Human
Rights Watch as war criminals
1.
This is what it does.
By focusing their investigations and the resulting accusations only against
Israel and the IDF, they build a mindset were Israel is the only guilty party
to be considered. This mindset turns people away from the possibility of a Palestinian
responsibility.
2.
According to their account
they were there on August 3rd, the day it happened, and they
could not see it?? They investigated, gathered information, build a picture
of the events that took place in that horrible day, and nothing? The details of
Islamic Jihad's crime are in the account and testimonies they collected, and
they could not see it? Kids are outside the safety of a public shelter after
the collapse of a cease fire and as far as HRW is concern it is as mundane as
buying ice-cream on Venice Beach, California? Even if there was no criminal
intention behind this, how could human rights activists of all people be
indifferent to it?
3.
Nameless 45.
Nameless 45 is one of the perpetrators of this war crime. His age suggests he
had some kind of a command function. By treating him as a regular witness they
gave him the aura of legitimacy.
4.
Where are the other two
witnesses? They promised six witnesses, but published the testimonies of
only 4 witnesses. The most noticeably missing testimonies are those of the UN
staff that run that school. Why omit them? As employees of the United Nations
their testimony is the most valuable there is. Even if HRW is biased against
Israel there should be no reason to do that. The relationships between Israel
and the UN agencies working in the Gaza Strip, especially UNRAW, are so bad and
bitter that the likelihood that the testimony of any of their employees will
carry even the slightest favorable view of Israel does not exist. The absence
of their testimonies, especially of the UN organizer present at the open front
gate at the time leading to the incident, omits only one thing. It omits their
side of the debate that took place at that open front gate. The debate between
him and the three volunteers. These volunteers did not share the nature of that
debate, nor where they asked about it. If they were a part of a criminal
activity that took place there, then they certainly had a good reason to hide
this. But what were the reasons HRW investigators had to hide this debate or
ignore it? Isn't it necessary background, like the family that asked nameless
45 for an extra gallon of water, or the heat and humidity of that day?
5.
This is the best way to
cover up a crime. What is the best way for corrupt criminal investigators
to cover - up a crime? What is their best way to hide the identity of the
criminal actually responsible for the crime? The best way to do that is by not
asking a single question that can raise that suspicion.
Look at what they did, and look at what they
did not do. They were able to ask a common sense question criticizing the
Israeli side but were unable to ask common sense question that criticizes the
Palestinian side. On one hand they were puzzled by the IDF's decision to take
out that motorcycle at that specific time and place. On the other hand, they
were undisturbed by the presence of kids outside the safety of their shelter
during wartime. One sided questioning does not make any sense, unless some kind
of bias is involved. But it is more than just bias, because each of these
questions leads to a different place.
Asking the IDF why it chose that time and
place to fire at that motorcycle is a legitimate question. One that has an
answer, there was no choice. Fast moving objects are simply difficult to hit.
There is no reason to believe the drone did not try to hit it before; after all
the motorcycle was running away from it. But only when it slowed down, the
missile was able to catch it. There was no option to take out the motorcycle
after it slowed down because this could have been a part of getaway maneuver.
The presence of a getaway vehicle over there shows that indeed it was.
On the other hand the question not been asked
of the Palestinian side leads to more questions. Why the gate was open after
the collapse of the cease fire, and the sighting of the drone? What the
ice-cream and sweats vendors were doing out there, tempting the kids to step
into a likely danger zone, especially when they couldn't make a profit? The
answer to these questions requires an investigation that digs out more details
from this account. These details portray the most probable explanation
regarding that horrific day. According to this explanation, members of an armed
Palestinian group, most likely Islamic Jihad, operated inside that school.
Acting as volunteers they kept the gate open with the ice-cream vendors outside
in order to tempt children to leave the safety of that shelter. Their plan was
to use some of those kids in the escape maneuver of their friends on the escaping
motorcycle. They wanted the drone to
site the children in order to have it cancel the pursuit. Whether the drone
operators were able to spot them in time or not, is needed to be investigated.
But one thing is without any question. If it had not been for the Islamic Jihad
cell working inside that UN run school all those kids (and adults), would have
been alive and well today. In HRW account there is not a single reference to
that possibility. Every word, every phrase, every sentence, and every question
leads away from that possibility. A
possibility that once dug out of this account becomes the best explanation to
this murderous incident, if not the only one.
HRW treatment of the horrific events of August 3rd 2014 in
Rafah is simply a cover-up. It functions as a cover-up, it is constructed as a
cover-up, and it produced a cover-up. Therefor it is extremely likely, if not
certain, that it was intended to be a cover-up. A cover-up that helps war
criminals avoids justice by removing any suspicion from them.
6.
What's the rush? On August 11th Sarah Leah Whitson,
the executive director of Human Rights Watch, North Africa and Middle East
Division, wrote a public letter to US secretary of state John Kerry. The letter
demanded from the United – States to place severe punishments on Israel. This
was before their investigation was complete. As the account reviewed here says,
they visited the Beit Hanoun School on August 12, 13, and 29. And the Jablya
school at August 13. The only investigation they did complete was the one in
Rafah, on August 3. This raises the suspicion that Israel's guilt was decided
in advance. Thus shedding a negative
light on all previous investigations. By the nature of their work human rights
activists are in-charge on one of the most ethically demanding subject of
modern lives. Here however they had violated the most basic of ethical codes by
pre-determining guilt before an investigation is completed. Why would,
intelligent persons do that? This could
be a simple case of over confidence, which again sheds negative light on all
previous investigations. But working
under the shadow of criminal complicity is a more powerful motivation. The
sooner they can point the finger at Israel, the sooner they can point the
finger away from themselves.
 |
| Sarah Leah Whitson, Human Rights Watch Director of Middle East and North Africa division |
7.
HRW's poor criticism of
Islamic Jihad. Historically HRW had criticized Israel, a lot, and
offered some criticism of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. But there is
very little criticism in their archives of the Islamic Jihad. This is strange
and puzzling since it is the third largest Palestinian military organization,
and second largest official organization in the Gaza Strip. With an estimate of
8,000 fighters it is far smaller than Hamas, but significantly bigger than the
DFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine), and the PLFP (Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine). Yet, it had been the subject of the
same amount of criticism as these two small organizations, little to nothing
between 2002 and the end of Operation Protective Edge.
8.
A letter of
self-incrimination. The content of Sarah Leah Whitson's letter can serve as
a verification of these charges. In this letter she begins by accusing both
sides of human rights violations. What is incriminating is the kind of actions
she wants the United States and the world to take. On one hand she calls on the
United States to limit the military technologies given to Israel. Technologies
Israel is using to successfully defend its citizens. On the other hand she
calls for the removal of all barriers over the transportation of goods and
commerce into the Gaza Strip. An act that will allow Hamas and Islamic Jihad to
get better military technologies, allowing them to violate more human rights.
If both sides are violators of human rights, shouldn't there be restrictions on
both of them? If her recommendation were to be implemented it will be more
difficult for Israel to protect its civilians, and easier for Hamas and Islamic
Jihad to kill them. She is literally offering aid to the Gaza based armed
Palestinian organizations in violating the human rights of Israelis. If she can
do that, what is keeping her from helping them violate the human rights of
Palestinians?
9.
