November, 14 2023, 02:02pm EDT
Lebanon: Israeli Strike an Apparent War Crime
Three Children, Grandmother Killed in Their Car
BEIRUT
An unlawful Israeli strike on a family in a car on November 5, 2023, should be investigated as an apparent war crime, Human Rights Watch said today. The attack killed three girls and their grandmother and wounded their mother.
The family had been traveling from south Lebanon to Beirut in the late afternoon, following heavy shelling by Israeli forces in the area earlier that day, Samir Ayoub, the girls’ uncle, said in a televised interview the night of the attack. Ayoub, a journalist, was traveling in a separate car in front of the car that was hit.
“This attack by Israeli military forces that struck a car carrying a family fleeing violence shows a reckless disregard for civilian life,” said Ramzi Kaiss, Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Three young girls and their grandmother have lost their lives, our investigations show, as a result of the Israeli military’s failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Their killing is a violation of the laws of war, and Israel’s allies, like the US, should respond to this apparent war crime by demanding accountability for this unlawful strike.”
That evening, the Israeli military admitted carrying out the strike, telling the Times of Israel it “struck a vehicle in Lebanese territory that was identified as a suspicious vehicle containing several terrorists […] The claim that there were several uninvolved civilians in the vehicle is being examined. The event is under review.” According to Human Rights Watch research, they have provided no further evidence to justify their claim.
Human Rights Watch interviewed Ayoub and an official of the civil defense team that responded to the site after the attack. Human Rights Watch also reviewed videos of the aftermath, CCTV footage of the family’s vehicle captured before the strike, and statements by the head of the hospital to which the victims were carried. Human Rights Watch geolocated the videos to confirm the locations.
The girls—Rimas, 14, Taline, 12, and Liane, 10, Chour—their mother, Hoda Hijazi Chour, who was driving the car, and their grandmother, Samira Ayoub, were the only people in the car, Ayoub and the civil defense official said. The head of the Salah Ghandour Hospital in Bint Jbeil was quoted as saying that the bodies of the girls and their grandmother were completely burned, while the mother was injured but in stable condition.
Ayoub said that he had used that particular road daily when traveling from his house in Aitaroun to visit his sister’s house in Blida. “All people in the town use that road when they go to buy groceries or get supplies,” he said. “There are no military targets there.”
Human Rights Watch found no evidence of a military target in the vicinity. But if there were one, targeting a car carrying civilians, along with the Israeli military’s admission of targeting the car while failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, makes the strike unlawful. Under the laws of war, all parties must do everything feasible to verify that targets are valid military objectives. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person must be considered a civilian.
In a televised interview the night of the attack, Ayoub said that shortly before the strike, the two cars had stopped at a small shop in Aitaroun. Human Rights Watch reviewed a video recording provided by Ayoub from the CCTV camera at the shop showing the family’s vehicle and geolocated it to be around 1.7 kilometers from the attack site, confirming Ayoub’s account.
The CCTV footage shows a child and a woman, identified as the mother and Liane, with Ayoub, leaving the shop. The footage shows at least two young girls in the back seat of the car and two women in the front seats.
A recording of a live TV transmission from the site of the strike shows the civil defense team taking a charred body from the car and putting it into an ambulance. Ayoub, with blood on his shirt, can be heard saying that the children and their grandmother had been killed, while the mother was injured.
In a TV interview recorded shortly after the strike, Ayoub said that the family had planned to drive to his house before heading to Beirut. “I told them to play in front of the car since a [surveillance drone] was flying over them. I told them the drone will see you now and know there are children in the car. The three little girls, they were burned in the car before my eyes, and their mother was screaming. I pulled her out. But we couldn’t do anything. The children were burning, screaming but we couldn’t do anything.”
Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported that Ayoub was driving the first car while the others followed behind in the second car. The second car was hit directly, causing it to flip onto the side of the road as it was engulfed in flames, according to the agency.
The latest Israeli strikes come in the context of increased tensions along the Lebanon-Israel border, where rocket attacks and armed clashes between the Israeli army and various Lebanese and Palestinian armed groups have been ongoing since October 8. As of November 10, Israeli attacks in Lebanon have reportedly killed at least 10 civilians, in addition to at least 70 Hezbollah fighters. Rocket strikes and other attacks into Israel by Hezbollah and Palestinian groups have reportedly killed at least two civilians and six soldiers.
In a statement it published on November 5, Hezbollah said that it responded to the strike on the civilian car with a barrage of Grad rockets on Kiryat Shmona. While Israeli media reports indicated that there were no injuries from the attack on Kiryat Shmona, one Israeli civilian was killed by Hezbollah rocket strikes in Kibbutz Yiftah in northern Israel on the same day. On October 20, the Israeli Ministry of Defense had ordered the evacuation of Kiryat Shmona, which, alongside other towns within four kilometers of the border, the Israeli military has declared a closed military zone.
Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, suggested in a televised speech on November 3 that attacks by Israel on civilians would be met with retaliatory attacks on civilians. Under international humanitarian law, belligerent reprisals against civilians are prohibited. Parties to a conflict are obligated to abide by international humanitarian law irrespective of the conduct of the other party. Laws-of-war violations by one side do not justify violations by the other side.
On October 7, a Hamas-led attack in southern Israel resulted in the killing of about 1,200 people, hundreds of them civilians, according to the Israeli government. Hamas and Islamic Jihad took more than 200 people hostage, including children, people with disabilities, and older people.
Heavy bombardment of Gaza by Israeli forces since October 7 has killed, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, more than 11,000 Palestinians, including thousands of civilians and more than 4,500 children, and displaced more than 1.5 million people. Israeli authorities have cut electricity, water, fuel, and food into Gaza, exacerbating an already dire humanitarian situation as a result of Israel’s 16-year unlawful closure of the strip. In the West Bank, Israeli forces and settlers have killed 169 Palestinians as of November 11, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
Israel’s key allies—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany—should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel, and Iran and other governments should cease providing arms to Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses.
Under international humanitarian law, all parties to the conflict are under a duty, at all times during the conflict, to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to target only combatants. Individuals who commit serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent—that is, intentionally or recklessly—may be prosecuted for war crimes. Individuals may also be held criminally liable for assisting in, facilitating, aiding, or abetting a war crime. All governments that are parties to an armed conflict are obligated to investigate alleged war crimes by members of their armed forces.
The attack on a vehicle containing only fleeing civilians shows reckless disregard by the Israeli military for its obligation to distinguish between civilian and military objects and a significant failure to take adequate safeguards to prevent civilian deaths, Human Rights Watch said.
“Israeli authorities have long failed to credibly investigate their own serious abuses, even when they acknowledge they carried them out,” Kaiss said. “With Israeli authorities continuing to commit abuses with impunity, Israel’s allies should insist on accountability for Israel’s violations of the laws of war and this apparent war crime.”
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
GOP Pushes Social Security 'Death Panel' After Years of Tax Cuts for Rich
"At today's hearing, Republicans made the true purpose of their 'fiscal commission' crystal clear: demolish Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors," said one campaigner.
Nov 29, 2023
The Republican-led push to establish a fiscal commission for the U.S. debt was met with vocal opposition during a House Budget Committee hearing on Wednesday, with progressive advocates and Democratic lawmakers calling the proposal a thinly veiled ploy to further undermine and cut Social Security and Medicare.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), one of eight witnesses who testified at Wednesday's hearing, said he was "a little skeptical" that Republican lawmakers are now concerned about the national debt given that they have driven it up with tax cuts for the rich and large corporations in recent years—and are still trying to increase it.
According to one analysis, the series of tax cuts approved under former Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump have added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment and are responsible for the bulk of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001.
Social Security, by contrast, is
not a driver of federal deficits.
"If we want to ensure long-term solvency [for Social Security], there are two choices: Some on the other side think we should cut benefits, I think we should ask the ultra-rich to pay their fair share. We don't need a commission to tell us that," McGovern said during his testimony. "And my fear is that a commission would be used by some as an excuse to slash Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal anti-poverty programs."
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the House Budget Committee who served on the infamous Bowles-Simpson commission that proposed deep cuts to Social Security, expressed similar concerns during Wednesday's hearing.
Schakowsky said she was "happy" the Bowles-Simpson proposals—which she vocally opposed at the time—weren't adopted and warned that a fiscal commission of the kind backed by Republicans and right-wing Democrats is "a way for members of Congress to get out from under having to take the blame for the kinds of cuts that may be presented."
In an op-ed for Common Dreams on Wednesday, Schakowsky wrote that "if Republicans cared about improving our fiscal position, they would demand the rich pay their fair share."
"If Republicans wanted to actually solve our budget challenges, they would robustly fund tax enforcement to ensure corporations are complying with laws already on the books," she added. "But Republicans aren't serious about the deficit. They aren't even serious about governing. They are serious about only one thing, and that's ripping away Social Security from seniors behind closed doors."
Wednesday's hearing examined three pieces of legislation put forth by bipartisan groups of lawmakers in the House and Senate.
A bill introduced earlier this month by Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—both of whom testified at Wednesday's hearing—would form a 16-member bipartisan, bicameral fiscal commission comprised of 12 elected officials and four outside experts tasked with crafting legislation to "improve solvency of federal trust funds over a 75-year period."
If approved by the commission, the legislation would be put on a fast track in the House and Senate.
Romney insisted during his testimony Wednesday that he doesn't know of a single Republican or Democrat who wants to cut Social Security and said benefit reductions should be off the table.
But Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group, pointed out that a proposal released earlier this year by the Republican Study Committee (RSC)—a panel comprised of 175 House Republicans—called for raising the Social Security retirement age, which would de facto cut benefits across the board.
Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), who presided over Wednesday's hearing, is a member of the RSC. During his opening remarks, Arrington described efforts to prevent what he called a "sovereign debt crisis" as "our generation's World War."
Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, told Common Dreams that "at today's hearing, Republicans made the true purpose of their 'fiscal commission' crystal clear: demolish Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors, while avoiding accountability from voters."
"Chairman Jodey Arrington referred to the commission's supporters as 'partners in crime,'" Lawson added. "That's exactly what they are: criminals who are plotting to reach into our pockets and steal our earned benefits."
"It should be a national scandal that middle- and working-class families have to pay Social Security taxes on all of their income but millionaires and billionaires do not."
Instead of taking the deeply unpopular step of slashing benefits, Democrats who spoke at the budget committee hearing argued that Congress should pass legislation requiring the rich to contribute more to Social Security. This year, because of the payroll tax cap, millionaires stopped paying into the program in late February.
"It should be a national scandal that middle- and working-class families have to pay Social Security taxes on all of their income but millionaires and billionaires do not," said McGovern.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said at Wednesday's hearing that Congress could extend Social Security's solvency through the end of the century by requiring the rich to pay more in taxes.
"I think that is fair. I think that is appropriate," said Boyle. "And for those who disagree, I would be very interested in seeing what their plan is and their alternative."
Following the hearing, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) delivered a speech on the House floor condemning Republicans for working to "establish a death panel commission to gut earned benefits" and described the effort as part of a "cycle" that must be opposed.
"First, Republicans pass tax handouts for their filthy rich donors, promising a trickle-down miracle that never has and will never happen—from Reaganomics to Trump's tax scam," said Lee. "Then, when their tax scam causes the economy to slow and deficits to grow, they refuse to correct their mistake. Instead they blame immigrants, poor folks, Black folks, and brown folks."
"Then they repeat the cycle," she continued, "hoping enough of us will forgive or forget their scheme to tear away Medicare and Social Security and believe their lie that they were 'only after' food assistance, healthcare, and housing for poor folks—not your earned benefits—when the truth is that they always were and always will be after it all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
78-Country Map Rebuffs Claim That US 'Not at War'
"Taken altogether, this map's data highlights that the expansive global counterterrorism apparatus grinds ever onwards," says a Costs of War Project report.
Nov 29, 2023
"We're not at war."
That's what U.S. House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) claimed during a Wednesday hearing about controversial legislation backed by Republicans and right-wing Democrats that would create a so-called fiscal commission for the U.S. debt.
Making some on-the-fly additions to his prepared remarks, Arrington said, "120% debt to GDP—this is the highest level of indebtedness in the history of our country surpassing World War II and we're not at war, we're in relative peace and prosperity."
And yet, a report published Wednesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs shows that since 2021, the U.S. military has conducted counterterrorism operations—including training and assistance, military exercises, combat and detention, and air and drone strikes—in at least 78 countries.
"The war launched by the United States government in response to the 9/11 terror attacks continues," states the report, authored by project co-director Stephanie Savell. "This map is a snapshot of today's global military and civilian operations that evolved from President George W. Bush's 'Global War on Terror,' launched in 2001, and continued through and beyond the U.S. military's official withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. This war on terror continues under President Joe Biden."
The United States conducted air and drone strikes against militants in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and likely Yemen, according to the report. U.S. forces also "engaged in combat and detention, using force on the ground against militants/terrorism suspects" in those five countries plus Cuba, Kenya, Mali, and the United Arab Emirates.
The publication also identifies 30 countries where the United States "conducted formal, named military exercises to project
force locally and rehearse scenarios of combating 'terrorists' or 'violent extremist organizations," and 73 nations where the U.S. government "trained and/or assisted military, police, and/or border patrol forces."
As the report details:
Many U.S. military operations are not included here—notably, those aimed at what U.S. officials and media identify as the military threat posed by Russia and China, the focus of much current U.S. foreign policy. Nor does this map include the military bases that have housed counterterrorism operations. Further, it does not include counterterrorism-related arms sales to foreign governments, all deployments of U.S. special operations forces, or all Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations. Also excluded are "military information support operations (MISO)," or "psychological operations," which the U.S. military carries out in many countries on the map and beyond, such as in Iran. All of these are significant elements of the bigger picture of U.S. counterterrorism strategy but beyond the scope of the map's data set.
USA Today exclusively reported on the new map. Citing the Pentagon and David Vine, an anthropologist and U.S military expert at American University, the newspaper noted that "there are up to 800 U.S. military bases overseas," and "the Biden administration signed an agreement in June that will bring six new U.S. military bases to Papua New Guinea."
The Costs of War Project report points out that "there are a few notable differences in comparing the current data with the previous version of the map, which covered activities between 2018 through 2020 under President Donald Trump's administration." Differences include that the number of nations hit with U.S. airstrikes decreased while the tally of countries where U.S. service members engaged in ground combat rose by one—the UAE.
"Overall, though the total number of countries has decreased slightly, from 85 to 78 total countries, the United States counterterrorism footprint remains remarkably similar," the report stresses. "Taken altogether, this map's data highlights that the expansive global counterterrorism apparatus grinds ever onwards. This contrasts starkly with claims or assumptions on the part of the U.S. public and policymakers that the so-called 'War on Terror' is over."
The report comes as Congress considers how much more military aid—if any—to provide Ukraine, which has been battling a Russian invasion since February 2022, and Israel, which launched a war on the Gaza Strip in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on October 7.
"Today, in the current geopolitical context of the Middle East, the U.S. counterterrorism machinery is like a spark, ready to ignite," Savell wrote Wednesday in a related opinion piece for Newsweek. "The U.S. footprint in the region does not only make U.S. forces sitting ducks—it also threatens to dramatically escalate the current war on Gaza. Research has shown that having U.S. troops at the ready in so many places actually makes the chances of the U.S. waging aggressive, offensive wars far more likely."
"It is time for the U.S. to think deeply about the costs of overseas counterterrorism and to admit it has been a failure, underlaid by structural racism," she argued. "It is time to truly end the post-9/11 war era."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ecuador Court Orders Stolen Land Returned to Siekopai People
"This groundbreaking precedent paves the way for other Indigenous communities who dream of recovering their territories within protected areas," said one campaigner.
Nov 29, 2023
Amazon defenders this week cheered what one group called "an invaluable precedent for all Indigenous peoples fighting to recover their lands" after an Ecuadorean appeals court ruled in favor of the Siekopai Nation's ownership claim over its ancestral homeland.
The November 24 decision by a three-judge panel of the Sucumbios Provincial Court of Justice gives Ecuador's Ministry of the Environment 45 days to hand over title to more than 104,000 acres of land along the country's border with Peru.
"Today is a great day for our nation," Siokepai Nation President Elias Piyahuaje said following the ruling. "Until the end of time, this land will be ours."
The Siekopai—who call their homeland Pë'këya—were forcibly displaced from the region, one of the most biodiverse on the planet, in 1941 during the first of three border wars between Peru and Ecuador. They were then prevented from returning home as the Ecuadorean government unilaterally claimed ownership of Pë'këya.
The ruling marks the first time that an Ecuadorean court has ordered the return of land stolen from Indigenous people.
Amazon Frontlines—a San Francisco-based advocacy group that helped the Siekopai with their case—explained:
With a population of barely 800 in Ecuador and 1,200 in Peru, the Siekopai are on the brink of cultural and physical extinction. On both sides of the border, the Siekopai are currently waging legal battles to recover more than a half-million acres of land that were stolen from their ancestors. The Siekopai's court victory recognizing Pë'këyamarks a major stepping stone in this binational struggle for the reunification of their ancestral territory. After centuries of violence, racism, and conquest by colonizing missions, rubber corporations, and governments, the court's recognition of the Siekopai as the owners of Pë'këya is an indispensable step towards restoring justice and guaranteeing their collective survival and the continuity of their culture.
"For over 80 years, we have been fighting to get our land back," Piyahuaje said. "Despite all the evidence regarding our land title claim—even historians testified that our ancestors dwelled in the area since the time of conquest—the Ecuadorian government failed to uphold our land rights time and time again."
"We are fighting for the preservation of our culture on this planet. Without this territory, we cannot exist as Siekopai people," he added.
Amazon Frontlines attorney Maria Espinosa said that "this victory has been decades in the making, it has been a very long struggle against the government."
"Now, finally, the Siekopai's dream of recovering their ancestral territory has been achieved," Espinosa added. "This groundbreaking precedent paves the way for other Indigenous communities who dream of recovering their territories within protected areas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular