May, 13 2010, 12:16pm EDT
Israel: Investigate Unlawful Destruction in Gaza War
Gaza Blockade Hinders Rebuilding of Property
JERUSALEM
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.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Pick to Replace Lina Khan Vowed to End 'War on Mergers'
"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said one antitrust attorney.
Dec 11, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Trade Commission vowed in his job pitch to end current chair Lina Khan's "war on mergers," a signal to an eager corporate America that the incoming administration intends to be far more lax on antitrust enforcement.
Andrew Ferguson was initially nominated by President Joe Biden to serve as a Republican commissioner on the bipartisan FTC, and his elevation to chair of the commission will not require Senate confirmation.
In a one-page document obtained by Punchbowl, Ferguson—who previously worked as chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—pitched himself to Trump's team as the "pro-innovation choice" with "impeccable legal credentials" and "proven loyalty" to the president-elect.
Ferguson's top agenda priority, according to the document, is to "reverse Lina Khan's anti-business agenda" by rolling back "burdensome regulations," stopping her "war on mergers," halting the agency's "attempt to become an AI regulator," and ditching "novel and legally dubious consumer protection cases."
Trump announced Ferguson as the incoming administration's FTC chair as judges in Oregon and Washington state
blocked the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons, decisions that one antitrust advocate called a "fantastic culmination of the FTC's work to protect consumers and workers."
According to a recent
report by the American Economic Liberties Project, the Biden administration "brought to trial four times as many billion-dollar merger challenges as Trump-Pence or Obama-Biden enforcers did," thanks to "strong leaders at the FTC" and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.
In a letter to Ferguson following Trump's announcement on Tuesday, FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter wrote that the document obtained and published by Punchbowl "raises questions" about his priorities at the agency mainly "because of what is not in it."
"Americans pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the developed world, yet they die younger," they wrote. "Medical bills bankrupt people. In fact, this is the main reason Americans go bankrupt. But the document does not mention the cost of healthcare or prescription medicine."
"If there was one takeaway from the election, it was that groceries are too expensive. So is gas," the commissioners continued. "Yet the document does not mention groceries, gas, or the cost of living. While you have said we're entering the 'most pro-worker administration in history,' the document does not mention labor, either. Americans are losing billions of dollars to fraud. Fraudsters are so brazen that they impersonate sitting FTC commissioners to steal money from retirees. The word 'fraud' does not appear in the document."
"The document does propose allowing more mergers, firing civil servants, and fighting something called 'the trans agenda,'" they added. "Is all of that more important than the cost of healthcare and groceries and gasoline? Or fighting fraud?"
As an FTC commissioner, Ferguson voted against rules banning anti-worker noncompete agreements and making it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions. Ferguson was also the only FTC member to oppose an expansion of a rule to protect consumers from tech support scams that disproportionately impact older Americans.
"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel. "Appointing him to chair the FTC is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Once Again, Tom Cotton Blocks Bill to Shield Journalists From Betraying Sources
Responding to the GOP senator's latest thwarting of the PRESS Act, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden vowed to "keep trying to get this bill across the finish line" before Republicans take control of the Senate next month.
Dec 10, 2024
Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas on Tuesday again blocked the passage of House-approved bipartisan legislation meant to shield journalists and telecommunications companies from being compelled to disclose sources and other information to federal authorities.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) brought the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act—which would prohibit the federal government from forcing journalists and telecom companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for terroristic or violent threats—for a unanimous consent vote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued Tuesday that passing the PRESS Act is "more important now than ever before when we've heard some in the previous administration talk about going after the press in one way or another," a reference to Republican President-elect Donald Trump's threats to jail journalists who refuse to reveal the sources of leaks. Trump, who has referred to the press as the "enemy of the people," repeatedly urged Senate Republicans to "kill this bill."
Cotton, who blocked a vote on the legislation in December 2022, again objected to the bill, a move that thwarted its speedy passage. The Republican called the legislation a "threat to national security" and "the biggest giveaway to the liberal press in American history."
The advocacy group Defending Rights and Dissent lamented that "Congress has abdicated their responsibility to take substantive steps to protect the constitutional right to a free press."
However, Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted ways in which Senate Democrats can still pass the PRESS Act before Republicans gain control of the upper chamber next month:
Senate Democrats had all year to move this bipartisan bill and now time is running out. Leader Schumer needs to get the PRESS Act into law—whether by attaching it to a year-end legislative package or bringing it to the floor on its own—even if it means shortening lawmakers' holiday break. Hopefully, today was a preview of more meaningful action to come.
Responding to Tuesday's setback, Wyden vowed, "I'm not taking my foot off the gas."
"I'll keep trying to get this bill across the finish line to write much-needed protections for journalists and their sources into black letter law," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judges Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger in 'Win for Farmers, Workers, and Consumers'
"We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement," said one advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
Antitrust advocates on Tuesday welcomed a pair of court rulings against the proposed merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, which was challenged by Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and multiple state attorneys general.
"The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons," said Henry Liu, director of the commission's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets."
"This victory has a direct, tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans who shop at Kroger or Albertsons-owned grocery stores for their everyday needs, whether that's a Fry's in Arizona, a Vons in Southern California, or a Jewel-Osco in Illinois," he added. "This is also a victory for thousands of hardworking union employees, protecting their hard-earned paychecks by ensuring Kroger and Albertsons continue to compete for workers through higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions."
While Liu was celebrating the preliminary injunction from Oregon-based U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson, later Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson released a ruling that blocked the merger in Washington state.
"We're standing up to mega-monopolies to keep prices down," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "We went to court to block this illegal merger to protect Washingtonians' struggling with high grocery prices and the workers whose jobs were at stake. This is an important victory for affordability, worker protections, and the rule of law."
Advocacy groups applauding the decisions also pointed to the high cost of groceries and the anticipated impact of Kroger buying Albertsons—a $24.6 billion deal first announced in October 2022.
"American families are the big winner today, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission. The only people who stood to gain from the potential merger between Albertsons and Kroger were their wealthy executives and investors," asserted Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US. "The rest of us are letting out a huge sigh of relief knowing today's victory is good news for competitive prices and consumer access."
Describing the federal decision as "a victory for commonsense antitrust enforcement that puts people ahead of corporations," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf also pointed out that "persistently high food prices are hitting Americans hard, and a Kroger-Albertsons mega-merger would have only made it worse."
"Already, a handful of huge corporations' stranglehold on our food system means that consumers are paying too much for too little choice in supermarkets, workers are earning too little, and farmers and ranchers cannot get fair prices for their crops and livestock," she noted. "Today's decision and strengthened FTC merger guidelines help change the calculus."
Like Wolf, Farm Action president and co-founder Angela Huffman similarly highlighted that "while industry consolidation increases prices for consumers and harms workers, grocery mergers also have a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers."
"When grocery stores consolidate, farmers have even fewer options for where to sell their products, and the chances of them receiving a fair price for their goods are diminished further," Huffman explained. "Today's ruling is a win for farmers, workers, and consumers alike."
Some advocates specifically praised Khan—a progressive FTC chair whom President-elect Donald Trumpplans to replace with Andrew Ferguson, a current commissioner who previously worked as chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and as Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Today's decision is a major win for shoppers and grocery workers. Families have been paying the price of unchecked corporate power in the food and grocery sector, and further consolidation would only worsen this crisis," declared Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens in a statement.
"FTC Chair Lina Khan's approach is the blueprint to deliver lower prices, higher wages, and an economy that works for everyone," Owens argued. "The rebirth of antitrust enforcement has protected consumers against the worst of corporate power in our economy and it would be wise to continue this approach."
Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the federal ruling "a resounding victory for workers, consumers, independent retailers, and local communities nationwide—and a powerful validation of Chair Khan and the FTC's rigorous enforcement of the law."
"The FTC presented a strong case that Kroger and Albertsons fiercely compete head-to-head on price, quality, and service. The ruling is a capstone on the FTC's work over the past four years and includes favorable citations to the FTC's recent victories against the Tapestry-Capri, IQVIA-Propel, and Illumina-Grail mergers," Kilgour continued.
"The court also cites long-standing Supreme Court law which recognizes that Congress was also concerned with the impacts of mergers on smaller competitors," she added. "We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement and for successfully protecting the public interest from harmful consolidation."
Despite the celebrations, the legal battle isn't necessarily over.
The Associated Pressreported that "the case may now move to the FTC, although Kroger and Albertsons have asked a different federal judge to block the in-house proceedings," and Colorado is also trying to halt the merger in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular