January, 05 2009, 08:00am EDT
Israel: Allow Media and Rights Monitors Access to Gaza
Total Ban on Foreign Journalists Since Offensive Began
WASHINGTON
Israel should immediately allow journalists and human rights monitors access to Gaza, Human Rights Watch said today. Their presence can discourage abuse by warring parties and help save lives.
Human Rights Watch urged the Israeli government to abide by an Israeli high court ruling on December 31, 2008 and allow foreign media into Gaza. The presence of journalists and human rights monitors in conflict areas provides an essential check on human rights abuses and laws-of-war violations, Human Rights Watch said.
Since early November 2008, when the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas began to deteriorate, the Israeli government has sharply restricted access to Gaza for foreign journalists and human rights monitors, and none has been permitted entry since the current military campaign began on December 27. Israeli journalists have been denied access to Gaza for the past two years because of an Israeli government policy prohibiting Israeli citizens from entering Gaza on security grounds.
"Journalists and rights monitors should be allowed into Gaza to investigate and report on the conduct of both sides," said Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher for Human Rights Watch. "Israel's excessive restrictions on access to Gaza only end up impeding this deterrent effect and placing civilians at greater risk."
According to the United Nations, Israeli attacks had killed more than 430 Palestinians in Gaza, about one-quarter of them civilians, prior to the onset of Israeli ground operations on January 3. Palestinian rockets launched into Israel have killed three Israeli civilians in this period.
The Israeli High Court ruled on December 31, 2008, that the Israeli government should allow 12 foreign journalists into Gaza. The government said it will allow eight journalists into Gaza every time it opens the border at the Erez crossing, but so far the crossing has remained closed to entry. The decision by the High Court came in response to a petition by the Israeli Foreign Press Association, which represents more than 400 members from the world's leading international print and electronic media. The association called the ban "an unprecedented restriction of press freedom" on Israel's part.
On November 21, 22 executives from the world's major news organizations, including the Associated Press, BBC, CNN, and Reuters, sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, complaining about the "prolonged and unprecedented denial of access to the Gaza Strip for the international media."
The restrictions create a very different reporting atmosphere than that during Israel's last major war, the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon in July-August 2006. At that time, the media and human rights organizations were able to report on the conflict from both sides.
International human rights law, applicable during armed conflict, upholds the right to freedom of expression of journalists and human rights monitors. States may restrict freedom of expression to protect national security, but only as permitted by law and as necessary for genuine and specific security reasons. This principle is elucidated in the 1995 Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information:
"Any restriction on the free flow of information may not be of such a nature as to thwart the purposes of human rights and humanitarian law. In particular, governments may not prevent journalists or representatives of intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, which monitor adherence to human rights or humanitarian standards, from entering areas where there are reasonable grounds to believe that violations of human rights or humanitarian law are being, or have been, committed. Governments may not exclude journalists or representatives of such organizations from areas that are experiencing violence or armed conflict except where their presence would pose a clear risk to the safety of others."
"The presence of journalists and human rights researchers is not just about the right to information," Abrahams said. "Independent monitoring during an armed conflict can discourage misconduct and save 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
Dr. Oz Had Up to Tens of Millions Invested in Companies Involved With CMS
"Seniors deserve a CMS leader who will protect and strengthen Medicare—not someone like Dr. Oz who wants to privatize this vital and hugely popular program for great personal gain," said the head of Accountable.US.
Dec 13, 2024
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the "former daytime television fixture" who U.S. President-elect Donald Trump picked to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, reported "up to $56 million in investments in three companies" with direct CMS interests, the watchdog Accountable.US highlighted Friday.
The celebrity heart surgeon is already under fire for his record of peddling "baseless or wrong" health advice and pushing Medicare Advantage (MA)—an alternative to the government-run program administered by private health insurance companies—on The Dr. Oz Show, as well as his stake in UnitedHealth and CVS Health.
The new Accountable.US report—based on disclosures from Oz's unsuccessful 2022 run against U.S. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)—adds to conflict of interest concerns and fears that Oz may thwart the Biden administration's new rule intended to rein in privatized Medicare Advantage plans.
"Dr. Oz's conflicts of interest pose a serious threat to seniors' health security."
"In 2022, Oz's 'single biggest healthcare holding' was up to $26 million in Sharecare, a digital health company Oz co-founded that became the 'exclusive in-home care supplemental benefit program' for 1.5 million MA enrollees across 400 MA plans through its CareLinx service in 2022," the watchdog detailed. "By 2023, CareLinx was available to over 2 million MA enrollees. Sharecare was taken private in a $518 million private equity deal in 2024, and it is unknown if Oz still holds a stake."
Nick Clemens, Oz's spokesperson on the Trump transition team, told USA TODAY—which first reported on the Accountable.US findings—that Oz sold his stake in Sharecare but did not address further questions.
The group noted that "in 2022, Oz disclosed holding up to $25 million in Amazon and up to $5 million in Microsoft, which CMS called its 'two primary cloud service providers' in its FY 2025 budget document, which requested over $3.3 billion in information technology funding for the year. Notably, Amazon Web Services hosted 74 million Medicaid records as early as 2017 and the company has been contracted to streamline Healthcare.gov, the federal health insurance portal run by CMS."
Accountable.US "reviewed filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and was unable to find evidence that Oz sold stocks in Amazon or Microsoft since the 2022 filing," according to USA Today—which found that Oz's stakes could be as high as $26.7 million for Amazon and $6.3 million for Microsoft.
When asked if Oz still owned the stocks in the two tech giants, Trump transition spokesperson Brian Hughes only said that "all nominees and appointees will comply with the ethical obligations of their respective agencies."
Given the nominee's TV and investment history, Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk declared Friday that "seniors deserve a CMS leader who will protect and strengthen Medicare—not someone like Dr. Oz who wants to privatize this vital and hugely popular program for great personal gain."
"If Dr. Oz and Project 2025 had their way, Medicare as we know it would end, replaced with private insurance plans that cost taxpayers more and leave patients vulnerable to denials of care and higher premiums," Carrk continued, citing the Heritage Foundation-led playbook for the incoming Republican president.
"Dr. Oz's conflicts of interest pose a serious threat to seniors' health security," he added, "but as long as big insurance industry megadonors are happy, President-elect Trump doesn't seem to mind."
While Trump has the power to pick the next CMS administrator, the selection requires Senate confirmation—unless the president-elect works around it to install his most controversial nominees.
On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and six colleagues wrote to Oz to express their concerns about his qualifications, "advocacy for the elimination of traditional Medicare," and "deep financial ties to private health insurers."
"As CMS administrator, you would be tasked with overseeing Medicare and ensuring that the tens of millions of seniors that rely on the program receive the care they deserve, including cracking down on abuses by private insurers in Medicare Advantage," they pointed out. "The consequences of failure on your part would be grave. Billions of federal healthcare dollars—and millions of lives—are at stake."
The lawmakers sent Oz a list of questions, requesting responses by December 23. They inquired about his views on traditional Medicare and revelations that "private companies overcharge taxpayers and unlawfully deny care." They also asked whether, as administrator, he would commit to "fully divesting of any and all financial holdings related to the insurance industry" and "recusing from any decisions that may impact insurers" in which he has a stake.
Sharing the letter on social media Wednesday, Accountable.US said that Warren "is right: this glaring conflict of interest endangers seniors and puts billions in corporate pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Finds 96% of Gaza Children Fear Imminent Death—And Half Want to Die
"The world's failure to protect Gaza's children is a moral failing on a monumental scale," said one advocate.
Dec 13, 2024
Amid a relentless Israeli onslaught that has wrought monumental physical and psychological destruction in Gaza, a report published this week revealed that nearly all children in the embattled Palestinian enclave believe their death is imminent—and nearly half of them want to die.
The Gaza-based Community Training Center for Crisis Management, supported by War Child Alliance, surveyed more than 500 Palestinian children in Gaza last June and found that 96% of them fear imminent death, 92% are not accepting of reality, 79% suffer from nightmares, 77% avoid discussing traumatic events, 73% display signs of aggression, 49% wish to die because of the war, and many more "show signs of withdrawal and severe anxiety, alongside a pervasive sense of hopelessness."
"This report lays bare that Gaza is one of the most horrifying places in the world to be a child," War Child U.K. CEO Helen Pattinson said in a statement. "Alongside the leveling of hospitals, schools, and homes, a trail of psychological destruction has caused wounds unseen but no less destructive on children who hold no responsibility for this war."
In a first of its kind report, our Gaza based partner Community Training Centre for Crisis Management asked injured, separated and disabled children and their caregivers about the toll of the ongoing war on their lives. Their answers are devastating but sadly not a surprise. 1/5
[image or embed]
— War Child UK ( @warchilduk.bsky.social) December 12, 2024 at 3:31 AM
Israel's 434-day assault on Gaza—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case—has left tens of thousands of children dead, maimed, missing, or orphaned and hundreds of thousands more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. Doctors and others including volunteers from the United States have documented many cases in which they've concluded Israeli snipers and other troops have deliberately shot children in the head and chest.
"The harm caused to Gaza's children goes beyond statistics. Behind every number is a name, a life, and a future that is being extinguished before it can even begin," Iain Overton, executive director of the U.K.-based group Action on Armed Violence, said in response to the new report.
"The world's failure to protect Gaza's children is a moral failing on a monumental scale," he added. "We must act decisively and compassionately to ensure that these children's voices are heard and their futures protected."
In October, the U.K.-based charity Oxfam International said that Israel's yearlong assault on Gaza has been the deadliest year of conflict for women and children anywhere in the world over the past two decades. A year ago, the United Nations Children's Fund called Gaza "the world's most dangerous place to be a child." Earlier this year, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres for the first time added Israel to his so-called "List of Shame" of countries that kill and injure children during wars and other armed conflicts.
"The international community must act now before the child mental health catastrophe we are witnessing embeds itself into multi-generational trauma, the consequences of which the region will be dealing with for decades to come," Pattinson stressed. "A cease-fire must be the immediate first step to allow War Child and other agencies to effectively respond to the intense psychological damage children are experiencing."
Addressing the complicity of allies like the United States, Germany, and Britain, who provide weapons and diplomatic cover for Israel, progressive U.K. parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn wrote on social media in response to the new report, "Every single supplier of arms to Israel has blood on its hands—and the world will never forgive them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nancy Pelosi 'Making Calls' to Undermine AOC's Bid for Top Oversight Role
"It is so infantilizing to the House leadership to have a B team of octagenarians scheming behind their backs and aiming directly at their most promising young talent," said one progressive journalist.
Dec 13, 2024
Progressives on Thursday were frustrated by reports that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is using her considerable influence on Capitol Hill to undermine Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's bid to become the top Democrat on the powerful committee that could launch investigations into the Trump White House in the coming years.
As Common Dreamsreported last week, Pelosi (D-Calif.) has publicly indicated that she is supporting Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) to succeed Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) as ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability when the 119th Congress begins in January.
But Punchbowl Newsreported Thursday that Pelosi—well-known for her relentless and often successful efforts to whip votes within the Democratic caucus—is also "making calls" to other Democratic lawmakers on behalf of Connolly.
The outlet reported that the former House speaker is "actively working to tank" the candidacy of Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), with whom she has had a rocky relationship at times as the progressive Democrat has pushed the party to embrace far-reaching reforms on climate, immigration, and other issues.
Both Connolly and Ocasio-Cortez believe they have the votes to win the ranking member position. Ocasio-Cortez is a close ally of Raskin, who named her vice ranking member in the current Congress, but the Maryland lawmaker, who is expected to succeed Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) as ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has not publicly endorsed either candidate.
The Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, which has close ties to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), is expected to make a recommendation for the ranking member role, after which the entire Democratic caucus will vote.
The centrist New Democrat Coalition endorsed Connolly on Friday, while a House Democrat told Axios that Ocasio-Cortez "has pretty much the entire [Oversight] Committee with her."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus announced its endorsement of Ocasio-Cortez on Friday, with Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Chair-elect Greg Casar (D-Texas) arguing the congresswoman's "fearless advocacy leading the Oversight Committee will help ensure Democrats retake the House in 2026."
"Throughout her tenure on Oversight, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has been a powerful voice for working people," said Jayapal and Casar. "She has wielded her seat on this committee to hold CEOs, Wall Street, and mega-corporations accountable to the American people. Her investigations that pressured Big Pharma to bring down the price of PrEP and other critical medications are just one example of her influential leadership and commitment to everyday people."
As Axios reported, several older longtime members are facing challenges for leadership roles from the party's younger generation. Ocasio-Cortez, 35, was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress when she won her election in 2018, and is an outspoken member of the progressive "Squad" which advocates for policies such as Medicare for All and has reportedly angered Pelosi in the past with its embrace of calls to "abolish" Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"Many members are concerned about [the] precedent these races are setting," a senior House Democrat told Axios regarding the progressive contests with members like Connolly, who is 74.
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News said Pelosi's lobbying against Ocasio-Cortez "reeks of pettiness."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, said the new reporting shows Pelosi attempting to act as a "puppet master."
"It is so infantilizing to the House leadership to have a B team of octagenarians scheming behind their backs and aiming directly at their most promising young talent," said Dayen.
Ocasio-Cortez wrote to colleagues last week to announce her bid for the ranking member position, highlighting her involvement in derailing Republican efforts to "weaponize the committee's investigatory power for partisan purposes" and pledging to balance the Oversight Committee's focus on President-elect Donald Trump's actions with fighting to better the lives of working Americans.
If Democrats win back control of the House in 2026, the committee would be empowered to launch investigations into the incoming Trump administration and would have subpoena power.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular