December, 30 2008, 03:10pm EDT
Israel/Hamas: Civilians Must Not Be Targets
Disregard for Civilians Underlies Current Escalation
WASHINGTON
Israel and Hamas both must respect the prohibition under the laws of
war against deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, Human
Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch expressed grave concern
about Israeli bombings in Gaza that caused civilian deaths and
Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilian areas in violation of
international law.
Rocket attacks on Israeli towns by Hamas and other Palestinian armed
groups that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets
violate the laws of war, while a rising number of the hundreds of
Israeli bombings in Gaza since December 27, 2008, appear to be unlawful
attacks causing civilian casualties. Additionally, Israel's severe
limitations on the movement of non-military goods and people into and
out of Gaza, including fuel and medical supplies, constitutes
collective punishment, also in violation of the laws of war.
"Firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and
terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of
Israel's actions in Gaza," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human
Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "At the same
time, Israel should not target individuals and institutions in Gaza
solely because they are part of the Hamas-run political authority,
including ordinary police. Only attacks on military targets are
permissible, and only in a manner that minimizes civilian casualties."
Human Rights Watch investigated three Israeli attacks that raise
particular concern about Israel's targeting decisions and require
independent and impartial inquiries to determine whether the attacks
violated the laws of war. In three incidents detailed below, 18
civilians died, among them at least seven children.
On Saturday, December 27, the first day of Israel's aerial attacks,
witnesses told Human Rights Watch that shortly after 1 p.m. an Israeli
air-to-ground missile struck a group of students leaving the Gaza
Training College, adjacent to the headquarters of the UN Relief and
Works Agency (UNRWA) in downtown Gaza City. The students were waiting
to board buses to transport them to their homes in Khan Yunis and
Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip. The strike killed eight students,
ages 18 to 20, and wounded 19 others.
A UNRWA security guard stationed at the college entrance told Human
Rights Watch that he used his UN radio to call for medical help. He
said the attack also killed two other civilians, Hisham al-Rayes, 28,
and his brother Alam, 26, whose family ran a small shop opposite the
college entrance. The guard said that the only potential target nearby
was the Gaza governorate building, which deals with civil matters,
about 150 meters away from where the missile struck. Another UNRWA
security guard who also witnessed the attack told Human Rights Watch:
"There wasn't anybody else around - no police, army, or Hamas."
The second incident occurred shortly before midnight on Sunday,
December 28, when Israeli warplanes fired one or more missiles at the
Imad Aqil mosque in Jabalya, a densely populated refugee camp in the
northern Gaza Strip. The attack killed five of Anwar Balousha's
daughters who were sleeping in a bedroom of their nearby house:
Jawaher, 4; Dina, 8; Samar, 12; Ikram, 14; and Tahrir, 18. "We were
asleep and we woke to the sound of bombing and the rubble falling on
the house and on our heads," Anwar Balousha told Human Rights Watch.
The Balousha's three-room house is just across a small street from the
mosque.
The two-story Imad Aqil mosque, named after a deceased Hamas member,
is regarded by Palestinians in the area as a "Hamas mosque" - that is,
a place where the group's supporters gather for political meetings or
to assemble for demonstrations, and where death notices of Hamas
members are posted. Mosques are presumptively civilian objects and
their use for political activities does not change that. Human Rights
Watch said that the attack on Imad Aql mosque would be lawful only if
Israel could demonstrate that it was being used to store weapons and
ammunition or served some other military purpose. Even if that were the
case, Israel still had an obligation to take all feasible precautions
to minimize harm to civilians and ensure that any likely civilian harm
was not disproportionate to the expected military gain.
In the third incident, at around 1 a.m. on Monday, December 29, an
Israeli helicopter fired two missiles into the Rafah refugee camp. One
struck the home of a senior Hamas commander; the other struck the home
of the al-Absi family, about 150 meters away, killing three brothers -
Sedqi, 3, Ahmad, 12, and Muhammad, 13 - and wounding two sisters and
the children's mother. Ziad al-Absi, 46, the children's father, told
Human Rights Watch that at around 10:30 p.m. on Sunday, armed
Palestinians had gathered near their home, firing machine guns at
Israeli helicopters. "I and the neighbors argued with the militants,
told them this is a populated area and this will put us into peril," he
said. According to al-Absi's nephew, Iyad al-Absi, 27, the fighters
refused to leave. When their commander arrived at about 11 p.m. and
ordered them to leave, they again refused. The fighters finally left at
around 11:15, but only after an exchange of gunfire between the
fighters and their commander. Al-Absi said that he and his family then
went to sleep. He told his nephew and other relatives that there was no
further armed activity in the area prior to the missile strike on his
house, almost two hours later. Ziad al-Absi said the blast had thrown
one daughter onto a neighbor's balcony. The children's mother is in
hospital intensive care; the two daughters are also in the hospital.
Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes,
especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as
security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to
the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on
December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their
graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the
single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on
a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah,
killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the
laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian
unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the
hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.
"Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police
stations are by definition legitimate military targets," Stork said.
"It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against
Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons
or for some other military purpose."
Some other Israeli targets may have also been unlawful under the
laws of war. Three teenagers were killed in southern Gaza City on
December 27, when Israeli aircraft struck a building rented by Wa`ed
(Promise), a Hamas-affiliated organization that defends prisoners held
by Israel. Israel justified its attack on Gaza City's Islamic
University on grounds that laboratories were used to manufacture
explosives, but this did not address why a second strike demolished the
women's quarters there. Israel also attacked the Hamas-affiliated
Al-Aqsa TV, but did not provide a reason. Television and radio stations
are legitimate military targets only if used for military purposes, not
if they are simply being used for pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda.
Human Rights Watch expressed grave concern about the seriously
deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, which was
already dire prior to the latest attacks. A health expert with the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Gaza said on
December 28 that hospitals were "overwhelmed and unable to cope with
the scale and type of injuries that keep coming in." The ICRC noted
that medical supplies and medicines were already badly depleted as a
result of Israel's prohibition of most imports into Gaza since Hamas
took full internal control of the territory in June 2007. In a
statement on December 29, the ICRC said that some neighborhoods were
running short of water, owing to damage from attacks or fuel and power
shortages. The statement also said that prices for food and basic
commodities were reportedly rising fast. UNRWA had reported several
days prior to the latest escalation of fighting that its stocks of
essential commodities were extremely low.
According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA), which also monitors security matters in Gaza,
Palestinian armed groups fired more than 100 rockets towards Israel on
December 27-28; Haaretz, the Israeli daily, reported that on December
29 Palestinian armed groups fired at least 60 rockets into Israel. One
of them killed a Bedouin construction worker, 27-year-old Hani
al-Mahdi, and wounded 14 others in the coastal city of Ashkelon, north
of Gaza; another fatally wounded 39-year-old Irit Sheetrit while she
was driving home in the city of Ashdod, 35 kilometers from Gaza. The
previous day, December 28, a rocket attack killed another Israeli
civilian and wounded four in Netivot, some 20 kilometers east of Gaza
City.
Human Rights Watch has long criticized Palestinian rocket attacks
against Israeli civilians - most recently, in a public letter to Hamas
on November 20 (https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/20/letter-hamas-stop-rocket-attacks
). The rockets are highly inaccurate, and those launching them cannot
accurately target military objects. Deliberately firing indiscriminate
weapons into civilian populated areas, as a matter of policy,
constitutes a war crime. Rocket attacks have killed 19 civilians in
Israel since 2005, including those killed to date during the current
clashes.
Human Rights Watch has also criticized Israel's policy of severely
restricting the flow of people and goods into Gaza, including fuel and
other civilian necessities, saying that those restrictions amount to
collective punishment against the civilian population, a serious
violation of the laws of war (https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/20/letter-olmert-stop-blockade-gaza
). Israel continues to exercise effective control over Gaza's borders
and airspace as well as its population registry, and remains the
occupying power there under international law. The laws of war prohibit
the occupying power from attacking, destroying, or withholding objects
essential to the survival of the civilian population. Israel is also
obliged to protect the right of Palestinians in Gaza to freedom of
movement, to secure access to health care and education, and to lead
normal lives.
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
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular