August, 10 2010, 03:00pm EDT
Israel/Gaza: Wartime Inquiries Fall Short
Governments and UN Should Press for Justice
NEW YORK
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.
LATEST NEWS
South Korean Court Hears First Asian Youth Climate Case
"Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later," said one plaintiff's mother. "But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
Apr 23, 2024
One of South Korea's two highest courts on Tuesday began hearing Asia's first-ever youth-led climate lawsuit, which accuses the country's government of failing to protect citizens from the effects of the worsening, human-caused planetary emergency.
Nineteen members of the advocacy group Youth4ClimateAction filed a constitutional complaint in March 2020 accusing the South Korean government of violating their rights to life, the "pursuit of happiness," a "healthy and pleasant environment," and to "resist against human extinction."
The lawsuit also notes "the inequality between the adult generation who can enjoy the relatively pleasant environment and the youth generation who must face a potential disaster from climate change," as well as the government's obligation to prevent and protect citizens from environmental disasters.
"South Korea's current climate plans are not sufficient to keep the temperature increase within 1.5°C, thus violating the state's obligation to protect fundamental rights," the plaintiffs said in a statement.
South Korea's Constitutional Court began hearing a case that accuses the government of having failed to protect 200 people, including dozens of young environmental activists and children, by not tackling climate change https://t.co/XRIGE23KGMÂ pic.twitter.com/snvqBaGGe9
— Reuters (@Reuters) April 23, 2024
Signatories to the 2015 Paris agreement committed to "holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C."
According to the United Nations Environment Program's (UNEP) most recent Emissions Gap Report, the world must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 28% before 2030 to limit warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels and 42% to halt warming at 1.5°C. UNEP said that based on current policies and practices, the world is on track for 2.9°C of warming by the end of the century.
A summary of the lawsuit notes that South Korea is the fifth-largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, and that the government is constitutionally obligated to protect Koreans from the climate emergency.
Instead, the plaintiffs argue, the Korean Parliament "gave the government total discretion to set the GHG reduction target without providing any specific guidelines." Furthermore, they contend that the government's downgraded reduction targets fall "far short of what is necessary to satisfy the temperature rise threshold acknowledged by the global community."
Lee Donghyun, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, toldReuters: "Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later. But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
The South Korean case comes on the heels of a landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which found that Switzerland's government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to heed scientists' warnings to swiftly phase out fossil fuel production.
The ECHR ruled on the same day that climate cases brought by a former French mayor and a group of Portuguese youth were inadmissible.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, and Peru also have human rights-based climate cases on their dockets.
In the United States, a state judge in Montana ruled last year in favor of 16 young residents who argued that fossil fuel extraction violated their constitutional right to "a clean and healthful environment."
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is trying to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Rights Chief Demands International Probe of Mass Graves Near Gaza Hospitals
"Hospitals are entitled to very special protection under international humanitarian law," said Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights.
Apr 23, 2024
The United Nations' human rights chief on Tuesday called for an international investigation into mass graves discovered at two Gaza hospitals that Israeli forces recently assailed and destroyed, further imperiling the enclave's barely functioning healthcare system.
Volker Türk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said in a statement that he was "horrified" by the discovery of mass graves at the Nasser and al-Shifa medical complexes, which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reduced to ruins.
More than 300 bodies were reportedly discovered in the mass grave near the Nasser facility in Khan Younis, Gaza, and eyewitnesses said Israeli soldiers executed civilians during their two-week-long raid of al-Shifa last month.
Türk demanded an "independent, effective, and transparent" probe into the killings and mass graves, adding that "given the prevailing climate of impunity, this should include international investigators."
"Hospitals are entitled to very special protection under international humanitarian law," he added. "And the intentional killing of civilians, detainees, and others who are hors de combat is a war crime."
"Every 10 minutes a child is killed or wounded. They are protected under the laws of war, and yet they are ones who are disproportionately paying the ultimate price."
The IDF's destructive attacks on Nasser and al-Shifa were part of a broader Israeli assault on Gaza's healthcare system. An analysis released Monday by Save the Children found that the rate of monthly Israeli attacks on healthcare in Gaza since October has exceeded that of any other conflict around the world since 2018.
The group estimated that Israel has launched an average of 73 attacks per month on healthcare in Gaza—and at least 435 attacks total since October.
"After six months of unimaginable horror, the healthcare system in Gaza has been brought to its knees," said Xavier Joubert, Save the Children's country director in the occupied Palestinian territory. "Healthcare workers are risking their lives daily to give Palestinian children a chance at survival. The constant attacks on healthcare are simply unjustifiable and must stop. Palestinian children must have unimpeded access to services, including healthcare and education."
Türk also used his statement Tuesday to condemn Israeli forces' killing of women and children in airstrikes on the southern Gaza city of Rafah in recent days. The human rights official noted that Gaza doctors rescued a baby from the womb of her mother as the latter succumbed to head injuries from an Israeli strike.
"The latest images of a premature child taken from the womb of her dying mother, of the adjacent two houses where 15 children and five women were killed—this is beyond warfare," said Türk. "Every 10 minutes a child is killed or wounded. They are protected under the laws of war, and yet they are ones who are disproportionately paying the ultimate price in this war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': UK Conservatives Push Through Plan to Deport Asylum-Seekers to Rwanda
"The U.K. government could literally pay every refugee a £30,000 annual salary for life, and it would be cheaper," said one critic. "We're burning money just to enjoy the cruelty."
Apr 23, 2024
Legal and human rights experts on Tuesday said the British Conservative Party's decision to push through a bill allowing the government to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda—effectively overriding last year's Supreme Court ruling—represented a "desperate low" from lawmakers eager to exploit migrants ahead of elections expected later this year.
"A lot of this is performative cruelty," Daniel Merriman, a lawyer whose clients have included some asylum-seekers whom the Tories tried to deport after it first introduced its plan in 2022, toldNPR. "The elephant in the room is the upcoming election."
After a prolonged debate, the unelected House of Lords cleared the way to pass the Safety of Rwanda bill early Tuesday morning, after dropping several proposed amendments including one that would have required independent verification that the central African country is a safe place to send migrants.
The House of Commons then passed the bill, and King Charles III is expected to formally approve the legislation in the coming days.
The bill requires courts and immigration officials to "conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country" to send asylum-seekers, even though the Supreme Court ruled in November that people deported to the country would face a significant risk of refoulement, or being sent back to the countries where they originally fled persecution or violence.
The Conservative government signed a treaty with Rwanda last December to strengthen protections for asylum-seekers, including a provision that partially bans Rwanda from sending people back to their home countries.
But the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called on the U.K. to abandon the plan and instead "take practical measures to address irregular flows of refugees and migrants, based on international cooperation and respect for international human rights law."
"The new legislation marks a further step away from the U.K.'s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention," said Filippo Grandi, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees. "Protecting refugees requires all countries—not just those neighboring crisis zones—to uphold their obligations. This arrangement seeks to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermining international cooperation and setting a worrying global precedent."
"The U.K. has a proud history of effective, independent judicial scrutiny," Grandi added. "It can still take the right steps and put in place measures to help address the factors that drive people to leave home, and share responsibility for those in need of protection, with European and other international partners."
Dorothy Guerrero, head of policy and advocacy at Global Justice Now, noted that "disastrous foreign and economic policies of successive governments have contributed to the need for people to seek refuge."
"These same people's lives are continually used as a political football, after years of being scapegoats for bad government decisions," said Guerrero. "Statements from politicians are now even more blatantly devoid of any pretense of care for human rights. We will not stop pushing for a change of course, with safe routes to seek asylum in the U.K. so that people no longer have to risk their lives in the Channel."
"The passing of the Rwanda Bill is a shameful day for the U.K.," she added.
Hours after the legislation was passed, French officials announced that at least five people, including a seven-year-old child, had been killed while attempting to cross the English Channel, bound for the U.K. in an overloaded inflatable boat.
At The New Statesman, associate political editor Rachel Cunliffe wrote Tuesday that the tragedy reveals "the flaws of the Rwanda plan," which proponents say could deter migrants from seeking refuge in Britain.
Proponents of the Rwanda plan will inevitably point to today's disaster as further evidence that strong measures are needed to address the issue of Channel crossings. They will accuse Labour and opposition parties of ignoring the human cost of letting this crisis continue and argue that lives are at stake if the government does not act.
[...]
The reality is that a substantial number of people who pay people traffickers large sums of money to crowd them on to a tiny boat do so because they feel they have no other option. Fleeing war and persecution, they are desperate. And so they are prepared to take desperate measures. Measures that sometimes lead to tragedy, but which are deemed necessary given the hopelessness of their situation.
It is hard to see how the threat to send a tiny fraction of those who arrive (Rwanda has said it will only take 150-200 migrants) changes this calculation.
The Labour Party, which is leading Conservatives in polls ahead of the expected elections, has vowed to scrap the legislation if it wins control of the government later this year, and critics have expressed doubt that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will actually secure deportation flights before Britons vote.
One flight was grounded in June 2022 after the European Court of Human Rights intervened, and on Monday the OHCHR warned aviation authorities that they would risk violating international law if they allow "unlawful removals" of asylum-seekers to Rwanda.
Critics have also pointed to a finding by the National Audit Office that the deportations would cost £1.8 million ($2.2 million) per person.
"The U.K. government could literally pay every refugee a £30,000 annual salary for life, and it would be cheaper than sending them to Rwanda," said David Andress, a history professor at the University of Portsmouth. "We're burning money just to enjoy the cruelty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular