4 min read
YouTube has deleted the official channels of three major Palestinian human rights organisations, erasing more than 700 videos documenting alleged Israeli abuses in Gaza and the West Bank. The affected groups are Al-Haq, Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR).
The move sparked widespread criticism from human rights advocates who say it undermines accountability and silences Palestinian voices online.
The deleted videos included eyewitness footage, investigations, and documentaries. Among them were reports on the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and footage showing destruction in Gaza and the West Bank.
YouTube removed Al-Haq’s channel on October 3, Al Mezan’s on October 7, and later deleted PCHR’s archive. Each channel hosted hours of evidence-based reporting on alleged Israeli war crimes.
YouTube Links Action to US Sanctions
YouTube, owned by Google, confirmed that the deletions followed a review tied to U.S. State Department sanctions imposed in September 2025.
A Google spokesperson said:
Google is committed to compliance with applicable sanctions and trade compliance laws.
The sanctions were issued by the Trump administration for the organisations’ cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC). They came after the ICC issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Secretary Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes in Gaza.
The affected organisations said YouTube removed their channels without prior notice. They warned that the decision will limit their ability to document and share evidence of abuses.
An Al-Haq spokesperson called the deletion an alarming setback for human rights and freedom of expression.
Basel al-Sourani, PCHR’s international advocacy officer, said that the action protects perpetrators from accountability and accused YouTube of being complicit in silencing Palestinian victims.
Al Mezan described the removal as a major barrier to its mission of raising awareness about ongoing violations in Gaza.
Legal Experts Question the Justification Given by YouTube
Legal advocates say that U.S. laws referenced in the sanctions include exemptions for informational materials. They questioned YouTube’s decision to remove human rights documentation, arguing that it does not violate sanction rules.
Katherine Gallagher, a senior staff attorney at the Centre for Constitutional Rights, said
It is outrageous that YouTube is furthering the Trump administration’s agenda to remove evidence of human rights violations and war crimes from public view.
Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), called the move disappointing and surprising, warning it could set a precedent for wider censorship.
Some deleted videos remain accessible on the “Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine”, as well as on “Facebook” and “Vimeo”. However, no comprehensive record exists, and many files appear lost.
The organisations are now exploring non-U.S. platforms to store and share their archives, fearing that other American tech companies may follow YouTube’s lead.
Earlier, “Mailchimp” deleted Al-Haq’s account in September. YouTube had also removed the account of Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association after pressure from UK Lawyers for Israel.
Broader Pattern of Tech Compliance
The report highlights a pattern of U.S. tech firms complying with political demands. Reportedly, Google has previously coordinated with Israeli tech workers to remove content critical of Israel. It also handed over Gmail data to U.S. authorities in unrelated cases involving pro-Palestinian activism.
Experts warn that such compliance enables government-driven censorship and restricts access to human rights documentation.
Wikipedia Faces Neutrality Dispute Over Gaza Article
In a related issue, Wikipedia is facing an internal debate over its article titled “Gaza genocide”. Co-founder Jimmy Wales intervened, calling the page a particularly egregious example of neutrality problems.
Wales said the current introduction wrongly presents, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, a claim he called highly contested.
He suggested a neutral rewrite:
Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterisation of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
Volunteer editors pushed back, arguing that Wales’ involvement could influence community editing. The Wikimedia Foundation clarified that he spoke in a personal capacity and that page protections remain under volunteer administrators.
Accountability and Information Access Under Threat
Both cases, YouTube’s deletions and Wikipedia’s dispute, have reignited concerns over digital governance and freedom of information in times of conflict.
Human rights advocates argue that removing or restricting access to documentation not only harms transparency but also shields alleged perpetrators from scrutiny.
As platforms continue to moderate conflict-related content, the debate over how information from war zones is shared, and who controls it, is becoming more urgent than ever.