The actual series of
events vs. the actual series of investigations. Is this entire account a
case of gross incompetence or criminal complicity on behalf of Human
Rights Watch? So far this review has argued that it is a cover up. A cover up
that helps members of Islamic Jihad evade war crimes charges regarding a war
crime they committed against their own people. Islamic Jihad's guilt cannot be
disputed. However, HRW culpability could be simply a case of gross
incompetence. Such cases, of mind
boggling illogical and stupendously amateurish decision making processes,
are known to have happened throughout history. They happened to governments and
militaries, banks and corporations, associations of various kinds, and
religious institutions. Just as it happened to them it could happen to any
human rights organization. No type of organization is immune. If this is the
case here, then they are so incompetent that they are acting as if they are
guilty of covering up someone else's war crime. It is certainly a possibility,
but a weak one. The first thing that points to a cover up rather than
incompetence is the actual series of investigations. The account describes each
of the tragic events in their order of occurrence. First is what happened in the coeducational
elementary school in Beit – Hanoun, on July 24. This is followed by the Jablaya
girls` school tragedy from July 30. And concludes with the attack on the
motorcycle, outside the Preparatory 'A' Boys' School in Rafah on August 3. This
lineup supports a scenario of ever growing incompetence. In their account of
the tragedy at the UN run school in Beit Hanoun, they showed limited understanding
of mortars fire behavior in an urban area, with no necessary supporting
technical information. In the Jablaya incident they showed poor understanding
of international law. This is a far worse case of ignorance in the material
been used, since international law supposed to be their area of expertise. And in Rafah they could not distinguish
between war criminals and witnesses, unable to see what is in front of their
eyes. But this is not the order of their investigations. First to be investigated
was the Rafah motorcycle attack, on the day it happened, followed by Beit
Hanoun, investigated on August, 12, 13, and 29, and Jablaya on August 13. The
biggest demonstration of incompetence is the first investigation they made.
This raises a great suspicion since the motive to a crime always comes before
the crime. According to the cover up accusation, the later bad investigations
are a part of the cover up, aimed to consolidate an anti – Israel mindset.
Therefore it will be logical that the crime been covered up, will be the first
investigation.
10.
Growths of the
poisoning motive. With the Rafah investigation been the actual first
investigation; it's not only stands at the beginning of this process like a
motive would, it acts like one. It corrupts the two following investigations in
a way where virtually every fault that exists in this investigation is found in
either or both of the other two investigations:
A.) All three investigations are incomplete. In the Rafah account
they claimed the operators of the Israeli Spike missile could see the children
that were heart by the explosion because the Spike missile has an optical
guidance system. But failed to show that there was no interference to its field
of view from the surrounding urban environment. They also did not explain how
come one of the occupants of the targeted motorcycle survived the attack while
12 people, including 8 children, were killed farther away from it. And of
course they did not investigated why contrary to common sense the front gate of
that shelter was kept open. In the Beit Hanoun account they did not provide any
technical information to support their claim that the firing of the mortar
shells showed precision. They did not eliminate all the possibilities that
point to a Palestinian culpability. Most notably ignoring the possibility of
bad maintenance practices. In the Jabalya account they relied mostly on someone
else's investigation, the UN. Both investigations accused Israel and the IDF of
irresponsible use of force but failed to demonstrate it. Instead the detailed
they do provide show that the IDF did went to a great length to save
Palestinian lives. And was successful in doing so. The 20 deaths that did
occur, tragic though they are, are less than 1% of the 3,200 people sheltering
there at the time. Since anything below 1% is most definitely the lowest
possible minimum, international law had been implemented here to the letter.
International law requires armed forces to minimize the death and harm
inflicted on civilians by their weapons. On the other hand, both investigation
teams, those of the UN and HRW, did not look for Palestinian mortar positions,
even though this was Israel's main argument. That the IDF had fired at mortar
position less than 180 meters from this UN run school. But most importantly neither offered any
analysis of the IDF's actions during that attack. Analysis needed to establish
the accusation that Israel behaved irresponsibly that day and not as someone
attacking mortar positions adjoining the UN run school. When an analysis is
done the findings are the exact opposite. Because the smoke and laminations
shells Israel is reported to have used are exactly what an attack like this
requires when done responsibly. B.) Unprofessional investigation practices.
