

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Israel should investigate the unlawful destruction of civilian
property during the 2009 Gaza hostilities and lift the blockade that
hinders residents from rebuilding their homes, Human Rights Watch said
in a new report released today.
The 116-page report, "'I Lost Everything': Israel's Unlawful
Destruction of Property in the Gaza Conflict" documents 12 separate
cases during Operation Cast Lead in which Israeli forces extensively
destroyed civilian property, including homes, factories, farms, and
greenhouses, in areas under their control, without any lawful military
purpose. Human Rights Watch's investigations, which relied upon
physical evidence, satellite imagery, and multiple witness accounts at
each site, found no indication of nearby fighting when the destruction
occurred.
Israel has claimed that its forces destroyed civilian property only
when Palestinian armed groups were fighting from it, or were using it
to store weapons, hide tunnels, or advance other military purposes.
Israel also claims that many Gazan homes were destroyed by Hamas
booby-traps. The evidence in the incidents that Human Rights Watch
investigated does not support such claims.
"Almost 16 months after the war, Israel has not held accountable
troops who unlawfully destroyed swaths of civilian property in areas
under their control," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at
Human Rights Watch. "Israel's blockade continues to keep Gazans from
rebuilding their homes, meaning that Israel is still punishing Gaza's
civilians long after the fighting is over."
Human Rights Watch found evidence in the 12 cases indicating that
Israeli forces carried out the destruction for either punitive or other
unlawful reasons, violating the prohibition under international
humanitarian law - the laws of war - against deliberately destroying
civilian property except when necessary for lawful military reasons. In
seven of the cases, satellite imagery corroborated eyewitness accounts
that Israeli forces destroyed many structures after establishing
control over an area and shortly before Israel announced a ceasefire
and withdrew its forces from Gaza on January 18, 2009.
Israel's comprehensive blockade of the Gaza Strip, a form of
collective punishment against civilians imposed in response to Hamas's
takeover of Gaza in June 2007, has prevented significant
reconstruction, including in areas where Human Rights Watch has
documented destruction. Israel has allowed imports of cement for
several repair projects, but United Nations Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon noted in late March that these were "a drop in a bucket"
compared to housing needs.
Israeli officials insist that the blockade - which had already
degraded humanitarian conditions in Gaza before Operation Cast Lead -
will remain in place until Hamas releases Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit,
the Israeli soldier captured in 2006, rejects violence, and fulfills
other political conditions. Hamas's prolonged incommunicado detention
of Shalit violates the prohibition of cruel and inhuman treatment and
may amount to torture.
Many goods are being smuggled into Gaza through tunnels beneath the
southern border with Egypt, and many damaged buildings have been
repaired at least partially with bricks made from smuggled cement and
recycled concrete rubble. However, these improvised building materials
are reportedly of poor quality and cannot be used for large
reconstruction projects. In the areas of Gaza where Human Rights Watch
found that Israeli forces had destroyed homes in areas under their
control, there has been virtually no reconstruction of destroyed
buildings, indicating that the inadequate supply of reconstruction
materials still leaves these materials prohibitively expensive for most
of Gaza's residents, more than three-quarters of whom are impoverished.
Egypt shares responsibility for the collective punishment of Gaza's
civilian population due to its own closure of Gaza's southern border.
Except in limited circumstances, Egypt refuses to allow the passage of
goods or people through the border crossing it controls at Rafah.
The laws of war prohibit attacks on civilian objects, including
residential homes and civilian factories, unless they become a
legitimate military objective, meaning that they are providing enemy
forces a definite military advantage in the circumstances prevailing at
the time. The report examines incidents of destruction that suggest
violation of the laws-of-war prohibition of wanton destruction - the
term used to describe extensive destruction of civilian property not
lawfully justified by military necessity. Such destruction would be a
grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, which is
applicable in Gaza. Individuals responsible for committing or ordering
such destruction should be prosecuted for war crimes.
Human Rights Watch did not include in its report cases in which the
destruction was not extensive, or the evidence suggested any
possibility that Israel's destruction of the property in question could
have been militarily justified or based on mistaken information.
Human Rights Watch documented the complete destruction of 189
buildings, including 11 factories, 8 warehouses and 170 residential
buildings - roughly 5 percent of the total property destroyed in Gaza -
leaving at least 971 people homeless. In the cases investigated in the
neighborhoods of Izbt Abd Rabbo, Zeitoun, and Khoza'a, Israeli forces
had destroyed virtually every home, factory, and orchard within certain
areas, indicating an apparent plan of systematic destruction in these
locations. The destroyed industrial establishments include juice and
biscuit plants, a flour mill, and seven concrete factories. Human
Rights Watch did not determine whether these incidents represent a
broader pattern, but Israel should thoroughly investigate these cases -
including the lawfulness of any relevant policy decisions - and
appropriately punish persons found to have acted unlawfully.
"The evidence shows that, in these cases, Israeli forces
gratuitously destroyed people's homes and livelihoods," said Whitson.
"If the Israeli government doesn't investigate and punish those
responsible, it would be effectively endorsing the suffering that these
civilians have endured."
Israel Defense Forces (IDF) lawyers told Human Rights Watch that the
IDF is probing many of the cases of property destruction documented in
this report. However, these are not criminal investigations by military
police, but so-called operational debriefings that do not involve
contacting Palestinian witnesses. Of the 150 investigations opened to
date into Operation Cast Lead, 36 are criminal investigations and the
rest are operational debriefings. Two of these criminal cases include
allegations of damage to individual buildings.
The only reported penalty imposed for unlawful property destruction
during Operation Cast Lead was an unspecified disciplinary measure
taken immediately by the commander in the field against one soldier for
an incident involving "uprooting vegetation" in Gaza. The IDF has
provided no further details regarding the incident or the disciplinary
measure. Overall, to date Israel has criminally sentenced only one
soldier and has disciplined four other soldiers and commanders for
violations during the Gaza operation.
Notably, Israel has not conducted thorough and impartial
investigations into whether policy decisions taken by senior political
and military decision-makers, including pre-operation decisions, led to
violations of the laws of war, such as the unlawful destruction of
civilian infrastructure.
Israel has published the results of a military probe into one case
documented in this report, which found an attack on a flour mill to be
lawful. The probe's conclusions, however, are contradicted by available
video and other evidence. (In late March 2010, Israel announced that it
had approved cement imports to repair the flour mill.) The IDF has not
provided explanations for the other 11 incidents that Human Rights
Watch documented and previously raised with the IDF.
Hamas authorities are not known to have taken any meaningful steps
to investigate or hold accountable members of Hamas or other
Palestinian armed groups responsible for serious laws-of-war violations
either before, during, or since Operation Case Lead, primarily rocket
attacks at populated areas in Israel. However, under the laws of war,
unlawfulness by one party to a conflict does not justify unlawful acts
by another.
Under the laws of war, not all destruction of civilian property is
unlawful. At times, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups used
civilian structures to engage Israeli forces and to store arms; they
also booby-trapped civilian structures and dug tunnels underneath them.
In addition, Human Rights Watch criticized Hamas and other
Palestinian groups for firing rockets from populated areas. In such
cases, property damage caused by Israeli counter-strikes against armed
groups may have been lawful "collateral damage." Palestinian armed
groups also may have been responsible for damage to civilian property
in cases in which IDF attacks triggered secondary explosions of weapons
or explosives stored by armed groups, which damaged nearby structures.
The destruction of civilian property during immediate fighting or in
order to permit the movement of Israeli forces because adjoining roads
were mined and impassable may be lawful as well, depending on the
circumstances.
Human Rights Watch's investigations considered these possibilities
and focused on 12 cases where the evidence indicates that there was no
lawful justification for the destruction of civilian property. In these
incidents, the IDF was not engaging Palestinian forces at the time they
destroyed the property - in all cases fighting in the area had stopped
- and in most cases the property destruction occurred after Israeli
forces had eliminated or dispersed Palestinian fighters in the area and
consolidated their control, such as by occupying houses, stationing
tanks in streets or on nearby hills, and undertaking continuous
surveillance from manned and unmanned aircraft.
The mere possibility of future military use by armed groups of some
civilian structures in these areas - such as to set booby-traps, store
weapons, or build tunnels - cannot under the laws of war justify the
wide-scale and at times systematic destruction of whole neighborhoods,
as well as of factories and greenhouses that provided food and other
items intended for the civilian population.
Public statements by some Israeli political leaders suggest a
willingness to destroy civilian infrastructure in Gaza to deter rocket
attacks by armed groups against Israel. Human Rights Watch documented
numerous cases in which Palestinian armed groups in Gaza launched
rocket attacks against Israeli population centers during and before
Operation Cast Lead in violation of the laws of war. During the
fighting, approximately 800,000 Israelis were within range of hundreds
of rocket attacks, which killed three Israeli civilians and seriously
injured several dozen others. Individuals who willfully conducted or
ordered deliberate or indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians are
responsible for war crimes. However, as noted, laws of war violations
by one party to a conflict do not justify violations by another party.
Israel controls the Gaza Strip's land, air, and sea access with the
exception of a 15-kilometer border with Egypt. Since the end of the
conflict, Israel has approved limited shipments of food, fuel, and
material into Gaza, but these fall far short of the humanitarian needs
of the population. It has allowed construction materials designated for
specific projects, but continues to deny entry to cement, iron bars,
and other basic construction materials. While there are valid Israeli
security concerns that Hamas could use cement to build or strengthen
military bunkers and tunnels, humanitarian aid organizations report
that Israel has refused to consider a mechanism to ensure the
independent monitoring of the end-use of construction materials. Israel
should urgently seek to create such a mechanism.
"The United States, the European Union, and other states should
urgently call upon Israel and Egypt to open Gaza's borders to
reconstruction materials and other supplies essential for the civilian
population," Whitson said.
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.
"The Trump administration has once again chosen polluters over people, sacrificing the health of communities and climate to serve the fossil fuel industry," said one advocate.
With methane more than 28 times as potent as carbon at trapping heat in the atmosphere in a 100-year period, climate experts agree that reducing methane leaks from oil and gas fields would be one of the fastest and most effective ways of making a measurable impact on planetary heating—but President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday flatly refused to do so, instead announcing a delay on a requirement for fossil fuel companies to limit methane emissions.
The Biden administration had introduced the requirement for oil and gas firms to begin reducing their emissions this year, but the EPA said companies will now have until January 2027 to comply with the rule. The administration is also considering repealing the requirement entirely.
Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, called the delay "indefensible and illegal."
"The Trump administration has once again chosen polluters over people, sacrificing the health of communities and climate to serve the fossil fuel industry," said Pagel. “Every day national methane rules are delayed means more methane in the air, more toxic pollution in our lungs, and more irreversible climate damage."
The EPA claimed it was providing companies with a "more realistic timeline" for complying with the requirement, and said the action would "save an estimated $750 million over 11 years in compliance costs."
Methane can leak from oil and gas wells, pipelines, and other fossil fuel infrastructure, and companies often intentionally release methane through flaring. The fossil fuel industry is the largest industrial source of methane emissions in the US, where emissions of methane have risen sharply in recent years as the Biden administration oversaw record production of oil and gas, even as it sought to reduce emissions through the methane requirement and other regulations.
While saving money for fossil fuel companies, the delay on the rule could lead to 3.8 million more tons of methane entering the atmosphere, according to the Trump administration's own estimates.
"After years of scientific work and public engagement, this administration’s decision to delay methane pollution standards implementation yet again is a blatant act of climate denial and disregard for public health. The EPA’s job is to protect people, not pad the pockets of oil and gas executives," said Pagel.
In addition to contributing to global heating and the extreme flooding, hurricanes, heatwaves, and other destructive weather events that come with it, methane emissions are linked to higher ground-level ozone pollution made up of tiny particles that can cause respiratory and cardiac problems, cancer, and strokes.
Grace Smith, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), noted that the methane standards have already been working "to reduce pollution, protect people’s health, and prevent the needless waste of American energy"—progress that will now be reversed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Trump.
“The rule released today means millions of Americans will be exposed to dangerous pollution for another year and a half, for no good reason,” said Smith. “Delaying the methane standards threatens people’s health and undermines progress by industry leaders.”
“What’s more, the Trump administration rushed to push through this harmful rule without meaningful transparency or a chance for the public to weigh in,” added Smith. “EDF is already in court challenging EPA’s first attempt to delay these vital protections. We will continue to oppose the rule released today, so that people can breathe cleaner air.”
EDF and the grassroots group Moms Clean Air Force expressed particular concern over nearly 18 million people in the US who live near active oil and gas wells.
"Children in my community and across the nation need a strong and comprehensive oil and gas methane rule as soon as possible," said Patrice Tomcik, senior national field director for Moms Clean Air Force.
EDF noted that "proven, cost-effective solutions are available to help oil and gas operators meet the standards while reducing waste and monetary losses," and both large and small producers have expressed support for the federal methane regulation as fossil fuel-producing states have begun implementing the standards.
The rule announced Wednesday, said EDF, "ignores the strong opposition to the rule from members of impacted communities and wide variety of other Americans."
The fashion industry has thrived for decades while "failing to ensure that the right of garment workers to unionize and collectively bargain is respected."
With clothing companies that will be offering discounted Black Friday deals this week relying heavily on the labor of tens of millions underpaid and overworked garment workers across the Global South, two reports by the human rights group Amnesty International make the case that ensuring these employees are afforded the right to organize their workplaces is key to ending worker exploitation across the fashion industry.
The organization interviewed 64 garment workers in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan from 2023-24, including 12 union organizers and labor rights activists, for its report titled Stitched Up, about the denial of freedom of association for workers in the four countries.
Two-thirds of the workers Amnesty interviewed were women, reflecting the fact that the garment workforce is mainly female, and many described the long hours, poverty wages, and abusive working conditions that the industry is known for.
But beyond that, the workers told Amnesty about the "climate of fear" they work in, with all but two of the 13 workers in Bangladesh reporting they had faced threats of retaliation at work if they joined or tried to form a union.
More than two dozen union organizers in the four countries described harassment, dismissal, and threats that they and their colleagues had faced for organizing their workplace.
“When workers raise their voices, they are ignored. When they try to organize, they are threatened and sacked. And finally, when workers protest, they are beaten, shot at, and arrested,” said a labor rights activist identified as Taufiq in Bangladesh.
The report notes that "restrictions on the right of workers to organize into trade unions and collectively speak out against human rights abuses at work are a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of association and collective bargaining," which are affirmed by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, said that "an unholy alliance of fashion brands, factory owners, and the governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka is propping up an industry known for its endemic human rights abuses" and allowing mistreatment of workers to continue while barring employees from working together to fight for better conditions and pay.
"By failing to ensure that the right of garment workers to unionize and collectively bargain is respected, the industry has thrived for decades on the exploitation of a grossly underpaid, overworked, and mostly female workforce,” said Callamard.
The governments of the four countries have failed to provide a living wage to garment workers—instead competing to attract the investment of clothing companies by setting the lowest wages possible. Almost all of the workers interviewed by Amnesty said their wages did not cover their families' living costs.
Many of the workers also reported that they were hired with "informal" work contracts, with no formal mechanisms for reporting workplace abuses, including violence and sexual harassment.
“I was touched physically and abused verbally. No one in management would listen to my complaints then I asked other women to organize. I was threatened with dismissal many times,” Sumaayaa, a worker and organizer from Lahore, Pakistan, told Amnesty.
The governments in question have done nothing to counter such precarious working arrangements, with officials establishing "Special Economic Zones" (SEZ) in Bangladesh and "Free Trade Zones" in Sri Lanka—areas where administrative measures place "often insurmountable barriers against union communication and access to workers."
Instead of affording workers the right to freedom of association in SEZ's, officials in Bangladesh encourage workers to form "welfare associations or committees, which have limited ability to collectively organize."
Alongside Stitched Up, Amnesty released the companion report Abandoned by Fashion: The Urgent Need for Fashion Brands to Champion Workers’ Rights, which details top brands' responses to an international survey on the rights of garment workers to organize their workplaces.
All of the fashion brands and retailers surveyed, including Adidas, ASOS, Shein, PVH, and Marks and Spencer, had "codes of conduct for suppliers, human rights policies, or principles, which affirmed the company’s commitment to workers’ right to freedom of association."
But the survey revealed "a limited commitment to implementing these policies at the factory level, especially in proactively promoting union organizing and ensuring human rights commitments and the ability of workers to exercise this right were reflected in their choice of sourcing location."
Amnesty found very few independent trade unions operating within the companies' supply chains in the four countries.
Adidas reported that 9.5% of its suppliers in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have unions. H&M works with 145 factories in Bangladesh, 29 of which had trade unions. Of 31 factories in Bangladesh, none had unions, and eight out of 93 facilities in India had them.
In the case of the clothing company Next, just 23 of the 167 apparel factories the company works with in Bangladesh had independent unions, while 134 had less empowered "committees."
"These findings provide a very stark indication of the low levels of unionization within the supply chains of major fashion companies in South Asia," reads the report. "They reveal the impact of the failures of the governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to protect and promote garment workers’ rights in relation to the right to freedom of association. Our research shows how all four states have effectively denied this right to garment workers, including by creating disproportionate or arbitrary barriers to registration, unionization, and strike action, and by failing in their responsibility to protect workers, union members, and officials from corporate abuse including discrimination, harassment, and dismissal."
Amnesty International made a number of recommendations to fashion companies, including:
“The need of the hour is to build a human rights-respecting sourcing strategy for the global garment industry," she said. "Freedom of association is key to tackling the abuse of workers’ rights. It must be protected, advanced, and championed.”
West Virginia's governor initially announced that both members of his state's National Guard "passed away from their injuries," but he then said that "we are now receiving conflicting reports" about their condition.
This is a developing story… Please check back for updates…
Two National Guard members and one suspect were shot on Wednesday afternoon near the White House in Washington, DC.
Vito Maggiolo, the public information officer for the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Service Department, confirmed that first responders transported all three people from the scene to the hospital, and unnamed law enforcement officials told multiple media outlets that the Guard members were in critical condition.
West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey wrote on the social media platform X that "it is with great sorrow that we can confirm both members of the West Virginia National Guard who were shot earlier today in Washington, DC have passed away from their injuries." However, he then said that "we are now receiving conflicting reports about the condition of our two Guard members."
Multiple agencies responded to the shooting on 17th Street, between I and H Streets—which briefly grounded flights at Reagan National Airport and put the White House on lockdown. President Donald Trump is in Florida, and Vice President JD Vance is in Texas.
Trump said on his Truth Social platform that "the animal that shot the two National Guardsmen, with both being critically wounded, and now in two separate hospitals, is also severely wounded, but regardless, will pay a very steep price. God bless our Great National Guard, and all of our Military and Law Enforcement. These are truly Great People. I, as President of the United States, and everyone associated with the Office of the Presidency, am with you!"
According to the Washington Post, US Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said the shooting had "no known direction of interest towards the White House other than the location at this time," and agency members at the scene did not fire shots.
ABC News noted that "the National Guard was deployed to the nation's capital as part of President Trump's federal takeover of the city in August. According to the most recent update, there are 2,188 Guard personnel assigned to DC."
US District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled last week that the deployment in DC is illegal and must come to an end, but she gave the Trump administration until December 11 to file an appeal.