Iran and Gaza: Was Human Rights Always a Lie? | Omar Shakir

and ethnic lens into account, and his international law now redundant after Iran and Gaza. These are the questions I asked Amro Sharker, he was the Isra Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, before he was forced to resign over a blocked report that he had commissioned,

that was critical of Isra. This was clearly an unlawful work.

Chancellor Matt, who just the other day said that international law does not apply to Iran. We saw dozens of Iranian school children and teachers blown to pieces when Russia invaded Ukraine.

“Western states rightfully invoked international law. You need to pick the rules-based”

international order that grew out of World War II or shielding an ally Israel and what we're seeing in Lebanon is the playbook of Gaza being repeated. It would be very hard to argue that Human Rights law today can provide any form of justice for us. An idea that there is a good Israel versus a bad Israel. And not acknowledging the original sin genocide, ethnic cleansing, virtually everybody forcibly displaced. The majority of Gaza

turned to ruin. The concern about the repercussions human rights watch might face if they were seen as challenging the Jewishness of the Israeli state. That's not the human rights watch that I signed up for. And so why do you find a block to your apartment? I'm Ashakya, Selam Ali, and welcome to the Thank You Muslim.

“Well, I think I'm a salam. Thank you so much for having me.”

It's wonderful to have you with us. Now, I'm a viewer of the Israel Palasine Direct at Human Rights Watch and to your resigned earlier this year. Your resignation was due to the Human Rights Watch leadership blocking a report accusing Israel of crimes against humanity. And I want to talk about that report and the implications of that. But actually, I'm going to start with a more fundamental question about international humanitarian law. Are we now entering an

era where even a semblance of international humanitarian law is now redundant? Look, I think we're very much entering an era in which the principles that grow to the ashes of World War II are very much being challenged. In fact, in some ways, those very principles are being destroyed among the ruin of Gaza and now in recent days, weeks, Lebanon and Iran. And for many of us in the Human Rights movement, we actually, as a

part of our strategy after the October 7th attacks, you know, went to countries in the West in Europe. And basically, I had a strategy of saying, we need to pick the rules-based international order that grew out of World War II or shielding an ally Israel for, you know,

for, you know, from accountability for these attacks. And unfortunately, the reality is,

if we look at the record that for the most part, Israel's closest allies have shielded them,

“even if the rules-based international order was the collateral damage. And I think what we've”

seen since the beginning of the regional war is even to go a step further. This was clearly an unlawful war. There is no basis for either international law or under US law. And what we're seeing in Lebanon is the playbook of Gaza being repeated. So in effect, we've seen the illegality in Palestine. That's not just been taking place for a couple of years. It's been taking place for decades. And in fact, for more than half century, now being transposed across the region.

Again, it didn't start with the regional war. We saw it in Yemen, we saw it in Syria, we saw it in Lebanon. But now it's really going at it at a different scale. And it's not going to stop until states in the international community take concrete action. And their action states can take to hold Israel in the United States accountable. So I'm going to look at the, we're really Western states when it comes to upholding these rules based order. But we're at the time we're talking

whilst the horror of the events are unfolding in Iran. A heinous heinous attack on on a on a sovereign state would no recourse to law international or domestic. And we're still only Spain amongst the European states have upheld, have pushed back against the Trump administration and upheld this international order. I think it was Chancellor Merz, who just the other day said that international law no longer does not apply to Iran. So almost evoke in this idea that international law is for western states,

so for pure states and Iran is a lesser state. What does this really tell you about the current

state of the liberal West who have for a long time profess to uphold that post-second world war

order? I mean, I think it shows you that unfortunately despite increasing acceptance of the

court. 20, 30 years ago, we didn't have as many mechanisms. We didn't have as many states that were

sort of part of the human rights architecture despite that advancement at the end of the day. These states have chosen their shielding an ally over the protection of international law,

“and I think you said it, you know, exactly, you know, correctly when it comes to the regional war”

ultimately, they committed the crime of aggression. The United States and Israel, right? That the Nuremberg trials talked about aggression as the supreme crime, you know, a crime above all other crimes because wars of aggression lead downhill to serious abuses of the law's war. And in the case of Iran, we saw that in the first hours where we saw, you know, dozens of Iranian school children and teachers blown to pieces in a clear apparent, you know, war crime. And we've seen

many other abuses take place recently in Lebanon, the displacement of hundreds of thousands

of people attacks on critical civilian infrastructure, you know, oil and gas and electricity.

So, you know, ultimately, this has been the skepticism of so many in the global south for so many years that human rights international law are a selective tool that they're using when it's politically expedient to some countries, and not when it's not expedient. You know, some states had had a better record of having a consistency. But that's the very reason why, of course, when Russia invaded Ukraine, Western states rightfully invoked international law for the abuses committed

by Putin's government and by Russia, but many states in the global south were skeptical. And indeed, their skepticism is proved accurate because many of the very same fundamental principles invoked in the Ukraine have not been a vote in the context of Palestine and now across the region. I mean, the context of Ukraine you talked about, people cited the right of self-defense of Ukrainians. People talked about the need for accountability and the international criminal court.

People talked about sanctioning, you know, Russian businesses. I mean, these very issues in some cases have become outlawed or sanctioned. I mean, look at US law. They have issued sanctions against human rights groups calling for accountability at the international criminal court. The very same body that Western states supported in the context of Ukraine. What it comes to boycotts is really law. You know, bands entry to those call for boycotts. And it's actually a civil claim that you

can raise against somebody that calls for boycott and in the United States. The majority of US states have enacted legislation that punishes people who call for boycotts of Israel and entities. So again, you use the very same principles and compare it and the record is clear, but I do want to say

“one more thing, which is I think really important to know, which is we have few other tools available”

to us. So all the skepticism we might say about international law, when you see dozens of schoolchildren blown to bits, international law is one of the very few tools we have that might provide some recourse. And we, as the, as the, as the week that are trying to use international law as a tool for civilian protection for peace, we have to rely on that tool. We really have very little else to hang our hats on. So while it is a tool that's clearly, and again, the problem

is not the tool, the problem is the lack of political will, but the answer really has to be in

part. The law, the law is not the answer for everything, but it has to be part of the answer. Oh, but can you tell me why you felt it necessary to resign from human rights, watch any of this year? I think in some ways, it's linked to the conversation we're having. I mean, I served at human rights watch for a decade. I'm incredibly proud of the work that we did our report finding that these really government is committing the crimes of apartheid and persecution. Our work back in

the day documenting the abuses and settlements and calling on FIFA and Airbnb booking.com is rarely banks and the investors and those banks to and their complicity in Israel's war crimes. Our work since the genocide began, and being one of the first organizations to, you know, document the use of starvation as a weapon of war. And many, many other reports are betrayers and torture by the PA and Hamas. You know, what kept me in the organization for so many years

was the organization's fidelity to the way we do our work, which is very simple. We document facts, we collect the information, we publish that information, we apply the law, and we reach the legal conclusions that stem from the facts. And we've done that with integrity for the decade that I was in the role, and my colleagues are on the world. That's the very methodology they use

“to make important contributions to advancing human rights across the globe. But that's not what”

occurred with this particular report, which is focused on the Palestinian right of return. In that case, and we can get into the details if you'd like. Quite simply, the report was approved to the entire human rights watch system. It was coded to the website, translated partners were briefed, and at the last minute a new executive director pulled that report. Not because there

of which are very easy to show weren't really the reality. This was about ultimately a couple of things

“mainly concern about the repercussions human rights watch might face if they were seen as challenging”

the Jewishness of the Israeli state and a sense by some people in the senior leadership of the organization that the right of return was not the urgent priority of the moment. And that it shouldn't be what the organization does, particularly when issuing a report like this could lead to serious ramifications for the organizations. That's not the human rights watch that I signed up for. It's not the organization I worked for for a decade, and it's not the organization I could continue

to work for. So I took the decision along with my colleague and Jerusalem, our researcher there at the time to resign from our positions. We are here in Wajir County, Kenya. Again with both on male delegation, we are visiting this piece of land which Betelmell acquired in order to build a state of arts hospital.

“This land is 1.5 acres and we have a business plan for that.”

Abdullah, we have volunteer expert consultants in healthcare. The cost of the project is $700,000, but you can help with $100, $500,000 a thousand dollars, all of this will help in trauma. Visit btml.us/thinkingmuslim to learn more and give.

Prior to writing our report, when you first submitted a draft about report, you live within the

humanitarian architecture, we've been human rights architect. You worked for a well-established international NGO. Did you find that even prior to submitting that report, you had to go through a level of self-sensorship yourself in order to be in order to have an edit in order to have a report that would be palatable maybe to that community. Like was there a process of selecting the right words or holding back on some of your more stronger impressions in order to

“in order to find that report to the public? I think yes and no, right? I'll start with the yes”

in the sense that it's well-known that Israel Palestine is subjected at human rights watch and human

rights watch is not unique and in many ways human rights watch has gone much further than many other

large humanitarian human rights organizations. It's subjected to extra scrutiny. That's a well-known fact. In fact, in his book, Kenneth Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, for nearly three decades, acknowledges the only country for which he reviewed every product for the vast majority of his tenure as the Executive Director was the Israel Pulse Network. He individually reviewed every piece, you know, a standard that wasn't used for other countries.

At the very same, and I should also add to it that because of the extra scrutiny, it meant that if you were making a finding or a conclusion or methodology or an approach that was novel, you'd likely weren't going to get very far. Human Rights Watch, if you were breaking ground and Israel Palestine, your best recourse was, of course, to cite established law and findings we've reached everywhere else. So even for example, in the apartheid report, it helped us significantly

that human rights watch had found that the government, if Myanmar was committing apartheid against the Rohingya and the Rocky and State. And in the case of this particular report, we had reached the, so the writer returned his very well-established international law and human rights watch has called for it in context around the world and within the Middle East and more than it doesn't context around the world and in Israel Palestine. So the writer returned itself and human rights

watch has its own policy, its black letter, law from human rights treatises, treatises, so that part was straightforward. What this report was doing was building on that by documenting how the denial of the writer returned amounted to a crime against humanity. And in that case, again, human rights watch had precedents in 2023 and a report on the Chego's Islands, human rights watch found that when the UK government had its policy continuing to deny returned to the Djogosian people

to their homeland. They were largely removed fully removed, in fact, from their homeland in the '70s and the '80s in part to build a US military-based Diego Garcia, they continued denial of the writer returned amounted to a crime against humanity. And again, human rights watch base that conclusion also on the international criminal court in the context again of the Rohingya, but this time the Rohingya that were in Bangladesh, that their denial of the writer returned

to Myanmar amounted to a crime against humanity. So in this particular case, I didn't feel I needed

refugees number in the millions. Their anguish is so well documented in human rights watch

publications in scholarly work. And in addition to that, of course, we did the conventional human rights watch methodology. We deployed teams across the region. We did dozens of interviews with Palestinian refugees in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Those that were displaced outside in Egypt, as well as generations of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, in Syria, and Jordan, we visited refugee camps. We talked to experts. So we had followed the human rights watch

methodology, so when I submitted the support, it was straightforward. Now, the last part of your answer is to say, of course, there is a censorship in the sense of sticking to human rights watch as mandate. Human rights watch as mandate is human rights long humanitarian law. So a lot of times

an activist circles in other space, academic circles, there will be the use of academic terms or

activist terms, but human rights watch only uses legal terms. So for example, apartheid is a crime under the Rome statute in its own convention. The crimes against humanity are in established crime. So we stick to what the crimes are, but so long as we're working in the realm of facts and law, there is no censorship because if you're sticking to the law and you're documenting the facts, human rights watch, and again, it was my experience for a decade if you do the work and you publish

it gets published. Something different happened with the support. And so why do you think they've

“blocked your report? I think ultimately several things came together. There was a new human rights”

watch leadership that came to power and that leadership, and they were very clear about this. They were departing from the way the organization operated. Human rights watch, and again, for those who know the organization's work, really what makes human rights watch unique is it's vetting process. It's a review process. You can document facts, apply the law, draft, or report. It spends at minimum days and often weeks and sometimes months and on some occasions,

years being vetted by dozens of people in the organization. And in this particular case, this report went through that entire process. It was vetted. It was signed off on by the Middle East Division, by the refugee rights division, by the Women's Rights Division, the Children's Rights Division, because there was a piece of the report relevant to their mandate. The UN advocacy, the crisis department, and then it went to the legal department and also went to the program

department. All of whom signed off on the report. I mean, you don't get reports that are coded to websites translated and partners briefed if you haven't done all of those steps. So this new leadership came in, and instead of doing what the organization has done, it did something really unprecedented in the organization's history, which is to shelve a vetted report. That was something

“that was unique, and I think it's reflects. I'm afraid, and I hope it's not the case, a leadership”

that believes that they can use pragmatism as a way to, as they said, narrow the scope of findings, or they can sort of decide on their own that this is not the priority at the moment. The advocacy is too complicated. We're going to delay and push it back. Now, let me be clear. That's not how human rights watch operated. When we did our report, which caused some controversy

on the LAHLE Hospital, a hospital in Gaza that was struck during the first second week of the campaign

of Gaza, the genocide in Gaza, and human rights watch did an investigation, and our tentative conclusions, which we published in late November of 2023, did not support the claim of many that it was a Israeli air strike. We didn't reach a determination of who fired the strike, but the evidence we published pointed it being a rocket of the type generally used by armed Palestinian groups. Now, we published that conclusion, even though there was no advocacy strategy, even though it was

in the middle of, I mean, there was a ceasefire during that week, a temporary ceasefire, but it was in the middle of obviously a campaign that resumed some after. We did the same thing with our report that found Hamas carried out war crimes and crimes against humanity on October 7. We did so because human rights watch does that. We published reports when they're vetted, no matter what the reano conclusions are, no matter what the advocacy climate was,

I was the researcher that documented the mass killings of protesters in Egypt that led to human rights watch, just presence in Egypt in 2014 being shut down. I published the report on Israeli apartheid that had, of course, some effects on the organizations as well, and in each case, the report was vetted, it was finalized, it was published. It didn't happen in this particular case,

“and I think first and foremost it reflects a new leadership, but there's another part of this,”

which is bigger than human rights watch, and that part of it is I do believe in many ways the

You hear platitudes raised all the time by political figures about maintaining a Jewish state, and that's not really challenged, even though when somebody says we want to maintain a Jewish state, what they're essentially doing is asking to cement or lock in the gains of the ethnic cleansing that took place during the neck, but in 1948, but that's taken a sacrosanct and human rights watch, and again, this is what colleagues told me, and that's part of why I knew this wasn't about

law or facts. I had the senior colleagues that were cited as the ones having concerns that led to shelving the report, who told me in writing that their concern was about human rights watch

“being seen as challenging the Jewishness of the state, and I think that's not unique to human rights”

watch. I think that's a policy that's much broader, so even in some segments of pro-Israel communities, let's say, around the world, they may be willing to criticize the genocide and gossip, maybe they won't use that word, they might be willing to criticize the occupation, they may even be willing to say apartheid, they may be willing to say many things, but when you come to challenge the idea that Israel in 1948 was established through an ethnic

cleansing that in essence, one people came to live on this land at the expense of the rights of another people, the fundamental rights of another people, that crosses a red line for people for some people who have to maintain in their brain an idea that there is a good Israel versus the bad Israel and not acknowledging the original sin, which was the ethnic cleansing of 1948.

“Can I have your reflections on a speech given by Mark Carney a few weeks back? I think it was at the”

Munich Security Summit where he argued by the rule space order is now over. In effect, he said Trump had preceded an era, but had ended that era, but he also said that it wasn't

really this rule space order had never really been applied consistent in the anyway, and it

was always hypocritical, I suppose, is the term we can use. I mean, I suppose from our perspective, we can look out the wars after 9/11 to enhance interrogation, CIA Black Sites, Obamaz Drung Program, Liberals and Republicans were breaking international law, we've had any recourse to any international form of justice. I suppose there will be many Muslims, many Palestinians, many people were pro-Palestine who would look at what's happened over Guster and what is continuing

to happen in the West Bank, but of course also now in Iran. It would be very hard to argue that human rights law today can any can provide any form of justice for us. But I infer from your words, but it is still a tool we can use. Just square that from me, explain

“why you've built that we can still, that is still a recourse for us. So I think your absolutely”

right in Carnegie was correct that Trump has taken a wrecking ball to the rules-based international order, and even more than that you can question the rules-based order to begin with. But I think we need to clarify an assumption here, right? The assumption that international law, the lack

of enforcement, if international law equates to the lack of international law, enforcement is critical,

right? Because without enforcement laws don't have the same kind of meaning. At the same time, though, there does remain a global consensus around some of the ground rules that exist, whether they be the laws of war, whether they be, you know, the principles that underlie the body of international human rights law, the prohibition against torture, the prohibition against genocide. Now people will deny whether or not they torture or commit genocide, but the prohibitions

and those normative frameworks exist. And I think we need to take a step back and move outside the realm of law, and not just a candid conversation. Ultimately, and I alluded to this earlier,

we're talking about the powerful, and the powerful doing what they want to do. That has always been

the case in World History, and that is certainly the case now. But when you say there is no rules, when you say it's an utter rule of the jungle, you deprive yourself of tools, which again, are not perfect and are very limited, and are not going to be, and we can talk more about this, they're not going to be the path to liberation. Liberation in any context around the world wasn't brought by a court case. I mean, you can look at US history and look at the segregation in South.

There was court rulings, didn't change realities on the ground. There was laws that were past didn't change the realities on the ground. But at the end of the day, we're talking about a reality in which the strong have brute force, and that's what underlies the US and Israel's

we're talking about human rights law, who are the people pushing back? We're talking about human rights organizations, maybe in international criminal court, maybe some states that have a better record. Nobody has a perfect record. So we're talking about the week. And so human rights and humanitarian law provides us with something. It's a tool that can at some point have some effect. And there are examples of where the law has had some effect. And more and more so, there are many examples

“where utter impunity has opened the door to worse and worse abuses. Ultimately, what I believe”

in any struggle, in any issue around the world, you need a movement. You need people that are struggling using different forms of resistance. It may be artists. It could be authors. It could be journalists. It could be people with capital that are investing in supporting these. You need an entire architecture of an essence resistance, if using different forms of resistance, different forms of push back. And I think law has to be one of those tools. Lawyers should bring their tools. And by the

way, human rights is not just the realm of lawyers. Others that are in the human rights movement should use those tools available to it without being naive enough to believe that if you do everything correctly by the book, you're ultimately going to succeed in changing the struggle. Law can be a tool.

And I think Noradachach, you wrote a very powerful book about the policy movement, and she described

“law as a sale. In essence, it can be there as a reference, but you need the currents in the wind”

to take it in particular directions. And in some cases, this links to what we're talking about a human rights watch. I did everything by the book with this report. Or it's not just me. It was a big team of us and went all the way to the end. And in this particular case, leadership pulled rank and shelved the report. And for me, I took the decision to resign. And it took the even maybe more controversial decision to speak publicly about the organization that I worked for

for a decade that I care so deeply about the people that I care so deeply about. Because ultimately

I felt it's critical. We owe it to victims of human rights abuses, including the people we

interviewed, and to our partners in the fight to acknowledge we got a wrong but ultimately also there has to be an accountability for the organization. And there needs to be a course correction. And when they did not follow facts and law, it took me having to take a step that went outside of the normal process in terms of speaking out about it. And I hope ultimately, and not only lead to the publishing of the report, but much more than bigger than human rights watch,

I hope it'll lead to a paradigm shift in how we view the right or return and refugees. But I do wonder sometimes how much are you whistling against the wind here? You talk about the lack of enforcement, and surely with human rights law, at least historically, it was the will of the powerful states, which are better held these laws that allowed the law allowed some semblance of justice for the week. We've seen over the last decades, but in particular,

we've seen after Gaza or during Gaza, and of course now and Iran, the so-called powerful states Europe, America, they're unwilling to accept the most basic facts of the injustice that is taking place against against the beast-belieged people. They've turned a blind eye in effect to the atrocities that have taken place. And refuse to even label these atrocities at genocide or crimes against humanity or whatever term one can use. So I suppose my question is enforcement

does require powerful states to uphold these rights? And no amount of leak lawyers and public groundswell of public opinion is going to counterbalance the requirement for power here.

“I think there are two things happening simultaneously. I think we kind of have to look at it. We've”

covered a part of it in this conversation, but I kind of want to bring another side to it, which is what does enforcement actually mean? It doesn't necessarily mean a court giving us that beautiful moment of friendering a guilty verdict and putting Netanyahu or Trump behind bars.

That's not always, in fact, that's usually not what justice looks like outside of a few cases.

But let's take the example of the genocide in Gaza. While we need to start with the scale of atrocity, I mean genocide, ethnic cleansing, virtually everybody forcibly displaced. The majority of Gaza turned to ruin. There were shifts that took place when it came to consequences for Israel that aren't some ways unprecedented in the history of Israel pastime. Let me give you many examples. The International Court of Justice has a case against

on a finding that the claims that were made were in some ways plausible. The International Court

“of Justice in a separate, two separate advisory opinions, one of which said the occupation is illegal”

and recognized Israel's committing a partite against Palestinians. You have an international criminal court that issued arrest warrants for Israel sitting Prime Minister. You had many states

that cut or even are restricted arms to Israel. You had sanctions for really one of the first times

issued against Israeli settlers and in some cases Israeli ministers. You had UN bodies that were, for example, adding Israel to its list of shame that the Secretary General issues. You had UN bodies go further in special procedures. You had states and criticism in a consensus, states join the genocide case. I could go on and on and on. This ledger of action did have some -- I didn't even mention the economic side where you had the EU review. It's trade agreement with Israel and actually

at that review found that Israel was not in compliance with it. You had some states like even the UK suspend. It's trade talks with the Israeli government. Now let me be clear. None of this went far enough. It's nothing compared to the scale of a trustee in Gaza. It should have gone 100 or 1000x further than it went. But to say that nothing shifted or that had no impact. I'll give you one example. Israel for parts of 2025 from March until mid May had a full blockade on Gaza. Nothing

went in, nothing went out. Why did it lift its blockade? One of the key drivers was when the EU decided to review its trade agreement with Israel and you started to see action bubble up in the global north and the ceasefire gave them an easy safety valve that gave the appearance of action and it blunted the very limited action. I don't want to oversell the action, but what I want to tell you is you have these two ships that are moving. One is the paradigm shift is the global public

opinion shifts and the beginnings of some action being taken against Israel. Here I'm talking about Israel Palestine. On the other hand, you have Israel on the ground at breakneck pace, accelerating its project of ethnic cleansing and Jewish supremacy and mass killing and genocide in the case of Gaza. How these two ships interact will tell in many cases the future of Israel

“Palestine. These really government is banking that they will move so quickly. That's why they”

don't want to end this October 7th moment. For some, they see it as an opportunity. As much as the atrocities that took place, they see a once in a generation opportunity. I'm talking about parts of the Israeli government, large parts of society to change the map. And by the way, they have changed the map. It really made your ways that we can talk about. They know and there's parts of the Israeli establishment that see the other side that see these ships and are saying

in the long run, this is counterproductive to Israel's future. No matter how you define that, right, whether it's a future of occupation, genocide or in some case even going further than that. So how will these two things interact? So again, it goes back to what we said earlier. As movements, as activists, as lawyers, as people who care about international law and justice, we got to accelerate the pace of action, paradigm shift led by Palestinians,

and try and stop this freight train of accelerating repression. But our option can't be to let that go. We should explore other means. We should be creative. We should think outside the box. But law is part, a small part, but part of that other ship. That's moving a little bit too slowly.

It stops, in some cases, takes on water, sinks, there's counteraction. But that ship is critical

to the future of Israel's past life. How many of you sound very optimistic or very optimistic about the use of this particular tool to hold those who need to be held to account, to hold them to some form of justice? I come across a lot of young people, in particular, young Muslims who are starting out, they've studied law at university and they seek my advice. They normally come from far more pessimistic base, seeing what's happened over the last two and a

half years. And they want to know whether it is worth going into humanitarian sector, whether that's from a legal perspective, or whether that's from a NGO perspective. What advice would you give to

such a person who's starting out there in their careers? Let me answer your question, Joyce. First of all,

“I don't think I'm saying something that's optimistic. I think in many ways, I'm a realist about it.”

I'm talking about power. I'm talking about the use of power and using the tools in our hands.

have power. We don't have sufficient power. You cited the example of Spain, the only country that

spoke unequivocally about the US is really assault on Iran. So we have to use the tools that are disposal to shift power. So it's not optimistic, although I do think there are shifts happening, but I'm very clear also that those shifts are not at scale and they're not moving fast enough. And you could see the school many directions when I talk about Palestine. You could see the Israeli right or in some cases and how the Israeli political establishment proved correct. They changed

the map so dramatically that by the time we've changed the paradigm, it's taken its history. It's over. It's in the look at the United States. Look at many other examples around the world, or we could be successful in actually dismantling the apartheid regime. So there really are two

fates and it's really up to us. So I talk to people all the time. I feel in many cases a duty to speak

to the younger generation of Muslims or the younger generation of people that care about human rights about about about the fight. For me, what I would all say is we can't have all of us obviously

“doing human rights and humanitarian work. You know, the movement strength is its diversity, right?”

You need people at all levels. I firmly believe you need human rights lawyers. You need doctors. And we've seen the role of doctors in Gaza. They've been among the best witnesses to the genocide. You need people in the humanitarian sector because without support to communities under occupation in the West Bank of Gaza, they don't have the Arabic term "slimout". They don't have the ability the resilience to continue forward. You need people that are journalists that are reporting the

facts. You need people that are, you know, really engaged in all sectors, including, by the way, people that are in the business world in the corporate world that are bringing resources because resources are power and that are supporting these other initiatives, right? You also need people and this controversial in some quarters and in Muslim quarters. You need people in government because ultimately, you know, shifts that can happen on the outside. You need people on the inside that are

able to take the paradigm shifts and kind of, you know, while we're trying to shift the paradigm

they're trying to slightly steer the ship in different directions. But the key point of it is

folks need to one, if they want to commit to this, they need to see where their passion is.

“And if this is your passion, to me, it becomes a project of where can you contribute best, right?”

Are you going to be an effective human rights lawyer? Go do that. Are you going to be more effective doctor that can bear witness and provide services? Are you going to be a more effective person in the corporate world that's going to rise and get to a position of power or accumulate resources? But then invest those resources in supporting the people that are changing the that pendulum. So I think we so often think the people at young people ask me what's the most

impactful thing? I don't think there is one single most impactful thing. It depends on what your issue is. It depends on the moment you're in. It depends on your own vantage point and perspective. And everyone's going to have their own personal circumstances where they live, what their nationality is, what their skill set is. But the question they need to be asking really is, what is your skill set? And where are you best positioned given who you are to contribute to the cause?

“And if you make those your guiding questions and follow that. So you have to develop the passion.”

That's step one. You have to know what your passion is. And you might have a commitment to universal human rights. And hopefully everybody does. But it might be that your what speaks to you most is women's rights or immigration or Kashmir or you know Palestine or Syria. All of that's legitimate because the community needs all actually really all of these fronts. But figure out what speaks to you. And then figure out your positionality, your skill set, your strength, and go on a journey

through your education. And then through your early career to hone in on where you can make the was in fact my own life story is a journey of figuring that out. And that's a journey that should continue throughout your life. So Omar, I understand that you've now moved to become the executive director of Don Mina. And Don is an organisation that was founded by Jamal Khashogh, who tragically was killed by Vassoudes in a in a in a Turkish in the Saudi consulate in in Istanbul.

Tell me a little bit about this organisation and what you hope to achieve for that. So Don isn't just linked to Jamal Khashogh, Jamal Khashogh is the founder of Don. He created Don back in 2018 to advance a vision of human rights democracy in the Arab world, you know, and even more broadly than that. Unfortunately, he was killed by the Saudi government. And he wasn't able to bring that organisation to realize that vision. However, the organisation was established

the fight against impunity. So Don's work looks across the region and they've made really

“incredible inroads, including fighting for justice for Jamal's death. But when we look at the”

context of what we've talked about in Israel, Palestine, Don Sue actually brought charges against Biden and senior Biden administration officials for complicity in Israel's genocide and other atrocities at the International Criminal Court. They were the one voice to do that. Don is also doggyly put together dossiers on perpetrators across the region in the context of Israel, Palestine, settlers, and other mid-level Israeli government officials that are involved in the

pieces. And they haven't just left those dossiers on the shelf. They've actually used those dossiers to push for sanctions and have gotten sanctioned issued in many cases. They've also have a lawsuit in progress now, which is challenging the U.S. government for not implementing Lehi laws. These are

laws that ban funding to abuse of armies. And of course, it's never been really applied

“to the Israeli government. They have a lawsuit that's survived initial challenges, really unprecedented.”

That is challenging the fact that the U.S. keeps giving arms to Israel despite this law that's in place. Don has also launched a campaign against a pack identifying who are the leading figures in this Israeli lobby organization that operate behind the scenes and have been so instrumental in cementing the U.S. support for Israeli hegemony and apartheid on the ground. In addition, Don is pushing the envelope when it comes to New York State's investment in Israel bonds.

At the same time, Don has this network of fellows across the region that are advocates for human rights and democracy across the region that are publishing and writing. So when I look at Don to me, it really fits the moment that we need. Right now, and links to our conversation, we've talked extensively about how atrocities have been documented. The information is out there in the public domain. For me, what this moment needs is accountability and an end to complicity.

And Don is really well positioned as an organization that is built on the legacy of Jamal Khashogj, and that is pushing the envelope and the fight for impunity to take this a step forward. What's needed at this time is going after perpetrators, that commit abuses, that's taking research and building on it with research operationalized for impact, whether it be sanctions, whether it be prosecutions, whether it be sort of going after

companies that are complicit in these abuses, but doing so with the region wide perspective, because we're seeing the linkages that happen between the region. Right? I mean, again, you can look at the history of the Arab world. The Arab Spring sort of reflected a sense from some Arab activists. And again, you could even go before the Arab Spring of 2011. In many

cases, the impetus for the Arab Spring grew out of the second in default. If you look at protests

and Egypt and across the region, and a sense of, wait, some of our governments are complicit in the suffering of Palestinians. Let's change our government, and then we can work on broader liberation in the region, including Palestine. That calculate shifted amid the genocide in Gaza. So more than a decade later, you're seeing Arab activists that understand that, wait a minute, the project of Jewish supremacy in Israel, the project of Israeli and American

Hegemony in the region is part of what's keeping these repressive governments in place and many parts

“of the region. So there is this linkage. And Don is really well placed, I think, to make those”

connections, to really be at the front of the struggle for human rights in the region. And I'm really excited to take this organization forward. And I do think in conjunction with partners and in conjunction with other movements, there is really space to move the envelope as dark as the world seems. And really, this war in Iran, as emphasized, Don's unique voice. Don was there early Saturday when the war began calling this what it was in a legal war of aggression.

They were a unique voice on that. They follow that up. You know, 48 hours later, we follow that up 48 hours later with a call on the UN General Assembly to convene for states to convene that body to call for an end to hostilities. We also called on U.S. Congress to convene under the War

Powers Act and make clear they don't sanction this war, which they never sanctioned from the

beginning. And later, the first week of the war, Don came out and said that Iran should file a declaration to give the international criminal court jurisdiction over crimes like the attack on the school in Minab. Again, we made the same call for other states in the region. We also called for them to preserve and secure evidence and to engage with UN fact-finders and human rights

but not enough calls for accountability and justice. And that's really where I think Don's

“value ad is. Omar, my question is really about where conscientious justice minded people go to”

now for alternative forms of or sources of justice. We can see there is a grounds what we're opinion around the world now, but sees Western hegemony for what it is. They see their sort of Israeli Zionist state, as we in the say that that saddle control and that has voracious ambitions upon the region and beta market. And you know, there is now a plurality of not a majority of our people. Muslims are non-Muslims in Western countries that are

incensed by the way in which by which their governance maintain the state to scroll and do not question that, but that injustice that's taking place. Now UNIR are Muslims and, you know, we believe in a form of consistency in back humanitarian space. That's the best of our Islam. You know, I think the best periods of Islam were times where we were known for our righteousness and our chivalry when it comes to engagement with others, engaging with other nations and other

states. How far do you believe we can, how far do you believe there is a will I suppose to reconstruct this type of ethical framework that comes from our religious sources. In this world, that is really forward in a path. I think it's a great question. I mean, look, I mean, my own faith is a

“key part of my own, you know, moral compass and the work I do in human rights. And I think among”

the parts of the Islamic tradition is this idea that one of the greatest forms of justice is to speak out about oppression even when it's your own that's committing the abuses. And I think that's

always been a guiding compass of my work, whether it was, you know, covering abuses by the Egyptian

government, the mass killings of protesters after the coup of 2013. Or for me as an American, representing men detained in Wontanamo Bay that we're being detained in the name of, you know, the U.S. government. And I think these values exist. I think people are starting to understand that. I think there, in some of some communities, there's often a defensiveness, you know, when there's criticism of, you know, governments that are our own practices, right? I mean, our

our records when it comes to, in many parts of the world when it comes to women's rights, you know, when it comes to many other issues, but our strength has to be consistency. You can't cite a principle in Palestine or an organization's work in Palestine, but then when it's making the same claim about, you know, Iran's abuses or about, you know, another government, you may support the Syrian government, whatever government, you may support the abuses, Sudan, you know,

have a different standard. There has to be a moral consistency to your premise. And by the way, again, I keep linking it. It's linked to the human rights law situation. I felt that part, if I'm going to be a human rights activist, that documents people jailed for their free expression for your association. I have to have the moral consistency to speak out when my own

“organization does something that I believe isn't in keeping with its values. But I mean,”

just to get back to your question, I think that ethos is there, and I think it's growing, as you said, we can't take for granted the shift in public opinion. The fact that there are large majorities in many parts of the world. I mean, even now in the US and among the, you know, let's say the Democratic Party and their shifts even within the Republican Party. So where do we take that? I think the answer, and it links back to what we said earlier, there is no universal answer.

If there was one magic button that we could all press, we would have put all our energies and

all our eggs in that basket, but we really can't do that. I think ultimately for all of us and

for your listeners, it's about localizing this. No matter where you are in the world, there are things you can do in your own communities to start with, right? Look at your own university, your own local government, your own church, your own synagogue, your own mosque, you know, it's investments. Look at its own institutional connections. Look at your own government through its representatives and what policies it's engaging in. Again, I'm not talking about

those of us that live in the West. I'm also talking about those that live in the Muslim world. Because in this day and age, there are counterbalances of power. For example, we just saw very recently the hay group convene in Netherlands in recent days. Now for those that don't know, the hay group is this conglomeration of states in the global south largely that are coming together to defend international law, to defend the international criminal court, the international court of justice.

And they're taken and to also call for sanctions and other kinds of actions that are warranted based on these really government's actions. Now, you can look at those. There are some many. In fact, there are Muslim governments. Not all of them. Those governments can go further. There are many

or Israeli impunity for their crimes. So everybody can do something. I think the best thing you

“can do is to localize it because that's always the most impactful. So start in your own household.”

Start in your own institution. Move to your local representative and then go larger. Action movements that are rooted in and it can be in your own professional association. These are all really really significant and the more these voices collect, the more they will lead to change.

Now, it's not inevitable. History can go a lot of directions, right? But the more that we do.

And then there's also a need for those of us that are on the front lines of the fight to coordinate better, to organize better, to be more strategic. You know, in the Muslim community, we have this problem, right? That when, you know, Palestine's on fire, when another content, when there's a flood, when there's, we jump to our checkbooks. We jump into action. We act with our hearts. But when it's not in the news, when there are ceasefires between quotes, when there is less attention,

we're not investing in those institutions. We're not building strong viable institutions that can safeguard and can be strategic in their work. So we also need to put our, we need to be strategic. And I'm starting to see this, by the way. And many different communities that I started that

“people are starting to think ahead, but how do we build stronger institutions that can be strategic?”

And that can work, not just in the moment, too, which is critical, you know, to give people food,

to get them shelter, right? But how can we think about larger, larger term shifts? We need all of it. The bottom line is we can't afford the luxury, and this links to where we start the conversation. We cannot afford the luxury of giving up, you know? The people who live on the ground start with Palestinians in Gaza, they're not giving up. They're waking up every day and trying to find water and find food. So none of us have the luxury of giving up. We just have

to find where we can plug in, where we can support, where we can amplify, and do that, because

“ultimately, it's really important. Things are shifting, not fast enough, and we need to act more,”

and do more to change things. How much are you? It's been an absolute pleasure to have you on the show today. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for having me. Peace be upon you all. Now you've reached the end of this show, and the fact that you've stayed until a very end tells me that you truly believe in our work. Please consider making a one-up donation or becoming a member by visiting thinkinbusin.com/membership. Now your contributions give you exclusive

behind-the-scenes access, and the ability to ask questions to our guests, and monthly calls with myself, my team, and our guests like Sami Hamdi. Jazak al-akhir and keep us in your