April, 23 2009, 09:08am EDT
Israel/Gaza: Israeli Military Investigation Not Credible
Israel and Hamas Should Cooperate With UN Investigation
JERUSALEM
The Israeli military's findings about the conduct of its forces in Gaza, announced on April 22, lack credibility and confirm the need for an impartial international inquiry into alleged violations by both Israel and Hamas, Human Rights Watch said today. Israel and Hamas should cooperate with Justice Richard Goldstone, the eminent international jurist appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate serious laws-of-war violations during the recent conflict.
"The investigative results make clear that the Israeli military will not objectively monitor itself," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The conclusions are an apparent attempt to mask violations of the laws of war by Israeli forces in Gaza. Only an impartial inquiry will provide a measure of redress for the civilians who were killed unlawfully. "
After major hostilities ended in Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) created five teams headed by colonels to investigate the conduct of Israeli soldiers during "Operation Cast Lead," from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009. The teams examined attacks in which the military fired upon United Nations facilities, attacks on medical facilities and crews, claims of harm to civilians not involved in hostilities, the use of white phosphorous munitions, and the destruction of civilian structures.
The military's investigation concluded that "throughout the fighting in Gaza, the IDF operated in accordance with international law." The investigation found "a very small number of incidents in which intelligence or operational errors took place" that were "unavoidable and occur in all combat situations, in particular of the type which Hamas forced on the IDF, by choosing to fight from within the civilian population."
Human Rights Watch's investigation into the fighting in Gaza concluded that Israeli forces were responsible for serious violations of the laws of war, including the use of heavy artillery and white phosphorus munitions in densely populated areas, the apparent targeting of people trying to convey their civilian status, and the destruction of civilian objects in excess of military need. Some of the cases of white-phosphorus use demonstrate evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said last month in a 71-page report.
The military's finding that "no phosphorus munitions were used on built-up areas" is blatantly wrong, Human Rights Watch said. Immediately after major fighting stopped, Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza found spent white phosphorous artillery shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets and apartment roofs, in residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. Artillery shells containing white phosphorus also struck a hospital and the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), both in central Gaza City.
Human Rights Watch has also found that Hamas committed serious violations of the laws of war by deliberately and indiscriminately firing Qassam and Grad rockets into civilian areas in Israel. Hamas has shown no inclination to investigate or prosecute alleged war crimes by Palestinian fighters, and its spokesmen continue to justify the unlawful rocket attacks that target Israeli civilians, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch said that the Israeli military's investigations were inadequate to determine whether and when Israeli forces violated the laws of war. Without access to Gaza, the military's investigators could not have adequately interviewed Palestinian victims and witnesses of the alleged violations.
In addition, the officers who headed the investigations, all colonels, were of insufficient rank to address abuses that resulted from policies set by senior commanders, Human Rights Watch said. In June 2006, after an explosion apparently caused by an IDF artillery shell killed seven members of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach, the Israeli military appointed a major-general to lead the inquiry.
"Credible investigations need to be thorough, transparent, and run by a senior officer," said Stork. "These investigations are none of the above."
In its investigative conclusions, the Israeli military said that a "central operational IDF investigation" of the entire Gaza operation is ongoing, and "additional issues" are undergoing "a process of verification or investigation at various levels within the IDF."
The investigative results released today try to justify civilian deaths by saying that the military warned Gaza's population of impending attack. Human Rights Watch noted that warnings do not permit a force to conduct attacks that would otherwise be unlawful. Moreover, in the case of Gaza, the warnings were frequently too vague and therefore not "effective," as required by international law.
"If the IDF believes it did no wrong in Gaza, then Israel should cooperate fully with the Goldstone investigation," Stork said. "Both Israel and Hamas should welcome this investigation."
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
'He's Threatening Prosecutors With Violence': Trump Warns of 'Death and Destruction' If Indicted
"Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said one ethics watchdog. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."
Mar 24, 2023
Government watchdogs on Friday said former President Donald Trump has potentially placed himself in even more legal jeopardyafter he threatened violence if he's charged in a criminal case in New York.
Shortly after midnight on Friday, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, that potentially "catastrophic" violence would result if he is indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.
"What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all that NO crime has been committed, and also known that potential death and destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country?" Trump said.
He also called Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg "a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA."
Bragg's office has presented a grand jury with evidence related to alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, years after the former president allegedly had a sexual relationship with Daniels.
Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said in 2018 that he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels. He was reimbursed in 2017 by the Trump Organization.
The former president has made several public statements about the case against him in recent days, saying last weekend that he expected to be indicted on Tuesday and calling for a "protest" in New York, and posting an image in social media on Thursday showing Trump holding a baseball bat next to Bragg's head.
His call for "death and destruction" is his most explicit statement about potential violence, said critics including government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"He's not being subtle, he's threatening prosecutors with violence... Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said CREW, referring to Trump's encouragement of his supporters to attend the rally at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 that turned into a violent insurrection aimed at overturning his election loss. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."
The group added that Trump's threats of violence "are admissible in court."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) called on Republicans to clearly "condemn and oppose" Trump's calls for violence, to avoid another violent uprising in his defense.
"Donald Trump's incitement of violence is more direct, explicit, dangerous now than it was before January 6th," said Beyer. "Republican leaders cannot ignore this or wish it away."
According toThe Washington Post, the grand jury is next scheduled to meet on Monday at the earliest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Minnesota Nuclear Plant Shuts Down After New Leak Near Mississippi River
Federal regulators said they are monitoring groundwater for a radioactive compound following the leak.
Mar 24, 2023
The operator of a Minnesota nuclear power plant said the facility would be taken offline Friday to repair a new leak near the Mississippi River, an announcement that came a week after the company and state officials belatedly acknowledged a separate leak that occurred in November.
Xcel Energy insisted in a statement Thursday that the leak at its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant poses "no risk to the public or the environment," but a team of federal regulators is monitoring the groundwater in the area amid concerns that radioactive materials—specifically tritium—could wind up in drinking water.
Valerie Myers, a senior health physicist with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told a local CBS affiliate that "there are wells between the ones that are showing elevated tritium and the Mississippi that are not showing any elevated levels."
"We are watching that because the ground flow is toward the Mississippi," added Myers.
The Associated Pressreported Friday, that "after the first leak was found in November, Xcel Energy made a short-term fix to capture water from a leaking pipe and reroute it back into the plant for re-use."
"However, monitoring equipment indicated Wednesday that a small amount of new water from the original leak had reached the groundwater," the outlet noted. "Operators discovered that, over the past two days, the temporary solution was no longer capturing all of the leaking water, Xcel Energy said."
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health said in a statement that they "have no evidence at this point to indicate a current or imminent risk to the public and will continue to monitor groundwater samples."
"Should an imminent risk arise, we will inform the public promptly," the agencies said. "We encourage the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has regulatory oversight of the plant's operations, to share ongoing public communications on the leak and on mitigation efforts to help residents best understand the situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Bombs Syria Two Weeks After House Vote Against Withdrawing Troops
"We are at war in Syria, but American lawmakers haven't debated it and the public barely knows," said one foreign policy writer.
Mar 24, 2023
The U.S. launched airstrikes in Syria on Thursday after one American contractor was killed and five service members were injured in an attack by a drone that the Pentagon claims was of "Iranian origin."
The drone attack on a maintenance facility in northeast Syria and the U.S. response came two weeks after the House of Representatives voted down a bipartisan resolution that would have required President Joe Biden to withdraw all American troops from Syria within 180 days.
Around 900 U.S. troops and hundreds of contractors are currently stationed in Syria under a legal rationale that experts say is highly dubious at best.
Thursday's airstrikes in Syria were among a number of bombing campaigns that Biden has approved without congressional authorization since taking office. According toAirwars, the U.S. carried out at least 20 airstrikes in Syria in 2022.
In a statement, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that "at the direction of President Biden," the Pentagon "authorized U.S. Central Command forces to conduct precision airstrikes tonight in eastern Syria against facilities used by groups affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)."
"The airstrikes were conducted in response to today's attack as well as a series of recent attacks against coalition forces in Syria by groups affiliated with the IRGC," Austin added.
The strikes, which reportedly killed at least eight people described as "pro-Iran fighters," spurred another flurry of questions about the legal authority that the Biden administration is using to maintain the presence of U.S. troops and carry out military operations in Syria.
While Austin did not specifically invoke any legal authority in his statement, he did say the U.S. airstrikes were "intended to protect and defend U.S. personnel"—an apparent reference to Article II of the Constitution.
"We are at war in Syria, but American lawmakers haven't debated it and the public barely knows," Vox foreign policy writer Jonathan Guyer tweeted late Thursday. "One of the most significant and least discussed legacies of George W. Bush's 20-year-old invasion of Iraq is the way it's led to unauthorized forever wars we scarcely discuss."
Members of Congress have previously voiced alarm over the Biden administration's reliance on Article II to carry out military operations without congressional approval, something that was also done by previous administrations.
In 2021, following two rounds of U.S. airstrikes in Syria, more than 30 House lawmakers led by Reps. Peter Defazio (D-Ore.), Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) sent a letter criticizing the Biden administration's "dangerous claim that Article II of the Constitution permits you to bypass congressional authorization to perform strikes inside Syria."
The lawmakers also rebuked the administration's insistence that "the wide range of activities" it has "undertaken as part of the ongoing U.S. occupation of a large swath of Syrian territory is justified by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001," the measure Congress passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
That AUMF has been used by several administrations to justify military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and other countries. Opponents of the war powers resolution aimed at withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria invoked the 2001 AUMF to justify the continued occupation.
Congress has never specifically authorized the U.S. military to combat "Iran-backed forces" in Syria.
Earlier this week, as Congress moved to repeal the separate 2002 Iraq War AUMF, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) attempted to pass an amendment to change the language of the authorization to greenlight operations "against Iranian-backed militias operating in Iraq."
The Graham amendment was soundly defeated, with 60 senators voting no.
This story has been updated to include data from Airwars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.