

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.

Tel: +1-212-216-1832
Email: hrwpress@hrw.org
Israeli military investigations into the Gaza war have brought some
results over the past 18 months but fall far short of addressing the
widespread and serious allegations of unlawful conduct during the
fighting, while Hamas has announced no serious investigations
whatsoever, Human Rights Watch said today.
Human Rights Watch called on governments and the United Nations
to increase their pressure on Israel and Hamas to conduct credible,
independent investigations.
"International pressure for investigations has pushed Israel, if
not Hamas, to take some steps, but there can be no let-up," said Sarah
Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The victims
on all sides deserve justice."
In July 2010, Israel gave UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon an
update of its Gaza investigations, claiming "significant results." The
Palestinian authorities in the West Bank also submitted a report to the
secretary-general, which is not yet public. Hamas has reportedly
prepared a report on its investigations but has also not released it
publicly. Ban is expected to pass the reports from Israel and the West
Bank authorities to the General Assembly in the coming weeks.
"Secretary-General Ban should candidly assess the investigations
by both sides and not just passively transmit the reports to the General
Assembly," Whitson said.
In February, the General Assembly called
on Israel and Hamas for the second time to conduct thorough and
impartial investigations into the serious violations of international
human rights and humanitarian law documented by the UN
Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, headed by Justice
Richard Goldstone. That report found that both Israel and Hamas had
committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
Hamas authorities in Gaza have neither investigated nor
disciplined anyone for ordering or carrying out hundreds of deliberate
or indiscriminate rocket
attacks into Israeli cities and towns during the fighting in
December 2008 and January 2009, which are war crimes. Hamas officials,
at a May 14 meeting in Gaza City, told Human Rights Watch that they were
investigating allegations of wartime abuses but provided no details.
At that meeting, Human Rights Watch reiterated its concerns about
Hamas's failure
to investigate laws-of-war and human rights violations, including
rocket attacks against Israeli population centers, the continued
incommunicado detention of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad
Shalit, and ill-treatment
of Gaza residents in custody. Hamas allowed Human Rights Watch to
visit Palestinian detainees at Gaza's central prison but denied a
request to visit Shalit and a detention facility where torture allegedly
occurs.
On July 21, the Israeli government made public the report
it gave to the UN secretary-general on its Gaza investigations. All of
these were conducted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The government
has rejected calls for independent investigations.
The military has failed to investigate many serious allegations of
abuses or the policies that apparently led to civilian deaths, Human
Rights Watch said.
To date, Israeli military courts have convicted only one soldier for a
wartime abuse - the theft of a credit card. Two other soldiers are on
trial for forcing a child to open a bag they suspected of being rigged
with explosives. A third soldier was recently indicted for shooting and
killing a civilian who was walking in a group holding white flags.
Israel says the military has opened more than 150 investigations, but
more than 100 of these were limited to "operational debriefings" (in
Hebrew, tahkir mivza'i). Rather than criminal investigations,
these are after-action reports in which an officer in the chain of
command interviews the soldiers involved, with no testimony from
Palestinian victims or witnesses.
The operational debriefings may serve a useful military purpose, but
they are inadequate substitutes for impartial and thorough
investigations into possible criminal wrongdoing, Human Rights Watch
said.
The IDF military advocate general has also opened 47 criminal
investigations in which military investigators summoned witnesses and
more broadly examined evidence. Of these, at least seven cases have been
closed without charges.
Human Rights Watch investigated
at least two of these closed cases and found that the evidence strongly
suggests violations of the laws of war. In one case, on January 7, an
Israeli soldier apparently opened fire on two women and three children
from the 'Abd Rabbo family in eastern Jabalya who were holding white
flags, killing two girls and wounding the grandmother and third
girl. The military said it closed the case because "the evidence was
insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings."
The second case involved the killing of Rawhiya al-Najjar, 47, as she
carried a white flag in Khuza'a on January 13. The military determined
that she had been hit accidentally by a ricochet bullet. But five
witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that Israeli soldiers
continued to fire after al-Najjar was struck in the head, preventing a
group of women from retrieving her body and wounding Jasmin al-Najjar,
23. Another civilian carrying a white flag, Mahmoud al-Najjar, 57, was
shot and killed later that day trying to reach the body.
Other Israeli military investigations have resulted in
unspecified disciplinary action, reserved for less serious offenses,
against five unidentified commanders and soldiers. A brigadier general
and a colonel were disciplined for ordering the use of explosive shells
in an urban area, in violation of operational orders. A lieutenant
colonel was disciplined because soldiers under his command used a
civilian to perform a military task.
An officer of unspecified rank was reprimanded and two others
sanctioned for using poor judgment in a January 3 strike just outside
the Ibrahim al-Maqadema mosque in Jabalya refugee camp that reportedly
killed 10 civilians inside the mosque and two members of Hamas's armed
wing standing outside. A previous Israeli update on the military's
internal investigations, released in July 2009, stated that a soldier
had been disciplined by the commander in the field for destroying
property, which military investigators told Human Rights Watch involved
uprooting vegetation.
Israel said it is making operational changes to reduce civilian
casualties and damage to civilian property during future military
operations. According to the July report, the military has added a
humanitarian affairs officer to each combat unit at the battalion level
and above. In October 2009 it introduced a new "Standing Order on
Destruction of Private Property for Military Purposes," which clarifies
when and under what circumstances the military may destroy civilian
structures and agricultural infrastructure.
The report also said that the Israeli military is establishing
new orders on the use of munitions containing white phosphorus, which
can cause severe burns and ignite civilian structures, and is
"establishing permanent restrictions on the use of munitions containing
white phosphorus in urban areas."
"Israel's recognition of the need to change its policies,
especially on property destruction and the use of white phosphorus, is a
positive step, but the military should make the new policies public to
ensure they are consistent with international law," Whitson said.
Israel initially denied that it had used white phosphorus during the
fighting in Gaza but, after the evidence became undeniable, it conceded
that it had and investigated its use. A Human Rights Watch report showed
how Israeli forces repeatedly exploded
white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing
and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a
school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse, and a hospital.
Another Human Rights Watch report showed that Israeli forces
deliberately destroyed 189
civilian structures without a lawful military justification, which
could amount to the war crime of wanton destruction. That report
investigated roughly 5 percent of the destruction of civilian property
in Gaza.
Various bodies of the United Nations are monitoring the post-war
investigations by Israel and Hamas. The General Assembly is expected to
take up the secretary-general's report. At the Human Rights Council, a Committee
of Experts is assessing whether Israel and Hamas are conducting
investigations that meet international standards. Its report is expected
in September.
"A growing number of states are demanding accountability from
both sides, and their pressure is bearing fruit," Whitson said. "Now all
European governments, as well as the US and Canada, should insist on
the same rules for Israel and Hamas as they demand elsewhere: that those
responsible for war crimes be held accountable, and the victims receive
justice and compensation."
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.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."