August, 06 2009, 09:18am EDT
Gaza/Israel: Hamas Rocket Attacks on Civilians Unlawful
Launches from Populated Areas Endanger Israelis and Palestinians
JERUSALEM
Hamas should repudiate unlawful rocket attacks against Israeli
population centers and hold those responsible for them to account,
Human Rights Watch said in a new report
released today. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have over
several years launched thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and
towns, including hundreds during Israel's three-week military offensive
in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. A UN fact-finding
investigation into serious violations of the laws of war by both sides
in the Gaza conflict, led by Judge Richard Goldstone, is due to report
back to the UN Human Rights Council in September.
The 31-page report, "Rockets from Gaza: Harm to Civilians from Palestinian Armed Groups' Rocket Attacks,"
documents attacks by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups since
November 2008 that killed three Israeli civilians and seriously injured
dozens of others, damaged property and forced residents to leave their
homes. The rockets unlawfully struck populated areas up to 40
kilometers inside Israel, placing roughly 800,000 Israeli civilians at
risk. Rockets that fell short of their intended targets in Israel
killed two girls and wounded others in Gaza during this period.
Palestinian armed groups that launched rockets from densely populated
areas also unlawfully put Gaza civilians at risk of Israeli
counterstrikes.
"Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians are unlawful and
unjustifiable, and amount to war crimes," said Iain Levine, program
director at Human Rights Watch. "As the governing authority in Gaza,
Hamas should publicly renounce rocket attacks on Israeli civilian
centers and punish those responsible, including members of its own
armed wing."
"Rockets from Gaza" focuses on events after November 4, 2008, when
Palestinian armed groups resumed rocket fire after an Israeli military
incursion into Gaza. Based on interviews with witnesses to rocket
attacks and launches, field investigations of strike sites in Israel
and Gaza, and media and other reports, the report details the cases of
Israeli and Palestinian civilians killed or wounded by rocket attacks
in December 2008 and January 2009. While Human Rights Watch found no
clear practice by Palestinian armed groups to deliberately use
civilians to shield rocket launches from counterattack, it found they
frequently violated the separate duty under the laws of war to take all
feasible precautions to avoid endangering civilians when they launched
rockets from densely populated areas.
"Hamas forces violated the laws of war both by firing rockets
deliberately or indiscriminately at Israeli cities and by launching
them from populated areas and endangering Gazan civilians," said Levine.
Hamas has significantly limited rocket attacks in recent months, but
has not renounced attacks that deliberately or indiscriminately target
civilians - serious violations of the laws of war - or brought to
justice those responsible for initiating such attacks, or for
endangering Palestinian civilians by launching rockets from densely
populated areas in Gaza. Hamas's armed wing claimed responsibility for
the three Israeli civilian deaths documented in the report. During the
Israeli offensive in December and January, the armed wings of Hamas and
Islamic Jihad claimed to have fired 820 rockets at Israel.
The locally made Qassam rockets and Soviet-designed Grad rockets
used by Hamas and other armed groups cannot be aimed with any
reliability. Under the laws of war, such weapons are indiscriminate
when used against targets in densely populated areas. The absence of
Israeli military forces in the areas struck by the rockets, as well as
statements from the leaders of the Palestinian armed groups, indicate
that the armed groups deliberately intended to strike Israeli civilians
and civilian structures. For example, Abu Obeida, a spokesman for
Hamas's Qassam Brigades, said in a video released on January 5, 2009
that "continuing the incursion will only make us increase our rocket
range [...]. We will double the number of Israelis under fire."
Under the laws of war, individuals who willfully authorize or carry
out deliberate or indiscriminate attacks against civilians are
committing war crimes.
An Israeli early warning siren system, which gives civilians roughly
10 to 45 seconds to find cover in prepared shelters, depending on their
distance from the launch site in Gaza, has undoubtedly limited the
number of civilian casualties in Israel. However, the repeated attacks
have, over months and even years, taken a psychological toll on the
population in areas close to Gaza. The laws of war prohibit attacks the
primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian
population. Because of the rocket attacks, thousands of people have
moved away from frequently targeted areas such as Sderot municipality.
Palestinian armed groups have argued that the rocket attacks are
appropriate reprisals for Israeli military operations and the ongoing
economic blockade of Gaza, and are a lawful response to Israel's
control over Gaza. Human Rights Watch has also documented numerous laws
of war violations by Israeli forces in Gaza, but violations by one
party to a conflict never justify violations by the other. Attacks
targeting civilians are never permitted under the laws of war, which
require armed forces to target only military objectives, and to take
all feasible precautions to spare civilians from harm, regardless of
the reasons for resorting to armed conflict.
Similarly, although Israeli military operations caused far greater
total harm to civilian lives - killing several hundred civilians with
air strikes, artillery, tank shelling, and other attacks - and property
than operations by Palestinian armed groups, violations of the laws of
war are not determined by the number of civilian casualties, but by
whether each side is refraining from conducting deliberate or
indiscriminate attacks against civilians and is taking all feasible
precautions to minimize civilian loss.
"Human Rights Watch is committed to documenting the worst violations
of the laws of war committed by all sides in armed conflicts throughout
the world," Levine said. "We published this report because civilians
must never be the object of attack, regardless of the relative strength
of the attacker."
Using unsophisticated weapons does not justify failure to respect
the laws of war, just as an adversary's use of sophisticated weapons
does not provide a pass to its opponents to ignore those laws, Human
Rights Watch said. Such disparities exist in many wars, and if they
provided a justification for ignoring the laws of war the civilian toll
in armed conflicts would rise dramatically. The loss of civilian life
from armed conflict can be minimized only if each party recognizes its
legal obligations to abide by the laws of war, regardless of the
weaponry at its disposal.
"Rockets from Gaza" is the fifth in a series of reports Human Rights Watch has issued on the Israeli offensive launched on December 27, 2008. Two reports are forthcoming.
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
Critics Warn of ‘Catastrophic’ Threat If Netflix Acquires Warner Bros.
"The threat of this merger in any form is an alarming escalation in a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the public it serves, and—potentially—the First Amendment itself," warned actress Jane Fonda.
Dec 05, 2025
Netflix announced a deal Friday to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s film studio and streaming business for $83 billion, a merger that—if approved by the Trump administration—would create a media behemoth that critics say threatens industry competition, higher costs for consumers, the rights of entertainment workers, and democracy.
Netflix, the largest streaming company in the world, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), owner of the third-largest streaming platform HBO Max, unveiled the proposed agreement after a closely watched bidding war that included Paramount Skydance, the company that the Trump administration reportedly favored to acquire WBD. Paramount is owned by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison—a close ally of President Donald Trump.
David Ellison reportedly met with Trump administration officials on Thursday to "press his case" against Netflix's pending acquisition of WBD. An unnamed senior official told CNBC on Friday that the Trump administration is treating the Netflix-WBD deal with "heavy skepticism."
While some expressed relief that Paramount appears—at least for now—to have lost the bid for Warner Bros., antitrust advocates argued such a view overlooks the much broader and more serious threat of corporate consolidation.
"Does anyone think Netflix won’t do what Trump wants to get their deal through?" asked Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project. "The threat to democracy isn’t the Ellisons, it’s media consolidation."
The American Prospect's David Dayen expressed a similar sentiment, writing on social media: "Keeping WBD out of Paramount's hands is good. Putting it in Netflix's is still unlawful consolidation though. This is the #1 streamer merging with #3. State enforcers should speak up."
"If we don’t speak now, we may have no industry—and no democracy—left to defend."
In a newsletter post following news of the merger agreement, Stoller argued the Netflix-WBD deal is plainly illegal under the Clayton Antitrust Act and "a recipe for monopolization."
"The ideal scenario now is a trial that puts the secrets of Hollywood executives and financiers on display, and crushes the financiers who think mergers are the only move in business," Stoller wrote. "Then Hollywood can get back to the business of making good TV shows and movies."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that "this deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare."
"A Netflix-Warner Bros. would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market," said Warren. "It could force you into higher prices, fewer choices over what and how you watch, and may put American workers at risk."
"Under Donald Trump, the antitrust review process has also become a cesspool of political favoritism and corruption," the senator continued. "The Justice Department must enforce our nation’s anti-monopoly laws fairly and transparently—not use the Warner Bros. deal review to invite influence-peddling and bribery."
Ahead of the announcement, major figures in the entertainment industry sounded alarm over the possibility of a Netflix takeover of WBD. In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, a group of film producers warned that Neflix would "effectively hold a noose around the theatrical marketplace" if it acquired WBD.
The Writers’ Guild of America, which represents film and TV writers, has said it would oppose WBD merging with any "major studio or streamer," warning it "would be a disaster for writers, for consumers, and for competition."
"Merger after merger in the media industry has harmed workers, diminished competition and free speech, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars better invested in organic growth," the union said in a recent statement.
Jane Fonda, the renowned actress and activist, wrote Thursday that "the threat of this merger in any form is an alarming escalation in a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the public it serves, and—potentially—the First Amendment itself."
"Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world," Fonda wrote. "It will mean fewer jobs, fewer opportunities to sell work, fewer creative risks, fewer news sources, and far less diversity in the stories Americans get to hear."
"If we don’t speak now, we may have no industry—and no democracy—left to defend," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
National Park Service Grants Free Access on Trump's Birthday—And Ends It for Juneteenth, MLK Day
Critics have ripped the decisions as "truly disgusting" and "literally the sort of thing dictators do."
Dec 05, 2025
"Why is MLK Day not worthy of a fee-free day anymore?"
That's what Kati Schmidt, communications director for the National Parks Conservation Association, wondered in an email to SFGATE, which reported Thursday on the National Park Service's recently announced free admission days for 2026.
"That has become a day of service throughout the country as well as celebrating an American hero who has several park units celebrating his legacy," Schmidt noted of the federal holiday honoring Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. each January.
In addition to MLK Day, three other previously free days were left off the US Department of the Interior's announcement last week about "resident-only patriotic fee-free days." Visitors will now have to pay park fees on National Public Lands Day, the anniversary of the Great American Outdoors Act—which President Donald Trump signed in 2020—and Juneteenth.
cool that the official position of the administration appears to be that black people don’t really count as americans
[image or embed]
— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) December 5, 2025 at 8:20 AM
In 2021, Congress passed and then-President Joe Biden signed legislation designating Juneteenth as a federal holiday to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States. After returning to the White House in January, Trump declined to recognize it on this past June 19.
As SFGATE reported:
"This policy shift is deeply concerning," said Tyrhee Moore, the executive director of Soul Trak Outdoors, a nonprofit that connects urban communities of color to the outdoors. "Removing free-entry days on MLK Day and Juneteenth sends a troubling message about who our national parks are for. These holidays hold profound cultural and historical significance for Black communities, and eliminating them as access points feels like a direct targeting of the very groups who already face systemic barriers to the outdoors."
Moore told SFGATE that his organization works to push back against "these kinds of systemic attempts that disguise exclusion as administrative or political decisions."
"Policies like this reinforce inequalities around access and visibly show how systems can create obstacles that keep communities of color from feeling welcomed in public spaces," he said.
Olivia Juarez, public land program director at the advocacy group GreenLatinos, said in a statement that "we condemn the omission of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, Juneteenth, National Public Lands Day, and the anniversary of the Great American Outdoors Act from the list of free entrance days."
"The Great American Outdoors Act permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which enhances outdoor recreation access for all people from national public lands to neighborhood parks," she pointed out. "These observances are patriotic days that celebrate freedom and safety in the outdoors. They should be celebrated as such by removing a simple cost barrier that can make parks more accessible to low-income households."
Other critics have ripped the free day decisions as "truly disgusting" and "literally the sort of thing dictators do."
Journalist Jennifer Schulze said: "I love our national parks but don't go on his birthday. Find a state park to visit instead."
Along with the free admission changes, the Trump administration is under fire for putting the president's face on the new "America the Beautiful" annual passes—a display that may be illegal—and for hiking prices for foreign visitors to national parks.
Utah-based Juarez and GreenLatinos California state program manager Pedro Hernández both denounced price hikes for noncitizens—a move that notably comes as the administration pursues Trump's promise of mass deportations.
"By imposing higher fees on people without state-issued ID," Hernández said, "the Trump administration is advancing a xenophobic policy that disproportionately harms vulnerable populations like international students, newly arrived immigrants, and families seeking asylum."
"This approach eviscerates the true meaning of public lands and sends a clear, exclusionary message that our most cherished national parks have become yet another pay-to-play system," he added. "People should be welcomed—not priced out from our public lands."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Pretty Explicit White Nationalism’: Trump National Security Strategy Document Leaves Critics Aghast
One critic described the document as "a pretty explicit defense of using the state as a means of enforcing white supremacy."
Dec 05, 2025
The Trump administration on Thursday released its official National Security Strategy, and many critics noted that it was loaded with rhetoric frequently used by white nationalists.
Some of the most inflammatory rhetoric in the document is aimed at US-allied European countries that supposedly face "the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure" within the next 20 years.
In particular, the document accuses the European Union of enacting policies "that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence."
The document goes on to claim that "should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less," while emphasizing that US policy is to help "Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation."
Jon Henley, Europe correspondent for the Guardian, noted in a Friday report that the document "appears to espouse the racist 'great replacement' conspiracy theory, saying several countries risk becoming 'majority non-European.'" Henley added that the document "underscores the Trump administration's clear alignment with Europe’s far-right nationalist parties, whose policies centre on attacking supposed EU overreach and excessive non-EU migration."
Scott Horton, legal affairs and national security contributor to Harper's and an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, wrote on Bluesky that the document "reads like something written by Vladimir Putin," given its depiction of Europe as being "degenerate and... racially adulterated through the in-migration of dark-skinned people."
Progressive activist Max Berger argued that the document "contains some pretty explicit white nationalism." He pointed to the document's support for dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as a way to restore "a culture of competence."
Berger also flagged a section in the document that named "ending mass migration" as the top US national security priority, which he described as "a pretty explicit defense of using the state as a means of enforcing white supremacy."
Edmund Luce, a columnist for the Financial Times, also took note of the administration's emphasis on "competence and merit" in the document. This is ironic, Luce continued, because "this administration personifies the opposites" of those traits.
Journalist Michael Weiss argued in a post on X that the document shows that it is now official US policy to promote and assist far-right parties in Europe.
"[US Vice President] JD Vance's intervention in Germany's election, on behalf of [far-right party Alternative für Deutschland], was not a one-off," he wrote. "It is now ingrained in the U.S. National Security Strategy... Europe is be treated as enemy terrain to be destabilized by America's enabling of far-right parties."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular