August, 10 2010, 03:00pm EDT
Israel/Gaza: Wartime Inquiries Fall Short
Governments and UN Should Press for Justice
NEW YORK
Israeli military investigations into the Gaza war have brought some
results over the past 18 months but fall far short of addressing the
widespread and serious allegations of unlawful conduct during the
fighting, while Hamas has announced no serious investigations
whatsoever, Human Rights Watch said today.
Human Rights Watch called on governments and the United Nations
to increase their pressure on Israel and Hamas to conduct credible,
independent investigations.
"International pressure for investigations has pushed Israel, if
not Hamas, to take some steps, but there can be no let-up," said Sarah
Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The victims
on all sides deserve justice."
In July 2010, Israel gave UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon an
update of its Gaza investigations, claiming "significant results." The
Palestinian authorities in the West Bank also submitted a report to the
secretary-general, which is not yet public. Hamas has reportedly
prepared a report on its investigations but has also not released it
publicly. Ban is expected to pass the reports from Israel and the West
Bank authorities to the General Assembly in the coming weeks.
"Secretary-General Ban should candidly assess the investigations
by both sides and not just passively transmit the reports to the General
Assembly," Whitson said.
In February, the General Assembly called
on Israel and Hamas for the second time to conduct thorough and
impartial investigations into the serious violations of international
human rights and humanitarian law documented by the UN
Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, headed by Justice
Richard Goldstone. That report found that both Israel and Hamas had
committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
Hamas authorities in Gaza have neither investigated nor
disciplined anyone for ordering or carrying out hundreds of deliberate
or indiscriminate rocket
attacks into Israeli cities and towns during the fighting in
December 2008 and January 2009, which are war crimes. Hamas officials,
at a May 14 meeting in Gaza City, told Human Rights Watch that they were
investigating allegations of wartime abuses but provided no details.
At that meeting, Human Rights Watch reiterated its concerns about
Hamas's failure
to investigate laws-of-war and human rights violations, including
rocket attacks against Israeli population centers, the continued
incommunicado detention of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad
Shalit, and ill-treatment
of Gaza residents in custody. Hamas allowed Human Rights Watch to
visit Palestinian detainees at Gaza's central prison but denied a
request to visit Shalit and a detention facility where torture allegedly
occurs.
On July 21, the Israeli government made public the report
it gave to the UN secretary-general on its Gaza investigations. All of
these were conducted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The government
has rejected calls for independent investigations.
The military has failed to investigate many serious allegations of
abuses or the policies that apparently led to civilian deaths, Human
Rights Watch said.
To date, Israeli military courts have convicted only one soldier for a
wartime abuse - the theft of a credit card. Two other soldiers are on
trial for forcing a child to open a bag they suspected of being rigged
with explosives. A third soldier was recently indicted for shooting and
killing a civilian who was walking in a group holding white flags.
Israel says the military has opened more than 150 investigations, but
more than 100 of these were limited to "operational debriefings" (in
Hebrew, tahkir mivza'i). Rather than criminal investigations,
these are after-action reports in which an officer in the chain of
command interviews the soldiers involved, with no testimony from
Palestinian victims or witnesses.
The operational debriefings may serve a useful military purpose, but
they are inadequate substitutes for impartial and thorough
investigations into possible criminal wrongdoing, Human Rights Watch
said.
The IDF military advocate general has also opened 47 criminal
investigations in which military investigators summoned witnesses and
more broadly examined evidence. Of these, at least seven cases have been
closed without charges.
Human Rights Watch investigated
at least two of these closed cases and found that the evidence strongly
suggests violations of the laws of war. In one case, on January 7, an
Israeli soldier apparently opened fire on two women and three children
from the 'Abd Rabbo family in eastern Jabalya who were holding white
flags, killing two girls and wounding the grandmother and third
girl. The military said it closed the case because "the evidence was
insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings."
The second case involved the killing of Rawhiya al-Najjar, 47, as she
carried a white flag in Khuza'a on January 13. The military determined
that she had been hit accidentally by a ricochet bullet. But five
witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that Israeli soldiers
continued to fire after al-Najjar was struck in the head, preventing a
group of women from retrieving her body and wounding Jasmin al-Najjar,
23. Another civilian carrying a white flag, Mahmoud al-Najjar, 57, was
shot and killed later that day trying to reach the body.
Other Israeli military investigations have resulted in
unspecified disciplinary action, reserved for less serious offenses,
against five unidentified commanders and soldiers. A brigadier general
and a colonel were disciplined for ordering the use of explosive shells
in an urban area, in violation of operational orders. A lieutenant
colonel was disciplined because soldiers under his command used a
civilian to perform a military task.
An officer of unspecified rank was reprimanded and two others
sanctioned for using poor judgment in a January 3 strike just outside
the Ibrahim al-Maqadema mosque in Jabalya refugee camp that reportedly
killed 10 civilians inside the mosque and two members of Hamas's armed
wing standing outside. A previous Israeli update on the military's
internal investigations, released in July 2009, stated that a soldier
had been disciplined by the commander in the field for destroying
property, which military investigators told Human Rights Watch involved
uprooting vegetation.
Israel said it is making operational changes to reduce civilian
casualties and damage to civilian property during future military
operations. According to the July report, the military has added a
humanitarian affairs officer to each combat unit at the battalion level
and above. In October 2009 it introduced a new "Standing Order on
Destruction of Private Property for Military Purposes," which clarifies
when and under what circumstances the military may destroy civilian
structures and agricultural infrastructure.
The report also said that the Israeli military is establishing
new orders on the use of munitions containing white phosphorus, which
can cause severe burns and ignite civilian structures, and is
"establishing permanent restrictions on the use of munitions containing
white phosphorus in urban areas."
"Israel's recognition of the need to change its policies,
especially on property destruction and the use of white phosphorus, is a
positive step, but the military should make the new policies public to
ensure they are consistent with international law," Whitson said.
Israel initially denied that it had used white phosphorus during the
fighting in Gaza but, after the evidence became undeniable, it conceded
that it had and investigated its use. A Human Rights Watch report showed
how Israeli forces repeatedly exploded
white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing
and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a
school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse, and a hospital.
Another Human Rights Watch report showed that Israeli forces
deliberately destroyed 189
civilian structures without a lawful military justification, which
could amount to the war crime of wanton destruction. That report
investigated roughly 5 percent of the destruction of civilian property
in Gaza.
Various bodies of the United Nations are monitoring the post-war
investigations by Israel and Hamas. The General Assembly is expected to
take up the secretary-general's report. At the Human Rights Council, a Committee
of Experts is assessing whether Israel and Hamas are conducting
investigations that meet international standards. Its report is expected
in September.
"A growing number of states are demanding accountability from
both sides, and their pressure is bearing fruit," Whitson said. "Now all
European governments, as well as the US and Canada, should insist on
the same rules for Israel and Hamas as they demand elsewhere: that those
responsible for war crimes be held accountable, and the victims receive
justice and compensation."
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
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular