

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

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.
The fashion industry has thrived for decades while "failing to ensure that the right of garment workers to unionize and collectively bargain is respected."
With clothing companies that will be offering discounted Black Friday deals this week relying heavily on the labor of tens of millions underpaid and overworked garment workers across the Global South, two reports by the human rights group Amnesty International make the case that ensuring these employees are afforded the right to organize their workplaces is key to ending worker exploitation across the fashion industry.
The organization interviewed 64 garment workers in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan from 2023-24, including 12 union organizers and labor rights activists, for its report titled Stitched Up, about the denial of freedom of association for workers in the four countries.
Two-thirds of the workers Amnesty interviewed were women, reflecting the fact that the garment workforce is mainly female, and many described the long hours, poverty wages, and abusive working conditions that the industry is known for.
But beyond that, the workers told Amnesty about the "climate of fear" they work in, with all but two of the 13 workers in Bangladesh reporting they had faced threats of retaliation at work if they joined or tried to form a union.
More than two dozen union organizers in the four countries described harassment, dismissal, and threats that they and their colleagues had faced for organizing their workplace.
“When workers raise their voices, they are ignored. When they try to organize, they are threatened and sacked. And finally, when workers protest, they are beaten, shot at, and arrested,” said a labor rights activist identified as Taufiq in Bangladesh.
The report notes that "restrictions on the right of workers to organize into trade unions and collectively speak out against human rights abuses at work are a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of association and collective bargaining," which are affirmed by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, said that "an unholy alliance of fashion brands, factory owners, and the governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka is propping up an industry known for its endemic human rights abuses" and allowing mistreatment of workers to continue while barring employees from working together to fight for better conditions and pay.
"By failing to ensure that the right of garment workers to unionize and collectively bargain is respected, the industry has thrived for decades on the exploitation of a grossly underpaid, overworked, and mostly female workforce,” said Callamard.
The governments of the four countries have failed to provide a living wage to garment workers—instead competing to attract the investment of clothing companies by setting the lowest wages possible. Almost all of the workers interviewed by Amnesty said their wages did not cover their families' living costs.
Many of the workers also reported that they were hired with "informal" work contracts, with no formal mechanisms for reporting workplace abuses, including violence and sexual harassment.
“I was touched physically and abused verbally. No one in management would listen to my complaints then I asked other women to organize. I was threatened with dismissal many times,” Sumaayaa, a worker and organizer from Lahore, Pakistan, told Amnesty.
The governments in question have done nothing to counter such precarious working arrangements, with officials establishing "Special Economic Zones" (SEZ) in Bangladesh and "Free Trade Zones" in Sri Lanka—areas where administrative measures place "often insurmountable barriers against union communication and access to workers."
Instead of affording workers the right to freedom of association in SEZ's, officials in Bangladesh encourage workers to form "welfare associations or committees, which have limited ability to collectively organize."
Alongside Stitched Up, Amnesty released the companion report Abandoned by Fashion: The Urgent Need for Fashion Brands to Champion Workers’ Rights, which details top brands' responses to an international survey on the rights of garment workers to organize their workplaces.
All of the fashion brands and retailers surveyed, including Adidas, ASOS, Shein, PVH, and Marks and Spencer, had "codes of conduct for suppliers, human rights policies, or principles, which affirmed the company’s commitment to workers’ right to freedom of association."
But the survey revealed "a limited commitment to implementing these policies at the factory level, especially in proactively promoting union organizing and ensuring human rights commitments and the ability of workers to exercise this right were reflected in their choice of sourcing location."
Amnesty found very few independent trade unions operating within the companies' supply chains in the four countries.
Adidas reported that 9.5% of its suppliers in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have unions. H&M works with 145 factories in Bangladesh, 29 of which had trade unions. Of 31 factories in Bangladesh, none had unions, and eight out of 93 facilities in India had them.
In the case of the clothing company Next, just 23 of the 167 apparel factories the company works with in Bangladesh had independent unions, while 134 had less empowered "committees."
"These findings provide a very stark indication of the low levels of unionization within the supply chains of major fashion companies in South Asia," reads the report. "They reveal the impact of the failures of the governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to protect and promote garment workers’ rights in relation to the right to freedom of association. Our research shows how all four states have effectively denied this right to garment workers, including by creating disproportionate or arbitrary barriers to registration, unionization, and strike action, and by failing in their responsibility to protect workers, union members, and officials from corporate abuse including discrimination, harassment, and dismissal."
Amnesty International made a number of recommendations to fashion companies, including:
“The need of the hour is to build a human rights-respecting sourcing strategy for the global garment industry," she said. "Freedom of association is key to tackling the abuse of workers’ rights. It must be protected, advanced, and championed.”
West Virginia's governor initially announced that both members of his state's National Guard "passed away from their injuries," but he then said that "we are now receiving conflicting reports" about their condition.
This is a developing story… Please check back for updates…
Two National Guard members and one suspect were shot on Wednesday afternoon near the White House in Washington, DC.
Vito Maggiolo, the public information officer for the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Service Department, confirmed that first responders transported all three people from the scene to the hospital, and unnamed law enforcement officials told multiple media outlets that the Guard members were in critical condition.
West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey wrote on the social media platform X that "it is with great sorrow that we can confirm both members of the West Virginia National Guard who were shot earlier today in Washington, DC have passed away from their injuries." However, he then said that "we are now receiving conflicting reports about the condition of our two Guard members."
Multiple agencies responded to the shooting on 17th Street, between I and H Streets—which briefly grounded flights at Reagan National Airport and put the White House on lockdown. President Donald Trump is in Florida, and Vice President JD Vance is in Texas.
Trump said on his Truth Social platform that "the animal that shot the two National Guardsmen, with both being critically wounded, and now in two separate hospitals, is also severely wounded, but regardless, will pay a very steep price. God bless our Great National Guard, and all of our Military and Law Enforcement. These are truly Great People. I, as President of the United States, and everyone associated with the Office of the Presidency, am with you!"
According to the Washington Post, US Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said the shooting had "no known direction of interest towards the White House other than the location at this time," and agency members at the scene did not fire shots.
ABC News noted that "the National Guard was deployed to the nation's capital as part of President Trump's federal takeover of the city in August. According to the most recent update, there are 2,188 Guard personnel assigned to DC."
US District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled last week that the deployment in DC is illegal and must come to an end, but she gave the Trump administration until December 11 to file an appeal.
"I've spoken to dozens of people held inside ICE detention centers in Arizona and this tracks," said Democratic Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari.
The libertarian Cato Institute this week further undermined the Trump administration's claims that it is targeting "the worst of the worst" with its violent immigration operations in communities across the United States by publishing data about the criminal histories—or lack thereof—of immigrants who have been arrested and booked into detention.
David J. Bier, the institute's director of immigration studies, previously reported in June that 65% of people taken by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had no convictions, and 93% had no violent convictions.
Monday evening, Bier shared a new nonpublic dataset leaked to Cato. Of the 44,882 people booked into ICE custody from when the fiscal year began on October 1 through November 15, 73% had no criminal convictions. For that share, around two-thirds also had no pending charges.
The data also show that most of those recently booked into ICE detention with criminal convictions had faced immigration, traffic, or vice charges. Just 5% had a violent conviction, and 3% had a property conviction.
"Other data sources support the conclusions from the number of ICE book-ins," Bier wrote, citing information on agency arrests from January to late July—or the first six months of President Donald Trump's second term—that the Deportation Data Project acquired via a public records request.
The data show that as of January 1, just before former President Joe Biden left office, 149 immigrants without charges or convictions were arrested by ICE. That number surged by 1,500% under Trump: It peaked at 4,072 in June and ultimately was 2,386 by the end of July—when 67% of all arrestees had no criminal convictions, and 39% had neither convictions nor charges.
Bier also pointed to publicly available data about current detainees on ICE's website, emphasizing that the number of people in detention with no convictions or pending charges “increased a staggering 2,370% since January from fewer than 1,000 to over 21,000."
In addition to publishing an article on Cato's site, Bier detailed the findings on the social media platform X, where various critics of the administration's immigration crackdown weighed in. Among them was Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), who said: "These are the facts. I've spoken to dozens of people held inside ICE detention centers in Arizona and this tracks."
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) declared: "This is the scandal. Trump isn't targeting dangerous people. He's targeting peaceful immigrants. Almost exclusively."
The US Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, also jumped in, as did DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin. Responding to Murphy, McLaughlin said in part: "This is so dumb it hurts my soul. This is a made-up pie chart with no legitimate data behind it—just propaganda to undermine the brave work of DHS law enforcement and fool Americans."
Bier and others then took aim at McLaughlin, with the Cato director offering the raw data and challenging her to "just admit you don't care whether the people you're arresting are threats to others or not."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that "DHS's spokeswoman lies AGAIN," calling out her post as "either a knowing lie or an egregious mistake."
"The data David J. Bier published was distributed to multiple congressional staffers and is just a more detailed breakdown of data, which is publicly available on ICE's own website," he stressed.
Journalist Jose Olivares noted that this is "not the first time Tricia McLaughlin has said that ICE's own data is 'propaganda.' Months ago, she slammed me and my colleague at the Guardian on PBS... even though we used ICE's own data for our reporting."