der Leyen in September 2025.

Signatories:

1. 11.11.11
2. ACT Alliance EU
3. Act Church of Sweden 
4. ActionAid International
5. Amnesty International
6. American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
7. Bystanders No More
8. Caritas Europa
9. Caritas MONA (Middle East and North Africa)
10. Child Rights International Network (CRIN)
11. Children Not Numbers
12. Christian Aid
13. CIDSE – International Family of Catholic Social Justice Organisations
14. CNCD-11.11.11
15. Cooperazione Internazionale Sud-Sud (CISS)
16. DanChurchAid
17. 80:20 Educating and Acting for a Better World
18. EuroMed Rights
19. Finn Church Aid
20. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P)
21. Human Rights Watch
22. Insecurity Insight
23. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
24. Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH)
25. Norwegian Church Aid
26. Oxfam
27. Pax Christi International
28. Public Commitee Against Torture in Israel
29. Trócaire
30. United Against Inhumanity
31. Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC) 

The post Israel/OPT: Adoption of death penalty law by the Israeli Knesset requires urgent EU measures – Joint statement appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

UAI welcomes Chinese shuttle diplomacy that has resulted in Pakistan and Afghanistan agreeing to a ceasefire, allowing the citizens of both countries to enjoy Eid in a respectful and peaceful manner.

UAI also greatly appreciates the role of China—currently the penholder on Afghanistan in the UN Security Council (UNSC)—at the multilateral level, as well as its call on all “relevant countries to unfreeze and return the assets of Afghanistan’s central bank.” The seizure of Afghanistan’s sovereign external reserves—the property of the Afghan people—by the United States and some European allies occurred shortly after the return of the Taliban to Kabul in August 2021 and the withdrawal of US and allied forces.

This ruinous measure was a significant factor in cratering the economy and undermining the banking system. Described by UAI as collective punishment, it has contributed to alarming levels of poverty and debt, the collapse of livelihoods, and the use of adverse coping mechanisms such as the exchange of young girls in marriage or the sale of body parts, such as kidneys, to stave off hunger.

Underlining the need for increased, rather than reduced, support for humanitarian action, Chinese representatives at a recent UNSC meeting called on “traditional donors, particularly those countries that bear historical responsibility toward Afghanistan, to resume and increase their aid” as soon as possible.

China’s diplomacy for long-term peace and stability ‘a rare, trustworthy public good,’ says expert
Shen Sheng.

For further information, see the following link:
China calls for Afghanistan-Pakistan ceasefire, ‘serving as stabilizing anchor for regional security in turbulent world’
Published in The Global Times. March 18, 2026 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202603/1357145.shtml

The post China Champions the Unfreezing of Afghanistan’s Funds appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

International panel event
Thursday 19 March 2026
6:00–7:30 pm
Hosted by the Diplomacy Society of University College London (UCL), in collaboration with United Against Inhumanity (UAI)

United Against Inhumanity (UAI) and the UCL Diplomacy Society are pleased to invite students, researchers, activists and all those interested in international affairs and human rights to a timely panel discussion on the crisis in Myanmar, including the situation of the Rohingya.

This event builds on earlier collaborations between UAI and the UCL Diplomacy Society, including a joint panel in January 2023 and a workshop held in September 2025 with the support of the United Nations Association UK. Since then, important political, diplomatic and humanitarian developments have made this conversation even more urgent.

Why this event matters

Myanmar remains at the centre of one of the most serious and neglected crises in the world. The armed conflict continues, the Rohingya remain displaced and denied justice, and humanitarian needs are deepening both inside Myanmar and across the region.

At the same time, the international context is shifting rapidly. Aid budgets are being cut. New regional and global political alignments are taking shape. Hearings at the International Court of Justice have continued. Elections in Myanmar and Bangladesh have raised new questions about legitimacy, power and regional responsibility. Meanwhile, international actors including ASEAN, the UN and neighbouring states are under growing pressure to respond more effectively.

This event offers a space to reflect on these developments and to discuss what they mean in practice — diplomatically, politically and humanitarily.

What we will discuss

The panel will explore questions including:

• What is the likely trajectory of the armed conflict in Myanmar?
• What role can the UN, ASEAN and other international actors play?
• Is there any realistic prospect of ending military rule and moving towards democratic accountability?
• How far can the international humanitarian system respond to the crisis?
• What changes may emerge in refugee policy in Bangladesh and other host countries?
• Can cooperation between IOM and UNHCR be improved in support of Rohingya refugees?
• Is Rohingya repatriation a viable objective, or should other strategies be prioritised?
• What advocacy opportunities exist at this moment?

Panelists

The discussion will feature:

Laetitia van den Assum
Former Ambassador of the Netherlands and member of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, chaired by Kofi Annan (2016–2017)

Lucky Karim
Advocate with Refugees International and founder of Refugee Women for Peace and Justice

Dr Jeff Crisp
Former UNHCR official and UAI volunteer

Ewen Macleod
Independent Consultant

Chair: Dr Melanie Garson, UCL (TBC)

Join us

The event will take place in person at the UCL campus and is aimed especially at students from UCL and neighbouring universities, including King’s and LSE. Some guest speakers may join online if they are unable to travel to London.

The discussion will also be live-streamed on Zoom, and a recording will be made available afterwards.

Whether you are following developments in Myanmar closely or looking to better understand one of the defining humanitarian and diplomatic crises of our time, we warmly encourage you to join us.

The post Beyond Silence: Myanmar, the Rohingya, and the Politics of Inhumanity appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

On Thursday, 5 March 2026, United Against Inhumanity will co-host, with the Geneva Graduate Institute, a public roundtable asking a pertinent and urgent question:

Economic Warfare: Do Afghan Lives Matter?

📍 Geneva Graduate Institute, Maison de la Paix
🕕 18:30–20:00 CET
🌍 Hybrid: In-person & online

Afghanistan may no longer dominate headlines — but the impact of sanctions, frozen assets, coerced returns, and economic restrictions is shaping daily life for millions.
Behind policy language lie very real consequences: collapsed livelihoods, shrinking public services, deepening poverty, and mounting vulnerability — particularly for women and girls.
This roundtable brings together leading experts and Afghan voices to examine:
The impact of seized sovereign reserves
The long-term effects of sanctions
The consequences of forced refugee returns
The intersection of economic pressure and Taliban governance

Speakers include:
Graeme Smith, Lead author ICG report “After the Aid Axe: Charting a Path to Self-reliance in Afghanistan”
Grégoire Mallard, Geneva Graduate Institute
Alessandro Monsutti, Geneva Graduate Institute
Norah Niland, United Against Inhumanity
Hassina Syed, Afghan entrepreneur

Moderated by Antonio Donini, United Against Inhumanity

This discussion forms part of UAI’s ongoing campaign to release Afghanistan’s sovereign, external reserves and challenge economic policies that perpetuate harm and suffering.

The post Economic Warfare: Do Afghan lives matter? appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

The clock is ticking on a large part of the humanitarian response sustaining civilians in the
occupied Palestinian territory.

Thirty-seven international aid organisations have been ordered by Israeli authorities to cease
operations in the occupied Palestinian territory by the end of February under revised Israeli
registration rules. With efforts to force closures imminent, a group of leading humanitarian
organisations have taken the unprecedented step of jointly petitioning the Israeli High Court to
suspend the measures before irreparable harm is done to civilians who rely on their assistance.
On 30 December 2025, the affected organisations were formally notified that their Israeli
registrations would expire the following day and that they would have 60 days to wind down
activities in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The notification letter stated
that the decision could only be overturned if organisations completed the full registration
process, with which they cannot legally or ethically comply.

Efforts to force closures could begin as early as 28 February 2026. The effect would be
immediate, extending well beyond individual organisations to the wider humanitarian system. In
Gaza, families remain dependent on external assistance amid continuing restrictions on aid
entry and renewed strikes in densely populated areas. In the West Bank, including East
Jerusalem, military incursions, demolitions, displacement, settlement expansion and settler
violence are driving rising humanitarian needs.

Palestinian Authority registration provides the lawful basis for international NGOs to operate in
Palestinian territory. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, an occupying power must facilitate
relief for civilians under its control. Conditioning humanitarian presence on sweeping
administrative demands, including the transfer of comprehensive national staff lists, alongside
vague and politicised grounds for denial, risks disrupting life-saving services and eroding the
obligation to ensure civilian welfare under occupation.

The demand to transfer personal data raises acute security and legal risks. It exposes national
staff to potential retaliation and undermines established data protection and confidentiality
safeguards. For European organisations in particular, compliance would create serious legal
and contractual liabilities. More broadly, such requirements set a precedent that could chill
principled humanitarian engagement in highly politicised contexts.
International NGOs have proposed practical alternatives, including independent sanctions
screening and donor-audited vetting systems, that preserve both compliance and staff
protection without disclosing personal data. No substantive response has been provided.
Enforcement has meanwhile begun in practice, including blocked supplies and denial of visas
and access for foreign staff.
Alongside UN agencies and Palestinian partners, international NGOs support or implement the
delivery of more than half of all food assistance in Gaza, 60 per cent of field hospitals’
operations, nearly three quarters of shelter and non-food item activities, all inpatient treatment
for children suffering severe acute malnutrition and 30 per cent of emergency education
services, in addition to funding over half of explosive hazard clearance.
The petition seeks an urgent Interim Injunction to suspend expiry of registrations and prevent
further enforcement pending judicial review. The petitioning organisations contend that these
administrative measures constitute an effort to curtail established humanitarian operations in a
manner incompatible with the obligations of an occupying power under international
humanitarian law.
Governments must act urgently to prevent implementation of these measures and to ensure that
humanitarian relief remains principled, independent, and unhindered. If these measures take
effect, aid will be impeded not because needs have eased, but because it has been rendered
optional, conditional, or politicised. At a moment when civilians depend on assistance to survive,
that outcome would carry immediate and irreversible human consequences.
Petitioners and supporting organizations

All We Can

• ActionAid Australia
• Alianza Por La Solidaridad
• Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA)
• Bystanders No More
• CADUS e.V.
• Choose Love
• Christian Aid
• Churches for Middle East Peace
• DanChurchAid
• Danish Refugee Council
• Diakonia, Sweden
• Humanity & Inclusion – Handicap International
• medico international
• Middle East Children’s Alliance
• Movimiento por la Paz, Desarme y Libertad – MPDL
• Muslim Aid
• Nonviolent Peaceforce
• Norwegian Church Aid
• Norwegian Refugee Council
• Oxfam
• Pax Christi International
• Première Urgence Internationale (PUI)
• Pro Peace
• Refugees International
• Start Network
• Tearfund
• Terre des hommes Italy
• Terre des hommes Lausanne (Tdh)
• United Against Inhumanity
• Weltfriedensdienst e.V. (WFD; World Peace Service)
  

Notes to Editor:

Executive Summary – Joint Petition against the Inter-Ministerial Team:

Introduction
This Petition is filed by 17 leading international humanitarian aid organizations (INGOs) and the
Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA) which form the critical infrastructure
for providing medical services, food, and water to the civilian population in the West Bank and
Gaza. The Petitioners challenge the Respondents’ December 2025 decision, which orders the
“termination of their activities” due to their refusal to provide personal contact details (Nominal
Lists) of thousands of local employees. The Petition presents an unprecedented “legal
deadlock” in which the demands of the Israeli administration directly contradict international
privacy laws and the fundamental principles of humanitarian neutrality.

Urgent Request for an Interim Injunction
The Petitioners seek an interim Injunction to preserve the status quo and prevent the expiration
of their registration, the deportation of foreign staff and cessation of all activities until a final
ruling is reached. It is argued that the “Balance of Convenience” clearly favors the Petitioners:
while the Respondents will suffer no harm by maintaining the current situation, the cessation of
the organizations’ activities will lead to a humanitarian collapse and irreparable harm to the right
to life and health of hundreds of thousands of individuals in need.

Legal Arguments

A. Breach of the Inter-Ministerial Team’s Basic Obligations as an Administrative Authority

The Respondents’ conduct is tainted by administrative laches (undue delay) and a lack of good
faith. The Respondents delayed their response to registration requests for many months while
creating a false representation that the applications were under review. These draconian
requirements were imposed without granting a Right to be Heard and without meaningful
dialogue, violating the heightened duty of fairness applicable to the authority.

B. The Requirement for Employees’ Personal Details (Nominal Lists)
· B.1 GDPR Regulation and the “Adequacy” Issue: The Petitioners, who are bound by European
law, demonstrate that transferring employee data from the Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt)
to Israeli security authorities constitutes a criminal and administrative offense. Since the
European Union’s “Adequacy” decision regarding Israel does not apply to the territories, the
organizations are exposed to heavy fines and tort claims. The Petition relies on the Schrems II
precedent of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which prohibits data transfer to
jurisdictions lacking independent judicial oversight over security agencies.
· B.2 The Demand for Employee Details and Violation of International Law: The requirement to
provide personal phone numbers and contact details of the entire staff violates the principle of
“Data Minimization” and endangers the personal safety of the employees. Turning humanitarian
organizations into an information-gathering arm for a party to the conflict stands in total
contradiction to the principle of neutrality.

C. The Decision for a Sweeping Cessation of Activity is Void Due to Illegality
· C.1 Decision Lacking Authority (Ultra Vires): The Team’s government mandate is limited to
technical registration and visas. Assuming the authority to order the termination of an
international organization’s activities is an extreme deviation from authority without an explicit
legal source.
· C.2 Deviation from Israel’s Sovereignty (Oslo Accords): Pursuant to the Civil Annex of the Oslo
Accords, the authority to register and manage NGOs operating in Palestinian Authority
territories was transferred to the Palestinians. Israel lacks the authority to order the closure of
these entities.

D. Regulation Article 8.4 – Voidness due to Lack of Authority and Breach of International Law
The Petitioners challenge the article in the regulation that allows for the suspension of
registration based on vague “security considerations” without a duty of specification or
reasoning.
· D.1 Applicability of Article 63 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: This article imposes an
obligation on the Occupying Power to allow relief societies to continue their work. The Petition
relies on expert legal opinions establishing that this provision fully applies to International NGOs
(INGOs) performing essential humanitarian functions.

E. Extreme Unreasonableness and Lack of Proportionality

The decision fails the “Proportionality Stricto Sensu” test: the limited administrative-security
benefit of collecting phone numbers is dwarfed by the catastrophic human damage caused by
withholding aid from the population. The Respondents refused to consider “less restrictive
means,” such as cross-referencing names against public global terror lists.

F. Violation of Israel’s Obligations to Facilitate Humanitarian Aid

As an Occupying Power, Israel bears positive obligations (Articles 55, 56, and 59 of the
Convention) to ensure the supply of food and medical services. Arbitrary and bureaucratic
interference with organizations fulfilling these duties constitutes a blatant violation of
international law and the directives of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The post Humanitarian organisations petition Israeli High Court as closure deadline approaches appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

Having worked for years among refugees, people who fall in the interstices of state protection and need international protection, has led me to think critically about the nation-state, which has become today the sole political system considered as legitimate for organising collective life. The refugee might indeed be the political figure of our times, just as the citizen was during the French Revolution. It is a source of existential anxiety for nation-states, considering that the principle of non-refoulement – so central to international refugee law – represents a limitation of the prevailing doctrine of state sovereignty, constructed on the right to control a territory and its population and therefore to exclude non-nationals.

I had always considered that Jewish diasporic history offered a source of inspiration to imagine transnational forms of political participation. Indeed, the very notion of diaspora invites us to think beyond the normative framework of the nation-state and resist against the ideology of cultural homogeneity. It opens the possibility of transversal connections, through which separate places effectively become linked together by multiple attachments and social ties cutting across national borders. It might be a conceptual alternative to the prevailing model of the nation-state, based on the triad of population-language-territory, which restricts political rights to people supposed to share a cultural identity and dwell in a delimited piece of land. By contrast, Zionism endorses the universalisation of the nation-state as the only entity able to offer protection to people and harmoniously organise social life. 

For years, I tried to keep a certain distance from Israel and Palestine. Conducting research on Afghanistan and among Afghans, I felt I already had my load of human suffering. But I could not decline the invitation through Basil Farraj, a former PhD candidate of the Institute who is currently professor at Birzeit University, to participate in the inaugural Ramallah Congress on the Decolonisation of Palestine, jointly conveyed by Progressive International, the Ibrahim Abu-Lughod Institute of International Studies at Birzeit University, and Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network. I travelled in the region between the 8^th and the 17^th of November 2025. 

Some twenty delegates – parliamentarians, journalists, lawyers, scholars – from Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States participated. Crossing the border from Jordan was already an experience that introduced us to the prevailing ambiance. We had been informed of the possibility that our electronic devices might be checked by the Israeli border guards. As a consequence, we were advised to purge our cell phones from anything that could be related to the Congress and remove apps that could be seen with suspicion, such as Signal and Telegram. This set the tone. And indeed, during the whole trip, the omnipresence of the surveillance technology implemented by the Israeli state provoked in me a feeling of unease that I never had before, even in undemocratic places where I travelled, such as Afghanistan, Iran, or Syria.

As of the first day in Ramallah, we were able to visualise the political topography of occupation and colonisation. Every hill surrounding the city was occupied by Israeli settlements, which behind high fences looked like military outposts. Like a scar in the landscape, the ugly concrete wall separates local villagers from their agricultural lands. Its security purpose did not appear clearly. Palestinian society is under siege. I was overwhelmed with a sense of asphyxia. 

For the following two days, we attended a conference on the campus of Birzeit University. A variety of topics were addressed ranging from settler colonialism, the economic dimension of occupation, the right to education, access to land and agriculture, the role but also the limitation of international law, the principles inspiring the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement. Some presentations were more analytical, some others more everday but poignant testimonies of what it means to live and study under occupation. Unlike in Afghanistan, the political administration and humanitarian apparatus were left outside the scope of the discussion by successive speakers. The Palestinian Authority appeared discredited and UNRWA was not considered as very relevant when it came to political solution.

A smaller group of delegates, of which I was a part, extended their stay to travel throughout occupied Palestinian territory. With the Bisan Center, a Palestinian civil society organisation that promotes among other things community development programmes, we had the opportunity to visit the region of Tulkarm, in the north of the West Bank. We met farmers who showed us their vegetable gardens and olive groves. They described the raids conducted by the settlers. These are more and more frequent and violent since 7 October 2023.

Settlers burn trees and poison the land to render it unsuitable for agriculture. The landscape conveys a clear picture of dispossession. This includes multiple check points, yellow and the orange gates that may be closed without prior notice which renders every journey a random venture, the omnipresence of settlements overlooking Palestinian villages. We pass billboards with the inscription “No Future in Palestine” in Arabic, sometimes illustrated by an image of Palestinians being expelled from Gaza. Like the thousands of Israeli flags bordering some roads, it is a campaign by a settler group whose final objective towards Palestinians is all too evident. And indeed, we also had the opportunity to see the refugee camps of Tulkarm and Nur Shams, emptied manu militari from their populations in the summer of 2025. As night fell, they appeared as black holes at the edge of the town.

With colleagues from Sabeel, an ecumenical liberation theology center, we toured Jerusalem and Bethlehem. We also went to the Bedouin village of ‘Umm al-Kheir in the South Hebron Hills. Forcedly displaced from the Negev in 1948, these families purchased some land on the southern edges of the West Bank. After all these years, they are now encircled by Israeli settlers, who are becoming more and more aggressive. During our visit, some Israeli vehicles started to circulate around us while filming us through the windows. Eventually, two young women and a man, fully armed, came to indicate that we were in a military zone. After some tense exchanges, another man arrived. He shouted at us, hostilely, that we had 4 minutes to clear off. Like his colleague, his face was covered. He wore a balaclava and sunglasses, but his uniform had no military insignia indicating his Unit. When we left, he followed us on the road for 20 minutes. 

I will keep a vivid memory of many encounters, be it with a Jewish peace activist who considers that the humanist legacy of Judaism has to be protected from the Israeli apartheid regime and genocidal action, or with the director of an organic farm saying that Palestinians do not just want peace but want freedom. My trip to a dystopian land, a giant field for testing surveillance technologies and weaponry, was quite traumatizing but also uplifting given the fortitude of those I met. Facts are so crude that they speak for themselves. But I was equally shaken by my return to Switzerland. The complicity of Western authorities is no longer possible to ignore. Peace and justice are not a means to an end but an imperative human right. For Ilan Pappé, the great Israeli historian, the ideological project of the Israeli state is collapsing from within.

Relying on the principle that only people supposed to share a cultural identity and dwell in a delimited piece of land may live harmoniously together, the two-state solution enshrines the prevailing model of the nation-state that I mentioned at the beginning of this brief article.

Can’t the Holy Land be a place where the meaning of living together is reinvented in an inclusive way?

Don’t we all have a responsibility towards Palestinians as well as Israelis?

I am reminded of Omar El Akkad’s recent book: “One day, everyone will have always been against this”. Could this be today?

About the author: Professor Monsutti works at the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, in Geneva.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author of the presentation and do not necessarily represent the views of United Against Inhumanity (UAI).

The post “Travelling in a Dystopian Land: Occupied Palestine” by Alessandro Monsutti. appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

The Rohingya are a stateless Muslim minority group from Myanmar who have been subjected to decades of repression and expulsion. While the plight of those living in countries such as Bangladesh, India and Malaysia has been well documented, much less is known about those who reside in Saudi Arabia. This blog analyses the limited evidence available.

Introduction

For many years, members of Myanmar’s Rohingya population have travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking economic opportunity and refuge from persecution. But these goals have proven to be increasingly elusive.
Restrictions on movement and residency have intensified, increasing the Rohingya’s exposure to exploitation and deepening the precarity of daily life. Lacking legal protection and stable pathways to regularization, they face growing uncertainty, including, for some, the prospect of detention and deportation.
These developments reveal a broader pattern in which official ambiguity derives not from an administrative oversight but as a central feature and failure of governance for the Rohingya in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia’s Rohingya population

The Rohingya presence in Saudi Arabia dates back to the 1950s, when small numbers travelled by land and sea to Mecca to perform Hajj. Larger waves followed in the early 1970s after violence perpetrated against them in Myanmar. In 1973, King Faisal granted residency to Rohingya fleeing persecution, allowing them to work, live and travel within the Kingdom.
Many settled in under-served neighbourhoods of Mecca and Medina, forming close-knit networks that expanded over time as established families helped relatives to obtain visas through Saudi sponsors. Most work in low-paying roles such as street vending, cleaning, portering and other forms of unskilled labour, with the more fortunate amongst them becoming drivers.

For many, these arrangements initially appeared to offer a pathway to stability. Generations born in the Kingdom were able to maintain residency, a status that was often perceived as a type of informal citizenship. These arrangements, however, relied on administrative discretion rather than legal guarantees.

In terms of numbers, estimates vary widely. Several suggest that between 400,000 and 500,000 Rohingya are resident in the Kingdom, while the 2022 Saudi census recorded 163,700 people originating from Myanmar. In 2017, the authorities reported issuing approximately 250,000 special residency permits to Rohingya.

These divergent numbers reflect the wider challenge of Rohingya recognition and representation in Saudi Arabia. The absence of consistent registration mechanisms, combined with ambiguous legal status, contributes to persistent uncertainty over the size and visibility of the population.

Saudi refugee governance

Saudi Arabia is one of 44 states that are not signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. It has no domestic legal framework for the recognition or protection of refugees. As Maja Janmyr and Charlotte Lysa note, the Saudi approach is best described as ad hoc, including the provision of temporary residency permits, limited access to basic services such as health and education, and short-term integration in the labour market.

In that respect, Saudi policy is closely tied to the kafala or sponsorship system. This framework reinforces the temporary nature of migration and shifts administrative responsibility onto employers, who exercise significant control over foreign workers.

Thus, in 2005, the Saudi Interior Minister stated that the Rohingya were “Burmese Muslims” who had come to perform Hajj but could not return, granting them residency and permission to work. Employers were encouraged to recruit from the Rohingya community, an arrangement later formalised by a Ministry of Labour policy that allowed employers to hire four times as many Rohingya as other foreign workers.

In 2013, the government established a committee to regulate the residency status of the Rohingya, but the resulting framework applied only to those who had arrived before 2008. Subsequent policy amendments expanded the authority of employers under the kafala system, enabling the Rohingya to be detained and deported if they attempted to work for anyone other than their officially recognised sponsor. As a result, some had no choice but to surrender their passports to their employers and to work under exploitative conditions.

Saudi Arabia has a distinct vocabulary in relation to the Rohingya and other refugees, referring to them not as such but as “guests,” “visitors,” or “brothers,” drawing on the language of Islamic hospitality and solidarity. This narrative serves several functions. It presents Saudi Arabia as a generous host, implies that the Rohingya displaced are receiving a favour rather than exercising rights, reinforces the expectation that all refugees are temporary regardless of how long they have lived in the Kingdom, and obscures the state’s legal responsibilities toward those in need of international protection.

Rights and citizenship

When the Rohingya first arrived in Saudi Arabia in the 1950s, Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, many believed that long-term residency would lead to some form of regularised status or even citizenship. According to one Pakistani embassy official interviewed in 2012, this expectation contributed to the country’s decision to stop renewing passports for Rohingya who had historically been documented as Pakistani nationals.

The absence of a secure nationality has left many Rohingya families in an increasingly precarious position. Under Saudi nationality law, children born to Rohingya fathers and Saudi mothers are not automatically eligible for citizenship, reinforcing patterns of inherited statelessness across generations.

Regional dynamics also play a role. Bangladesh, whose large migrant workforce in Saudi Arabia depends on the kafala system, has limited leverage to reject Rohingya deportations. Saudi authorities have reportedly used this labour dependency in negotiations over accepting deported Rohingya, underscoring how migration governance intersects with statelessness and economic interdependence.

Saudi Arabia’s ad-hoc approach has left many Rohingya in a condition of ‘permanent temporariness’, with longstanding residents unsure of whether and to what extent any of the rights and permissions they hold today will still apply tomorrow.

In March 2017, the Saudi Interior Ministry launched the ‘Homeland without illegals’ campaign, part of a wider effort to curb irregular migration and enforce residency rules. Since then, the authorities have carried out extensive raids to identify, detain and deport individuals deemed to lack valid documentation.

Detention and deportation

Many of these operations have occurred in Rohingya-populated neighbourhoods of Mecca, with reports of officers conducting raids while dressed as local residents. Businesses in these areas have also been targeted, while identity checks at roadside checkpoints have become more frequent. These practices have generated heightened uncertainty, prompting many Rohingya to rely on encrypted messaging apps to communicate with each other and to avoid digital surveillance.
Tensions have been heightened by clashes involving different migrant communities, private citizens and the security forces, with some reports suggesting that such incidents have been exacerbated by an inadequate police response.
Those detained during police operations are typically transferred to large detention centres, the most prominent being the Shumaisi facility near the Jeddah–Mecca highway. The complex reportedly holds up to 32,000 people and spans more than 2.5 million square metres, with men detained separately from women and children.

Upon arrival, detainees have their belongings, including passports and documents, confiscated. Many report receiving little information about their cases or the duration of detention, with some held for several years.
Concerns about the treatment of detainees in Shumaisi have been raised for more than a decade. A 2015 Human Rights Watch report documented inadequate food and sanitation and instances of violence by guards. Videos circulated by detainees show Rohingya prisoners engaging in a hunger strike. During one 2019 protest, seven out of roughly 650 Rohingya detainees were hospitalised. Other accounts describe immigration officers threatening to withhold water, blankets and clothing.

For many detainees, the primary motivation for protest is the desire to be released so they can resume work and support families abroad. Yet the statelessness of the Rohingya severely limits their options. Appeals to the consulates of India, Nepal and Pakistan are routinely rejected. Bangladeshi diplomats sometimes facilitate exit in exchange for a reported fee of $500 to $700, while other detainees resort to informal payments in the hope of securing their release.
Prolonged confinement contributes to significant psychological distress. A report by Middle East Eye highlights the anxiety produced by unclear legal procedures and uncertainty over release, with detainees describing a persistent sense of insecurity about their future.

Upon release, individuals undergo biometric registration, including fingerprint and retinal scans, which are added to a national database that bars undocumented workers from re-entering the Kingdom. While release provides relief for some, others face long-term consequences, including loss of livelihood and separation from community networks established over decades.

Despite the conditions reported by detainees, the official discourse portrays those held in Shumaisi as violators of immigration and residency laws. The official Saudi Gazette has also described the facility as a well-resourced centre providing food, healthcare and administrative support to those awaiting deportation.
Deportations are publicly framed as “repatriations” to countries such as Myanmar, Bangladesh and Pakistan. For many Rohingya, however, these states do not represent places of origin or citizenship, raising further concerns about their rights. Saudi government statements also emphasise the financial cost of deportation, reinforcing a narrative in which enforcement is presented as both necessary and burdensome.

The role of UNHCR

Saudi Arabia is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and has no formal procedure for the recognition of refugee status. UNHCR works in a restrictive environment and in close cooperation with Saudi authorities, limiting its ability to intervene on behalf of people falling under its mandate.

These constraints are reflected in the organisation’s public documents. Its 2024 factsheet on Saudi Arabia, for example, portrays the country as a “longtime partner” and emphasises the Kingdom’s contributions to humanitarian and development programmes. The Rohingya in Saudi Arabia are, the factsheet reports, treated “generally tolerant.”
This diplomatic language is typical of UNHCR’s engagement in non-signatory contexts, where the organisation’s activities depend heavily on maintaining constructive relations with the state.

As Lysa notes, UNHCR’s role in Saudi Arabia consists primarily of advocacy and monitoring. Its ability to register or provide direct assistance to refugees is limited, as is its access to people who are detained or at risk of deportation. These considerations all reinforce the ambiguous status of the country’s Rohingya refugees.

Conclusion

The absence of formal refugee recognition and rights in Saudi Arabia is not merely an administrative oversight, nor is it a refusal to adopt legal frameworks associated with Western legal traditions. It forms part of a governance model that allows the state to have a wide degree of discretionary authority over the Rohingya and other residents who are not Saudi citizens.

To enhance their protection, the Rohingya in Saudi Arabia should be formally recognised as refugees by the country’s authorities, rather than being broadly categorised as ‘Burmese’ or as ‘Muslim migrants from Myanmar’. Such formal recognition would improve the ability of the Rohingya to exercise rights and access services, while reducing the risk of them being subjected to punitive treatment.

Legal recognition as refugees should be accompanied by mechanisms that protect Rohingya from employer abuse, passport confiscation and arbitrary loss of residency. Establishing clearer pathways to regularisation would reduce the ‘permanent temporariness’ that currently characterises their situation. On no account should members of Saudi Arabia’s Rohingya population be deported to Myanmar.

While recognising the constraints under which UNHCR has to work, the organisation should advocate with the Saudi authorities on behalf of the Rohingya, speaking out in public when necessary to challenge the country’s policy of strategic ambiguity. In accordance with the global commitments it has made in relation to refugee consultation and representation, UNHCR should support the establishment of Rohingya-led organisations, ensuring that their perspectives and protection priorities are brought to the attention of the authorities.

About the Author: Sumayya Ferdous is a humanitarian practitioner and researcher specialising in Rohingya refugee protection and displacement issues. Her work focuses on gender, child protection, and advocacy for the rights and wellbeing of displaced communities.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author of the presentation and do not necessarily represent the views of United Against Inhumanity (UAI).

The post “When ambiguity is policy: Saudi Arabia and its Rohingya population” by Sumayya Ferdous appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

International humanitarian organizations operating in the occupied Palestinian territory warn that Israel’s recent registration measures threaten to halt INGO operations at a time when civilians face acute and widespread humanitarian need, despite the ceasefire in Gaza. On 30 December, 37 INGOs received official notification that their registrations would expire on 31 December 2025. This triggers a 60-day period after which INGOs would be required to cease operations in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

INGOs are integral to the humanitarian response, working in partnership with the United Nations and Palestinian civil society organizations to deliver lifesaving assistance at scale. The United Nations, the Humanitarian Country Team, and donor governments have repeatedly affirmed that INGOs are indispensable to humanitarian and development operations and have urged Israel to reverse course.

Despite the ceasefire, humanitarian needs remain extreme. In Gaza, one in four families survives on just one meal a day. Winter storms have displaced tens of thousands, leaving 1.3 million people in urgent need of shelter. INGOs deliver more than half of all food assistance in Gaza, run or support 60 per cent of field hospitals, implement nearly three-quarters of shelter and non-food item activities, and provide all treatment for children with severe acute malnutrition. Their removal would close health facilities, halt food distributions, collapse shelter pipelines, and cut off life-saving care. In the West Bank, ongoing military raids and settler violence continue to drive displacement. Further restrictions on INGOs would sharply reduce the reach and continuity of lifesaving assistance at a critical moment.

Recent efforts to assess the impact of deregistering INGOs through selective metrics do not capture how humanitarian assistance is delivered in practice. Humanitarian access must be measured by whether civilians receive the right assistance, in the right place, at the right time.

INGOs operate under strict donor-mandated compliance frameworks, including audits, counterterror financing controls, and due diligence requirements that meet international standards. More than 500 humanitarian workers have been killed since 7 October 2023. INGOs cannot transfer sensitive personal data to a party to the conflict since this would breach humanitarian principles, duty of care and data protection obligations. False narratives delegitimize humanitarian organizations, endanger staff, and undermine the delivery of assistance.

This is not a technical or administrative matter, but a deliberate policy choice with foreseeable consequences. If registrations are allowed to lapse, the Israeli government will obstruct humanitarian assistance at scale. Humanitarian access is not optional, conditional, or political. It is a legal obligation under international humanitarian law. This move would also set a dangerous precedent by extending Israeli authority over humanitarian operations in the occupied Palestinian territory, contrary to the internationally recognized legal framework governing the territory and the role of the Palestinian Authority.

We call on the Government of Israel to immediately halt deregistration proceedings and lift measures obstructing humanitarian assistance. We urge donor governments to use all available leverage to secure the suspension and reversal of these actions. Independent, principled humanitarian operations must be protected to ensure civilians can receive the assistance they urgently need.

Note to editors:

• The role of INGOs is irreplaceable across all humanitarian sectors:
  • Health: INGOs run or support approximately 60 percent of Gaza’s field hospitals. Deregistration would result in the immediate closure of roughly one in three health facilities.
  • Food security: INGOs delivered more than half of all food assistance in 2024, including the majority of cooked-meal distribution points.
  • Shelter: INGOs have implemented nearly three-quarters of all shelter and non-food item activities. Approximately 600,000 shelter items are currently in INGO supply pipelines.
  • Water and sanitation: INGOs deliver 42 percent of all WASH services, including outbreak prevention and response for acute watery diarrhea.
  • Nutrition: INGOs support all five stabilization centers treating children with severe acute malnutrition, representing 100 percent of Gaza’s treatment capacity.
  • Mine action: INGOs provide more than half of all funding for explosive hazard clearance. Removal of INGOs would result in capacity reductions of up to 100 percent.
  • Education: INGOs run or support around 30 percent of emergency education activities, which already reach only a limited proportion of the school-age population.
• Principled humanitarian organizations cannot transfer sensitive personal data of national staff or their families. This is consistent with humanitarian principles, duty-of-care obligations, and global data-protection standards applied across all contexts.
• Restrictions on INGOs also directly affect Palestinian and Israeli partner organizations, undermining local response capacity, disrupting funding flows, and weakening community-based service delivery across sectors.
• INGOs are legally authorized to operate and remain committed to delivering humanitarian assistance through UN coordination systems and local partnerships, while continuing to seek the removal of measures that obstruct aid delivery.

Signatories:

1. Acs
2. Action Against Hunger (ACF)
3. Action for Humanity
4. ActionAid
5. American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
6. Amnesty International
7. AOI – Cooperazione e Solidarietà internazionale – Italia
8. CADUS e.V.
9. Campaign for the Children of Palestine (CCP Japan)
10. CARE Canada
11. CARE International UK
12. Children are Not Numbers
13. Churches for Middle East Peace
14. CISS – Cooperazione Internazionale Sud Sud
15. Council for Arab-British Understanding (Caabu)
16. DanChurchAid
17. Danish Refugee Council
18. Diakonia
19. EducAid
20. Emergency NGO
21. Fondation Terre des hommes Lausanne
22. Glia
23. HEKS/EPER – Swiss Church Aid
24. Human Rights Solidarity
25. Humanity & Inclusion – Handicap International
26. INTERPAL
27. Islamic Relief
28. Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC)
29. Médecins du Monde – Suisse
30. Médecins du Monde – France
31. Médecins Sans Frontières
32. Medical Aid for Palestinians
33. medico international
34. Medicos Del Mundo (MDM – Spain)
35. Mennonite Central Committee
36. Middle East Children’s Alliance
37. NORWAC ( Norwegian aid committee)
38. Norwegian Church Aid
39. Norwegian People’s Aid
40. Norwegian Refugee Council
41. Oxfam
42. Pax Christi USA
43. Peace Winds Japan
44. Premiere Urgence Internationale
45. Quakers in Britain
46. Solidarités International
47. Terre des hommes Italy
48. Un Ponte Per
49. United Against Inhumanity
50. Vento di Terra ETS
51. War Child Alliance Foundation
52. War on Want
53. WeWorld-GVC

The post 53 International NGOs warn Israel’s recent registration measures will impede critical humanitarian action appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

More than a million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar are living in Bangladesh, where they are confined to camps and deprived of formal access to employment and education. In this context, it is critical to listen to refugee leaders such as human rights defender Dil Mohammed, who, according to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), has been arbitrarily and unlawfully imprisoned by the Bangladeshi authorities.

Mohammed has been held in prolonged solitary confinement, subjected to coercive interrogations, and denied access to both his family and legal counsel.

In a decision published on November 21, WGAD has ordered the government of Bangladesh to release him immediately and provide him with compensation.

The Working Group has also called on Bangladesh to conduct an independent investigation into the violation of Mohammed’s rights and to report within six months on the steps taken to comply with the decision.

UAI urges the international community, particularly donor states, to Bangladesh to publicly endorse the Working Group’s findings and recommendations. Dil Mohammed’s treatment reflects a wider pattern of criminalisation and coercion against Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, whose camps have become increasingly insecure as a result of the activities of competing armed groups, the security services, criminals, and traffickers.

The WGAD decision reveals the extent to which Rohingya human rights defenders are exposed to targeted repression. Their detention has a chilling effect on the entire refugee population, curbing their right to freedom of expression and association.

At the same time, inadequate steps are being taken to preserve the civilian character of the camps, leaving Rohingya youth at risk of conscription by militia groups. The Rohingya of Myanmar are one of the world’s most vulnerable populations. Dil Mohammed’s case is a stark reminder that those who have fled to Bangladesh are still unable to find a safe refuge.

United Against Inhumanity (UAI) works to highlight inhumanity in the treatment of civilians in wars and those seeking refuge, particularly in situations receiving inadequate attention.

In September 2025, UAI published a groundbreaking report calling for urgent changes in the way Rohingya civilians are treated, both in Myanmar and in the refugee camps in Bangladesh.

Read our Report on Alternative Approaches to the Rohingya Refugee Situation.

The post Bangladesh must release Rohingya Refugee Leader Dil Mohammed – UAI Statement appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.