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
Roughly 900 US Troops Still in Syria as Rebels Close in on Damascus
"Whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now," warned one analyst.
Dec 07, 2024
Syrian rebel groups' rapid advance on the nation's capital city of Damascus and the possible collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's government after more than a decade of civil war has brought renewed attention to the continued presence of U.S. forces in the country, despite the absence of a clear legal authorization.
The U.S. is believed to have around 900 troops deployed to Syria, mostly in the northeast, as well as an unknown number of private contractors. Nick Turse, a contributing writer for The Intercept, observed Thursday that American forces in Syria "have, on average, come under fire multiple times each week since last October," according to internal Pentagon statistics.
"Keeping military personnel in harm's way for the sake of foreign policy credibility has become increasingly risky with the Gaza war and the flare-up of the Syrian civil war," Turse wrote.
Kelley Vlahos, senior adviser to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Saturday morning that "whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now."
Reutersreported Tuesday that as rebels advanced toward the city of Hama, "fighters from a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led coalition battled government forces in the northeast, both sides said, opening a new front along a vital supply route" and "compounding Assad's problems."
As the coalition of groups led by the Islamist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and factions of the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army has quickly seized control of large swaths of territory, the White House National Security Council (NSC) said in a statement last weekend that the U.S.—which has previously armed and trained Syrian rebels—"has nothing to do with this offensive."
"The United States, together with its partners and allies, urge de-escalation, protection of civilians and minority groups, and a serious and credible political process that can end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with UNSCR 2254," said NSC spokesperson Sean Savett. "We will also continue to fully defend and protect U.S. personnel and U.S. military positions, which remain essential to ensuring that ISIS can never again resurge in Syria."
On Friday, the White House said in a letter to Congress that "a small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria."
President-elect Donald Trump, who during his first term opted to keep U.S. troops in Syria for the openly stated purpose of exploiting the country's oil fields, wrote in a social media post on Saturday that "the United States should have nothing to do with" the current conflict.
"This is not our fight," he wrote in all caps. "Let it play out. Do not get involved!"
Trump's post, as The Associated Pressreported, came as rebels' "stunning march across Syria gained speed... with news that they had reached the suburbs of the capital and with the government forced to deny rumors that President Bashar al-Assad had fled the country."
Hassan Abdul-Ghani, an insurgent commander, said in a Telegram post that rebels are entering the "final stage" of their offensive as they began to encircle Syria's capital. Citing unnamed local sources, Al Jazeerareported that "a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus."
"They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta," the outlet added. "There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital."
Government forces have been backed by Russian airstrikes, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militia fighters.
Reutersreported that "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an Arabic-language interview that Tehran would consider sending troops to Syria if Damascus asked, and Russian President Vladimir Putin urged an end to 'terrorist aggression' in Syria."
In a video statement on Saturday, a Syrian military commander said that "our valiant army continues to carry out its operations against terrorist gatherings at high rates in the directions of the Hama and Homs countrysides and the northern Daraa countryside, inflicting hundreds of deaths and injuries on the terrorists."
Anti-war lawmakers in the U.S. have repeatedly questioned the role of American troops in Syria in recent years and launched efforts to force their withdrawal.
In March 2023, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House put forth a resolution that would have required full withdrawal of American forces from Syria within 180 days of passage in the absence of congressional action authorizing their continued presence.
The resolution was voted down by 170 Republicans and 150 Democrats.
Months later, the U.S. Senate tanked a similar effort.
Erik Sperling, executive director of the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, told The Intercept on Thursday that the Biden administration hasn't "put the war in Syria up for debate because they know the American people don't want another war in the Middle East."
"They know there is no popular support for putting U.S. troops at risk for this," said Sperling, who warned that "many of Trump's advisers will try to drag him deeper into this regional conflict in the Middle East."
The explosion of Syria's civil war in recent days has been disastrous for civilians in the crossfire.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Wednesday that "the outbreak of major hostilities... raises concerns that civilians face a real risk of serious abuses at the hands of opposition armed groups and the Syrian government."
"The bloody record of atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Syria is bound to persist until leaders go beyond words and support accountability efforts," said Adam Coogle, HRW's deputy Middle East director. "Without credible justice, there will be no end in sight to the suffering Syrians have endured, no matter who controls the land."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular