American Site: Liberal Organizations Document Palestinian Suffering but Fail to Dismantle the System of Oppression

A report published by the American website 'Mondoweiss' asserted that international liberal institutions are designed in a way that allows them to acknowledge the oppression faced by the Palestinian people, but they lack the necessary tools or will to end it. The writer, Abd al-Qayyum Ahmed, explained that these organizations operate within frameworks aimed at regulating and managing violence rather than dismantling the colonial systems that continuously produce it.

The analysis reviewed two prominent incidents that revealed the nature of these institutions' work, where the recent stances of both 'Doctors Without Borders' and 'Human Rights Watch' demonstrated the limits of the liberal ceiling in dealing with existential Palestinian rights. The writer considered these institutions to represent a model of the international system that documents genocide but is unable to comprehend the demands for liberation and the dismantling of colonialism.

In the details of the first incident, the report indicated that 'Doctors Without Borders' agreed last January to hand over lists of its Palestinian staff to the Israeli occupation authorities as a condition for continuing its operations in the Gaza Strip. This approach sparked widespread anger in Palestinian circles, which view these lists as a security tool for surveillance and arrest, and the organization only retracted under the weight of popular pressure.

The second incident involved the resignation of researchers from 'Human Rights Watch' after senior leadership intervened to obstruct the publication of a specialized report on the Palestinian right of return. The objection was not to the accuracy of the scientific research, but to the political ramifications imposed by the right of return as a tool to end historical injustice, rather than merely a legal description.

The report quoted researcher 'Omar Shakir' following his resignation from the international human rights organization, stating that the leadership explicitly expressed concerns that the report would lead to the organization being accused of challenging 'the Jewishness of the state.' This position reflects the unwritten boundaries that liberal institutions adhere to in order to maintain their standing within the existing global order.

The writer believes that these institutions face structural limitations stemming from the foundations of legal liberalism that emerged after World War II. While 'Human Rights Watch' relies on international human rights law, 'Doctors Without Borders' relies on international humanitarian law, both of which are frameworks aimed at regulating wars and atrocities without affecting the essence of hegemony.

The analysis added that international law has never failed to monitor colonial violence; rather, it has developed mechanisms to accommodate racial hierarchies and land appropriation under the guise of 'universal application.' Palestine is considered the fault line that exposes the falsity of this claim, as humanitarian interventions remain confined to the internationally permissible scope.

The policy of 'neutrality' adopted by these organizations imposes conditions that make the provision of medical care contingent on not disturbing the existing political conditions. This approach leads to the transformation of the catastrophe in the Gaza Strip into a mere isolated 'humanitarian emergency,' instead of dealing with it as a natural and inevitable outcome of the ongoing siege and settler rule.

In a related context, the report indicated that human rights organizations might go far in labeling 'apartheid' or 'collective punishment,' but they immediately retract when the analysis moves towards prospects of liberation and the future. These expressive boundaries narrow whenever the argument approaches challenging the international system that provides these organizations with their legitimacy and funding.

Wealthy donors from the 'Global North' play a pivotal role in drawing these red lines, as they have significant influence within the boards of major liberal institutions. The report revealed internal practices including the exclusion of employees known for their strong pro-Palestinian stances from sensitive meetings to avoid what are called 'reputational risks.'

Abd al-Qayyum Ahmed affirmed that terms such as 'settler colonialism' and 'decolonization' raise complex calculations within these corridors, where the standards of what is acceptable and unacceptable change based on the political moment. He stressed that these institutions are not necessarily 'malicious,' but they are ultimately tools for measuring injustice, not engines for actual liberation.

The article concluded that liberal boundaries always move in direct relation to power; they close completely when the global system or 'empire' feels a real threat to its interests. Therefore, betting on the expansion of these boundaries from within is a losing bet in the Palestinian liberation struggle, which requires external impetus.

In conclusion, the writer emphasized that liberation will not come from waiting for international organizations, but from resistance movements that render these liberal boundaries irrelevant to reality. Although these institutions may follow liberation movements in later stages, they will always remain constrained by the liberal system that grants them existence and funding.

International law has not failed to see colonial violence; rather, it has learned how to manage it and regulate atrocities without retreating from conquest.