May, 13 2010, 12:16pm EDT
Israel: Investigate Unlawful Destruction in Gaza War
Gaza Blockade Hinders Rebuilding of Property
JERUSALEM
Israel should investigate the unlawful destruction of civilian
property during the 2009 Gaza hostilities and lift the blockade that
hinders residents from rebuilding their homes, Human Rights Watch said
in a new report released today.
The 116-page report, "'I Lost Everything': Israel's Unlawful
Destruction of Property in the Gaza Conflict" documents 12 separate
cases during Operation Cast Lead in which Israeli forces extensively
destroyed civilian property, including homes, factories, farms, and
greenhouses, in areas under their control, without any lawful military
purpose. Human Rights Watch's investigations, which relied upon
physical evidence, satellite imagery, and multiple witness accounts at
each site, found no indication of nearby fighting when the destruction
occurred.
Israel has claimed that its forces destroyed civilian property only
when Palestinian armed groups were fighting from it, or were using it
to store weapons, hide tunnels, or advance other military purposes.
Israel also claims that many Gazan homes were destroyed by Hamas
booby-traps. The evidence in the incidents that Human Rights Watch
investigated does not support such claims.
"Almost 16 months after the war, Israel has not held accountable
troops who unlawfully destroyed swaths of civilian property in areas
under their control," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at
Human Rights Watch. "Israel's blockade continues to keep Gazans from
rebuilding their homes, meaning that Israel is still punishing Gaza's
civilians long after the fighting is over."
Human Rights Watch found evidence in the 12 cases indicating that
Israeli forces carried out the destruction for either punitive or other
unlawful reasons, violating the prohibition under international
humanitarian law - the laws of war - against deliberately destroying
civilian property except when necessary for lawful military reasons. In
seven of the cases, satellite imagery corroborated eyewitness accounts
that Israeli forces destroyed many structures after establishing
control over an area and shortly before Israel announced a ceasefire
and withdrew its forces from Gaza on January 18, 2009.
Israel's comprehensive blockade of the Gaza Strip, a form of
collective punishment against civilians imposed in response to Hamas's
takeover of Gaza in June 2007, has prevented significant
reconstruction, including in areas where Human Rights Watch has
documented destruction. Israel has allowed imports of cement for
several repair projects, but United Nations Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon noted in late March that these were "a drop in a bucket"
compared to housing needs.
Israeli officials insist that the blockade - which had already
degraded humanitarian conditions in Gaza before Operation Cast Lead -
will remain in place until Hamas releases Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit,
the Israeli soldier captured in 2006, rejects violence, and fulfills
other political conditions. Hamas's prolonged incommunicado detention
of Shalit violates the prohibition of cruel and inhuman treatment and
may amount to torture.
Many goods are being smuggled into Gaza through tunnels beneath the
southern border with Egypt, and many damaged buildings have been
repaired at least partially with bricks made from smuggled cement and
recycled concrete rubble. However, these improvised building materials
are reportedly of poor quality and cannot be used for large
reconstruction projects. In the areas of Gaza where Human Rights Watch
found that Israeli forces had destroyed homes in areas under their
control, there has been virtually no reconstruction of destroyed
buildings, indicating that the inadequate supply of reconstruction
materials still leaves these materials prohibitively expensive for most
of Gaza's residents, more than three-quarters of whom are impoverished.
Egypt shares responsibility for the collective punishment of Gaza's
civilian population due to its own closure of Gaza's southern border.
Except in limited circumstances, Egypt refuses to allow the passage of
goods or people through the border crossing it controls at Rafah.
The laws of war prohibit attacks on civilian objects, including
residential homes and civilian factories, unless they become a
legitimate military objective, meaning that they are providing enemy
forces a definite military advantage in the circumstances prevailing at
the time. The report examines incidents of destruction that suggest
violation of the laws-of-war prohibition of wanton destruction - the
term used to describe extensive destruction of civilian property not
lawfully justified by military necessity. Such destruction would be a
grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, which is
applicable in Gaza. Individuals responsible for committing or ordering
such destruction should be prosecuted for war crimes.
