June, 30 2009, 11:50am EDT
Israel: Misuse of Drones Killed Civilians in Gaza
Israel Should Release Camera Footage of Deadly Attacks
JERUSALEM
Israeli attacks with guided missiles fired from aerial drones killed
civilians during the recent Gaza fighting in violation of the laws of
war, Human Rights Watch said in a report
released today. The attacks with one of the most precise weapons in
Israel's arsenal killed civilians who were not taking part in
hostilities and were far from any fighting.
The 39-page report,
"Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched
Missiles," details six incidents resulting in 29 civilian deaths, among
them eight children. Human Rights Watch found that Israeli forces
failed to take all feasible precautions to verify that these targets
were combatants, as required by the laws of war, or that they failed to
distinguish between combatants and civilians. Israeli and Palestinian
human rights groups have reported a total of 42 drone attacks that
killed civilians, 87 in all, during the fighting in December 2008 and
January 2009.
"Drone operators can clearly see their targets on the ground and
also divert their missiles after launch," said Marc Garlasco, senior
military analyst at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report.
"Given these capabilities, Israel needs to explain why these civilian
deaths took place."
"Precisely Wrong" is based on field research in Gaza, where Human
Rights Watch researchers interviewed victims and witnesses, examined
attack sites, collected missile debris for testing, and reviewed
medical records. The Israel Defense Forces turned down repeated Human
Rights Watch requests for a meeting and did not respond to questions
submitted in writing.
Military experts have extolled armed drones, or Unmanned Combat
Aerial Vehicles, and their precision-guided missiles as weapons that
can minimize civilian casualties. Their use is rapidly expanding - for
example by the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"When used properly, drones and their precision missiles can help a
military minimize civilian casualties," Garlasco said. "But drones are
only as good at sparing civilians as the people who command and operate
them."
In the six cases documented in the report, Human Rights Watch found
no evidence that Palestinian fighters were present in the immediate
area of the attack at the time. None of the civilians who were killed
were moving quickly or fleeing the area, so the drone operators would
have had time to determine whether they were observing civilians or
combatants, and to hold fire if they were unable to tell the difference.
In three of the cases, drones fired missiles at children playing on
rooftops in residential neighborhoods, far from any ground fighting at
the time. Human Rights Watch found no evidence to suggest that the
children were acting as spotters, relaying Israeli troop locations, or
trying to launch a rocket from the roof.
On December 27, 2008, the first day of the Israeli offensive called
"Operation Cast Lead," a drone-launched missile hit a group of
university students as they waited for a bus on a crowded residential
street in central Gaza City, killing 12 civilians. The Israeli military
has failed to explain why it targeted the group on a crowded downtown
street with no known military activity in the area at the time.
On December 29, the Israeli military struck a truck that it said was
transporting Grad rockets, killing nine civilians. The military
released video footage
of the attack to support its case, but the video raises serious doubts
that the target constituted a military objective - doubts that should
have guided the drone operator to hold fire. The alleged rockets, the
military later admitted, proved to be oxygen canisters.
The technological capabilities of drones and drone-launched missiles
make these violations even more egregious, Human Rights Watch said.
Drones carry an array of advanced sensors, often combining radars,
electro-optical cameras, infrared cameras, and lasers. These sensors
can provide a clear image in real time of individuals on the ground
during day and night, with the ability to distinguish between children
and adults.
One Israeli drone operator who flew missions in Gaza during the
recent fighting told an Israeli military journal that he was able to
detect clothing colors, a large radio, and a weapon.
The missile launched from a drone carries its own cameras that allow
the operator to observe the target from the moment of firing to impact.
If doubts arise about a target, the drone operator can redirect the
weapon elsewhere.
The drones deployed by the Israeli military - the Israeli-produced
Hermes and Heron drones - have video-recording devices so that
everything viewed by the operator is recorded. Every Israeli drone
missile strike during Operation Cast Lead would therefore be registered
on video.
The Israeli government is obligated under international law to
investigate serious violations of the laws of war. Israeli military or
civilian personnel found responsible for committing or ordering
unlawful drone attacks should be disciplined or prosecuted as
appropriate, Human Rights Watch said. Individuals who have committed
serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent - that is,
intentionally or recklessly - are responsible for war crimes.
Israel has failed to conduct credible investigations into its
actions during Operation Cast Lead. On April 22, the military released
the results of an internal investigation, which concluded that its
forces "operated in accordance with international law" throughout the
fighting and that "a very small number" of "unavoidable" incidents
occurred due to "intelligence or operational errors."
A fact-finding team from the United Nations Human Rights Council
headed by the respected international jurist Richard Goldstone is
currently investigating alleged violations of the laws of war by both
Israel and Hamas. Israel has said it will not cooperate with the
investigation because the Human Rights Council is biased against
Israel. Hamas has said it will cooperate.
Human Rights Watch called on Israel and Hamas to cooperate fully
with the Goldstone investigation. Regarding drone-launched missiles,
Israel should provide the recorded video footage and other
documentation of its attacks in which civilians were wounded or killed.
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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular