

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.
Repealing the EPA's endangerment finding "isn’t about saving taxpayers’ money, it’s about saving an industry that has already been exposed as a permanent danger to American families," said the head of 350.org.
In what the Sierra Club described as an act to "formalize climate denialism as official government policy," the Trump administration announced Thursday that it has revoked the long-standing "endangerment finding" that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to pass regulations fighting the climate crisis.
The 2009 endangerment finding determined that the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases posed a hazard to public health and welfare by causing the planet to warm dramatically, citing overwhelming scientific evidence, which has only grown more indisputable in the nearly two decades since.
With the US Supreme Court having ruled in 2007 that the EPA could make regulations on climate change if it were deemed a health risk, this finding served as the basis for virtually every climate-related EPA regulation under the 1970 Clean Air Act, including those limiting emissions from motor vehicles, power plants, oil and gas facilities, and other sources of pollution.
The finding has been a target of the fossil fuel industry since it was reached. Under President Donald Trump, who has boasted openly of serving the fossil fuel industry in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars of financial support during his last election, they have found their hero.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who has enthusiastically backed Trump's initiatives to expand oil drilling and coal mining, called the repeal of the finding "the largest deregulatory action in the history of America."
Indeed, it is expected to immediately eviscerate fuel-efficiency standards and electric vehicle requirements for cars and trucks, which are already the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions in the US, contributing about 1.8 billion metric tons in 2022.
While the White House has said the reduced efficiency standards will “save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations,” this is a drop in the ocean compared to the $87 trillion in economic disruption that a study by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania estimated will come over the next 25 years as a result of increased natural disasters and sea-level rise caused by American corporations' fossil fuel outputs.
In the United States, weather disasters—exacerbated by global warming—caused $115 billion in total damages last year, the third most since tracking began in 1980, behind only 2023 and 2024. Last year had more billion-dollar disasters than any other year on record.
Anne Jellema, the executive director of the environmental group 350.org, said repealing the endangerment finding "isn’t about saving taxpayers’ money, it’s about saving an industry that has already been exposed as a permanent danger to American families."
"While the Trump administration can manipulate scientific agencies, it can never suppress the truth that ordinary people in the US and around the world are paying the real price for Big Oil’s profits: Lives are being lost, homes are being destroyed, and costs are soaring," she said.
The Trump administration does not have the last word on the endangerment finding. Climate groups, including Earthjustice, have already stated their intention to challenge the legality of the decision.
"The courts have repeatedly affirmed EPA’s obligation to clean up climate pollution," said Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen. "There is no way to reconcile EPA’s decision with the law, the science, and the reality of disasters that are hitting us harder every year."
Dillen said, "Earthjustice and our partners will see the Trump administration in court.” But it may face an uphill battle.
Though the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for the finding's creation, the current right-wing majority has rolled back its authority in recent years, most notably in 2022, when the justices limited the EPA's authority to impose emissions standards on power plants.
David Arkush, the director of Public Citizen’s climate program, said that "if left to stand," the rollback of the endangerment finding "will hamstring the government’s ability to combat the most terrible environmental threat in human history, harming Americans and the world for decades to come."
“Abundant scientific evidence supports the EPA’s prior conclusion that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare," he added. "Americans feel the effects of climate change constantly, as we experience more dangerous hurricanes, furnace-like heat domes, walls of water slamming into our children’s summer camps, raging wildfires, and other extreme weather driven by greenhouse gases.”
“Jeff Bezos is spending $200 billion on AI and robotics. Jeff Bezos is replacing hundreds of thousands of his workers at Amazon with robots. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.”
The Washington Post editorial board went to the trouble of marking what it called "Bernie Sanders' worst idea yet" on Wednesday, but the progressive US senator shrugged at the label and didn't appear likely to end his push for a moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers.
The conservative-leaning editors wrote glowingly of the "mind-blowing amounts of information" that AI data centers can process and dismissively said that businesses that have invested billions of dollars in AI have erroneously been cast as the "villain in the socialist imagination."
They decried "AI doomerism" by politicians and accused lawmakers like Sanders (I-Vt.) of "fearmongering" about the data centers' water consumption and environmental harms—but neglected to mention that the rapid expansion of the massive centers has sparked grassroots outrage, with communities in states including Michigan and Wisconsin demanding that tech giants stay out of their towns, fearing skyrocketing electricity bills among other impacts.
Sanders emphasized that the Post and its owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, have a vested interest in dismissing efforts to stop the AI build-out that President Donald Trump has demanded with his executive order aimed at stopping states from regulating the industry.
Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, created an AI startup last year with $6.2 billion in funding, some of it from his personal fortune, and Amazon—where Bezos is still the primary shareholder—has announced plans to invest $200 billion in AI and robotics.
"What a surprise," said Sanders sardonically. "The Washington Post doesn't want a moratorium on AI data centers."
Ben Inskeep, a program director for Citizens Action Coalition in Indiana, suggested the editorial board couldn't express its opposition to Sanders' proposal for a moratorium without including "an admission that it is a paid attack dog for Jeff Bezos," pointing to its required disclosure that Bezos' company is in fact investing billions of dollars in AI.
On social media, Sanders followed his response to the Post's attack with a video in which he doubled down on his objections to AI, despite the editorial board's accusation that he and others "grandstand" on the issue and its insistence that he should "be ecstatic about how much AI can help workers."
Sanders said in the video that "AI and robotics are a huge threat to the working class of this country."
"We have got to be prepared to say as loud and clear as we can that this technology is not just going to benefit the billionaires who own it," he said, "but it's going to work for the working families of our country."
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.