Human Rights Watch did not include in its report cases in which the
destruction was not extensive, or the evidence suggested any
possibility that Israel's destruction of the property in question could
have been militarily justified or based on mistaken information.
Human Rights Watch documented the complete destruction of 189
buildings, including 11 factories, 8 warehouses and 170 residential
buildings - roughly 5 percent of the total property destroyed in Gaza -
leaving at least 971 people homeless. In the cases investigated in the
neighborhoods of Izbt Abd Rabbo, Zeitoun, and Khoza'a, Israeli forces
had destroyed virtually every home, factory, and orchard within certain
areas, indicating an apparent plan of systematic destruction in these
locations. The destroyed industrial establishments include juice and
biscuit plants, a flour mill, and seven concrete factories. Human
Rights Watch did not determine whether these incidents represent a
broader pattern, but Israel should thoroughly investigate these cases -
including the lawfulness of any relevant policy decisions - and
appropriately punish persons found to have acted unlawfully.
"The evidence shows that, in these cases, Israeli forces
gratuitously destroyed people's homes and livelihoods," said Whitson.
"If the Israeli government doesn't investigate and punish those
responsible, it would be effectively endorsing the suffering that these
civilians have endured."
Israel Defense Forces (IDF) lawyers told Human Rights Watch that the
IDF is probing many of the cases of property destruction documented in
this report. However, these are not criminal investigations by military
police, but so-called operational debriefings that do not involve
contacting Palestinian witnesses. Of the 150 investigations opened to
date into Operation Cast Lead, 36 are criminal investigations and the
rest are operational debriefings. Two of these criminal cases include
allegations of damage to individual buildings.
The only reported penalty imposed for unlawful property destruction
during Operation Cast Lead was an unspecified disciplinary measure
taken immediately by the commander in the field against one soldier for
an incident involving "uprooting vegetation" in Gaza. The IDF has
provided no further details regarding the incident or the disciplinary
measure. Overall, to date Israel has criminally sentenced only one
soldier and has disciplined four other soldiers and commanders for
violations during the Gaza operation.
Notably, Israel has not conducted thorough and impartial
investigations into whether policy decisions taken by senior political
and military decision-makers, including pre-operation decisions, led to
violations of the laws of war, such as the unlawful destruction of
civilian infrastructure.
Israel has published the results of a military probe into one case
documented in this report, which found an attack on a flour mill to be
lawful. The probe's conclusions, however, are contradicted by available
video and other evidence. (In late March 2010, Israel announced that it
had approved cement imports to repair the flour mill.) The IDF has not
provided explanations for the other 11 incidents that Human Rights
Watch documented and previously raised with the IDF.
Hamas authorities are not known to have taken any meaningful steps
to investigate or hold accountable members of Hamas or other
Palestinian armed groups responsible for serious laws-of-war violations
either before, during, or since Operation Case Lead, primarily rocket
attacks at populated areas in Israel. However, under the laws of war,
unlawfulness by one party to a conflict does not justify unlawful acts
by another.
Under the laws of war, not all destruction of civilian property is
unlawful. At times, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups used
civilian structures to engage Israeli forces and to store arms; they
also booby-trapped civilian structures and dug tunnels underneath them.
In addition, Human Rights Watch criticized Hamas and other
Palestinian groups for firing rockets from populated areas. In such
cases, property damage caused by Israeli counter-strikes against armed
groups may have been lawful "collateral damage." Palestinian armed
groups also may have been responsible for damage to civilian property
in cases in which IDF attacks triggered secondary explosions of weapons
or explosives stored by armed groups, which damaged nearby structures.
The destruction of civilian property during immediate fighting or in
order to permit the movement of Israeli forces because adjoining roads
were mined and impassable may be lawful as well, depending on the
circumstances.
Human Rights Watch's investigations considered these possibilities
and focused on 12 cases where the evidence indicates that there was no
lawful justification for the destruction of civilian property. In these
incidents, the IDF was not engaging Palestinian forces at the time they
destroyed the property - in all cases fighting in the area had stopped
- and in most cases the property destruction occurred after Israeli
forces had eliminated or dispersed Palestinian fighters in the area and
consolidated their control, such as by occupying houses, stationing
tanks in streets or on nearby hills, and undertaking continuous
surveillance from manned and unmanned aircraft.
The mere possibility of future military use by armed groups of some
civilian structures in these areas - such as to set booby-traps, store
weapons, or build tunnels - cannot under the laws of war justify the
wide-scale and at times systematic destruction of whole neighborhoods,
as well as of factories and greenhouses that provided food and other
items intended for the civilian population.
Public statements by some Israeli political leaders suggest a
willingness to destroy civilian infrastructure in Gaza to deter rocket
attacks by armed groups against Israel. Human Rights Watch documented
numerous cases in which Palestinian armed groups in Gaza launched
rocket attacks against Israeli population centers during and before
Operation Cast Lead in violation of the laws of war. During the
fighting, approximately 800,000 Israelis were within range of hundreds
of rocket attacks, which killed three Israeli civilians and seriously
injured several dozen others. Individuals who willfully conducted or
ordered deliberate or indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians are
responsible for war crimes. However, as noted, laws of war violations
by one party to a conflict do not justify violations by another party.
Israel controls the Gaza Strip's land, air, and sea access with the
exception of a 15-kilometer border with Egypt. Since the end of the
conflict, Israel has approved limited shipments of food, fuel, and
material into Gaza, but these fall far short of the humanitarian needs
of the population. It has allowed construction materials designated for
specific projects, but continues to deny entry to cement, iron bars,
and other basic construction materials. While there are valid Israeli
security concerns that Hamas could use cement to build or strengthen
military bunkers and tunnels, humanitarian aid organizations report
that Israel has refused to consider a mechanism to ensure the
independent monitoring of the end-use of construction materials. Israel
should urgently seek to create such a mechanism.
"The United States, the European Union, and other states should
urgently call upon Israel and Egypt to open Gaza's borders to
reconstruction materials and other supplies essential for the civilian
population," Whitson said.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
20 Years Later, Abu Ghraib Torture Victims Get Their Day in Court
"Meanwhile, the U.S. government STILL hasn't provided compensation or other redress to people tortured by U.S. troops in Iraq," said one observer. "These three men are the lucky few."
Apr 15, 2024
Two decades after they were tortured by U.S. military contractors at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, three Iraqi victims are finally getting their day in court Monday as a federal court in Virginia takes up a case they brought during the George W. Bush administration.
The case being heard in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Al Shimari v. CACI, was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute—which allows non-U.S. citizens to sue for human rights abuses committed abroad—by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of three Iraqis. The men suffered torture directed and perpetrated by employees of CACI, a Virginia-based professional services and information technology firm hired in 2003 by the Bush administration as translators and interrogators in Iraq during the illegal U.S.-led invasion and occupation.
"This lawsuit is a critical step towards justice for these three men who will finally have their day in court."
Plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Asa'ad Zuba'e, and Salah Al-Ejaili accuse CACI of conspiring to commit war crimes including torture at Abu Ghraib, where the men suffered broken bones, electric shocks, sexual abuse, extreme temperatures, and death threats at the hands of their U.S. interrogators.
"This lawsuit is a critical step towards justice for these three men who will finally have their day in court. But they are the lucky few," Sarah Sanbar, an Iraq researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Monday. "For the hundreds of other survivors still suffering from past abuses, their chances of justice remain slim."
"The U.S. government should do the right thing: Take responsibility for their abuses, offer an apology, and open an avenue to redress that has been denied them for too many years," Sanbar added.
U.S. military investigators found that employees of CACI and Titan Corporation (now L3 Technologies) tortured Iraqi prisoners and encouraged U.S. troops to do likewise. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners endured torture ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A May 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba concluded that the majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners—the Red Cross said 70-90%— were innocent. In addition to thousands of men and boys, some women and girls were also jailed there as bargaining chips meant to induce wanted insurgents to surrender. Some of them said they were raped or sexually abused by their American captors; lesser-known Abu Ghraib photos show women being forced to expose their private parts. Some female detainees were reportedly murdered by their own relatives in so-called "honor killings" after their release.
Eleven low-ranking U.S. soldiers were convicted and jailed for their roles in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the prison's commanding officer, was demoted. No other high-ranking military officer faced accountability for the abuse. Senior Bush administration officials—who had authorized many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used at prisons including Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay—lied about their knowledge of the torture. None of them were ever held accountable.
Bush's successor, former President Barack Obama, promised to investigate—and if warranted, to prosecute—the Bush-era officials responsible for the torture that had become synonymous with the War on Terror. Instead, the Obama administration protected them from prosecution.
In 2013, L3 Technologies agreed to pay $5.28 million to 71 former Abu Ghraib detainees who were subjected to sexual assault and humiliation, rape threats, electrical shocks, mock executions, brutal beatings, and other abuse.
The following year, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling prohibiting Abu Ghraib torture victims from suing U.S. companies implicated in their abuse. But the court later reversed itself, finding the case had sufficient ties to the United States to be heard in an American court. The suit was later dismissed under the political question doctrine, which prevents courts from ruling on issues determined to be essentially political.
However, in 2016, a 4th Circuit panel ruled that "the political question doctrine does not shield from judicial review intentional acts by a government contractor that were unlawful at the time they were committed," allowing the Iraqis' case to proceed.
"This is a historic trial that we hope will deliver some measure of justice and healing for what President Bush rightly deemed disgraceful conduct that dishonored the United States and its values," CCR senior attorney Katherine Gallagher toldThe Guardian on Monday.
"In many ways, this case may be seen as setting a precedent for holding contractors accountable for human rights violations should they happen in other contexts, too," she added.
CACI—which denies any wrongdoing—has tried to get the case dismissed 20 times. The company still lands millions of dollars worth of U.S. government contracts. In February, Fortuneincluded the firm on its "World's Most Admired Companies" list for the seventh straight year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mehdi Hasan Launches Media Platform With Naomi Klein, Greta Thunberg, and More
The journalist says Zeteo will feature "hard-hitting interviews and unsparing analysis" in op-eds, podcasts, and streaming shows.
Apr 15, 2024
After a few weeks of "soft launch" mode, journalist Mehdi Hasan on Monday officially debuted his new media platform, Zeteo, and declared that "this is not a one-man band."
The former MSNBC and Peacock host—whose show was canceled in November and wrapped up in January, after his incisive criticism of Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip—revealed nine of the contributors he has lined up so far, calling them "some of the biggest, boldest, and best names from media, activism, entertainment, and beyond."
They are Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Spencer Ackerman, comedian and podcaster W. Kamau Bell, Palestinian Canadian lawyer Diana Buttu, former CNBC and CNN correspondent John Harwood, foreign policy analyst Rula Jebreal, author Naomi Klein, novelist Viet Thanh Nguyen, actor and activist Cynthia Nixon, and Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg.
"The tough interviews and knowledgeable analysis are all coming back, along with a global cast of contributors," Klein said on social media Monday. "I was honored when Mehdi asked me to be one of them, along with Rula Jebreal and Greta Thunberg and many others yet announced."
"Mehdi and I will be having a regular conversation called 'Unshocked,'" noted Klein, who authored The Shock Doctrine.
Hasan—who has also produced content for Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and The Intercept—has saidZeteo will feature "hard-hitting interviews and unsparing analysis" in a variety of forms, from op-eds and podcasts to streaming shows, beginning with "Mehdi Unfiltered."
"To keep Zeteo's journalism independent and free of advertiser and corporate influence," Hasan explained ahead of the formal launch, "and to allow us to continue investing in the future, we have to rely on our individual paid subscribers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Catastrophic': Biden Admin Approves Largest Offshore Oil Export Terminal
"Nothing about this project is in alignment with Biden's climate and environmental justice goals," said one campaigner.
Apr 15, 2024
Climate action groups are vehemently rejecting the Biden administration's claim that the approval of a new offshore oil terminal—planned to be the largest in the U.S.—is in the "national interest," after the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the project had met several federal requirements and could begin operations by 2027.
The agency's Maritime Administration said last week that Enterprise Product Partners, a Houston-based pipeline company, had been granted a deepwater port license to build the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT) near Freeport, Texas following a five-year federal review process.
The federal government determined the $1.8 billion terminal project had undergone sufficient environmental impact reviews and would overall benefit the country—even as it was projected by the Sierra Club, which has fought SPOT for several years, to emit greenhouse gases equivalent to those of nearly 90 coal-fired power plants.
"The evidence is clear that SPOT would be catastrophic to the climate, wildlife, and frontline communities of the Gulf," said Devorah Ancel, senior attorney with the Sierra Club. "It threatens the future existence of the endangered Rice's whale with a population of less than fifty, and its ozone pollution would compromise the health of thousands of Gulf residents who have endured decades of fossil fuel industry pollution. Make no mistake, SPOT is not in the national interest."
The project is expected to include two pipelines that would carry crude oil to the deepwater port each day, enabling the export of 2 million barrels of crude oil, loaded onto two supertankers at once, daily.
"Nothing about this project is in alignment with Biden's climate and environmental justice goals," said Kelsey Crane, senior policy advocate at Earthworks. "The communities that will be impacted by SPOT have once again been ignored and will be forced to live with the threat of more oil spills, explosions, and pollution. The best way to protect the public and the climate from the harms of oil is to keep it in the ground."
Allie Rosenbluth, U.S. manager at Oil Change International, noted that the project has been approved despite the International Energy Agency's clear assessment in 2021 that "all new investments in oil and gas projects must stop if the world is going to reach its climate goals," including limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
"The Biden administration's decision to approve the Sea Port Oil Terminal is a grave mistake. This approval will only harm local communities and ecosystems, and lead to even more devastating impacts of the climate crisis," said Rosenbluth. "The U.S. is already the largest producer of oil and gas and has the largest expansion plans globally. Instead of continuing this legacy of harm by approving fossil fuel projects, President Biden should be listening to the science and the masses of his constituents calling for an end to fossil fuels."
The direct action group Climate Defiance expressed doubt that the approval of SPOT will help Biden win over any voters as the 2024 election approaches.
Nine in 10 Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independents told Pew Research Center last year that they believe the U.S. should prioritize developing renewable energy sources—and two-thirds of Republican voters under age 30 agreed.
"This project would be the single-largest oil export terminal in the U.S." said the group. "We are being boiled alive here, literally burned to death by 'moderate' politicians who see fit to torch us in the name of quarterly profits. How can we live like this? How can this go on?"
Last year was the hottest on record, and the first three months of 2024 have each broken records for high global temperatures. Scientists found last year that climate disasters including wildfires in Canada and extreme heat in Europe were made far more likely by fossil-fueled planetary heating.
Local organizers in Texas condemned the Biden administration's decision to ignore campaigners who have warned of the danger SPOT poses to marine habitats as well as people who live in the area where two crude oil pipelines have now been given final approval to run.
"We continue to struggle to see why Biden and [Transportation Secretary Pete] Buttigieg prefer to protect the corporate profits of billion-dollar oil giants like Enbridge and Enterprise over the hardcore objections of the people who would have to live with the consequences of pipelines criss-crossing our beaches," said Trevor Carroll, Brazoria County lead organizer with Texas Campaign for the Environment. "If you care about environmental justice and the climate, you just can't support a monstrosity like SPOT. The local community and the global climate justice movement are continuing to fight... This is not over."
Melanie Oldham, director of Better Brazoria, said SPOT will be "an oil spill waiting to happen that would not only lower property value, but harm our local ecosystems, ecotourism, beaches, recreation, and kill marine life like the endangered Rice's whale and Kemp's Ridley sea turtles."
"Those of us residents, beachgoers, and voters that have for the past four years opposed the SPOT offshore terminal and pipelines are very disappointed with the approval of the project license," said Oldham. "President Biden has again broken promises to protect frontline communities in Surfside and Freeport."
The administration's approval came three months after the White House announced it was delaying consideration of new gas export terminals, and the same day the federal government said fossil fuel companies will have to pay higher royalties in order to drill on federal lands.
But those climate actions paired with the SPOT approval amount only to "flip flopping," said Climate Defiance.
"It is not enough that the administration stopped new gas exports if they are going to back stab us with this death-sentence decision now," said the group. "This is not us being 'ungrateful.' This is the science. The pure, unvarnished, science."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular