Impunity should have consequences

EDITORIAL: When a United Nations special rapporteur tells the Human Rights Council that Israel has effectively been given a “licence to torture Palestinians,” the charge demands serious attention, not the predictable dismissal that has come to define the international response. Francesca Albanese’s latest report places the issue squarely where it belongs, in the realm of systematic policy rather than isolated abuse, and in doing so, it exposes the deeper problem of sustained global inaction. Her findings are stark. Torture, she argues, is no longer confined to detention centres – which in itself constitutes a crime – but forms part of a broader environment imposed across the occupied Palestinian territories. The implication is clear: what is being documented is not episodic misconduct but a pattern that reflects institutional intent. Palestinian representatives at the council reinforced this view, describing the practices as collective and systematic, while Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, pointed to entrenched impunity and the erosion of safeguards. This is not a new position. Pakistan and many other countries have consistently raised concerns about Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories, particularly in the context of prolonged occupation and recurring cycles of violence. What has changed, however, is the weight of accumulated evidence, especially since the escalation in Gaza over recent years. The scale and persistence of reported abuses have made it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that these are isolated incidents detached from broader policy frameworks. The response from Israel, characteristically, has been to attack the credibility of the messenger. Albanese has been accused of bias and her report dismissed as politically motivated. Such reactions follow a familiar script, one that seeks to deflect scrutiny rather than engage with substance. Yet the consistency of findings from multiple sources over time suggests that the issue cannot be reduced to the views of any single individual. More troubling is the role of the international system in enabling this dynamic. Albanese’s warning that Israel has been allowed to act with impunity points directly to the political shielding that has often accompanied discussions on Palestine at global forums. The United States, in particular, has repeatedly used its influence to block or dilute resolutions critical of Israel, limiting the ability of institutions such as the UN Security Council to enforce accountability. This pattern has consequences that extend beyond the immediate conflict. When international law is applied selectively, its credibility is weakened. Albanese’s caution that disregard for legal norms will not remain confined to Palestine reflects a broader concern about the erosion of the rules-based order. If violations are tolerated in one context, they set precedents that others may follow. The human cost of this impunity remains the most pressing concern. Testimonies cited in the report describe conditions that strip individuals of dignity and erode the basic structures of life. The cumulative effect is not only physical suffering but the dismantling of social and psychological stability across entire communities. These are outcomes that international law was designed to prevent. The question, then, is whether the latest findings will lead to any meaningful shift in approach. Calls for accountability have been made repeatedly, yet tangible outcomes remain limited. The persistence of this gap between rhetoric and action underscores the structural constraints within the international system, where political considerations frequently override legal and moral imperatives. There is little ambiguity in the message delivered at the Human Rights Council. Allegations of systematic abuse, supported by consistent reporting and reinforced by state representatives, demand a response that goes beyond procedural debate. Addressing them requires a willingness to confront entrenched positions and to apply standards uniformly, regardless of political alignment. Absent that, the cycle is likely to continue. Reports will be issued, statements will be made, and conditions on the ground will remain largely unchanged. The credibility of international institutions, already under strain, will erode further. And the principle that all states are accountable under international law will remain more aspirational than real. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Go to News Site