In the Rafah account they investigated the Spike missile and its guidance
system, but not the warhead and not the trajectory. Both of which are relevant
technical information, relevant to the accusations been made. This had repeated
itself in the Bet Hanoun were they failed to provide technical information
necessary to support their precision argument.
C.) The specter of bias. This review suggests that HRW is
covering up a Palestinian war crime against their people. At bare minimum this
suggests an anti-Israel bias on behalf of HRW. We first came in contact with
this suspicion when we read Sarah Leah Whitson letter to the US secretary of
state. There she predetermined Israel's guilt before the investigations were
complete. With every corky investigation always pointing the finger at Israel,
the specter of that bias follows their entire account. But it is especially
noticeable in the Beit Hanoun account. In this investigation they did not do a
lot of the things required in order to substantiate their accusations. Yet, they
spent three days investigating there. What were they doing there when they were
not doing their job? D.) Abusing the
human rights of Israelis. This
entire account and the conduct it represents is an abuse of the ideals of human
rights but it also contain specific threats to the human rights of Israelis.
This threat first appears in Sarah Leah Whitson letter to the US secretary of
state. There she calls for restriction to be imposed on Israel, while removing
restrictions from Hamas. Needless to be repeated, should this be implemented it
will be more difficult for the Israeli defense forces to defend the lives of
Israelis, and easier for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other armed Palestinian
groups to harm, kill, and murder Israeli civilians. We also see such a threat
in the Jabalya account. There HRW introduces an interpretation of international
law that gives legal protection to Palestinian fighters. It is a legal
protection given to areas and places adjoining UN shelters. With that
protection they can launch every military action they want; against the Israeli
military, as well as against Israeli civilians, with impunity. E.)
Abusing the human rights of Palestinians. As bad as the abuse of the human
rights of Israelis is, the abuse of the human rights of Palestinians is far
worse. As said above, the interpretation of international law they presented in
the Jabalya account allows ordinary Palestinians to be used as human shields.
That is far worse than just putting them at risk. It is placing them in
immediate danger. Much like Islamic Jihad did in Rafah, the crime HRW is
accused of covering up. Even the Beit Hanoun investigation constitutes an abuse
of human rights. People had died there, needlessly so. And their death deserves
more than this botched job. Here we see the demonstration of a known universal
truth regarding human rights. That when we allow one party to violate the human
rights of one group, we open the door for the violations of the human rights of
members of other groups. The hard bitter lesson is that what is true about the
various brunches of the government and military is true just the same when it
comes to human rights organizations.
11.
Establishing bias.
It is the bias that points away from incompetence and towards culpability more
than any other suspicious characteristic of this account. The first thing that
can be said about this bias is that it cannot be denied. Here, even
incompetence cannot make excuses. In her letter Sarah Leah Whitson recognizes
that in order to protect civilians, access to weapons and technologies should
be limited. But this recognition is an
extremely selective recognition. As said above, even though Sarah Leah Whitson
and HRW recognize that Hamas activities also harm civilians, they do not call
for any restrictions over Hamas' access to weapons and technologies. On the contrary, they want all existing
restrictions to be removed. An act that will give Hamas access to more weapons
and technologies that will harm more Israeli civilians. Are we to understand
that when it comes to Israel they are intelligence enough to understand the
impact of these restrictions, but when it comes to Hamas they are inept
enough not to understand the impact of removing similar restrictions? This
selectiveness goes deeper than that. It also ignores the fact that Israel is
using its weapons and technologies to defend its citizens. Importantly but
separately, this shortcoming is a part of a chronic problem that HRW has; the
one that ignores the existence of hard heart wrenching dilemmas in times of
war, where life vs life decisions have to be made. (See the background part, at
the beginning of this review). As for Sarah Leah Whitson's type of selectiveness,
this one is literally a characteristic of the entire account. In the Jabalya
account the HRW investigators fully acknowledge the dense urban nature of most
of the Gaza Strip. It is their main argument against Israel's using 155mm
artillery shells in the urban environment of the Gaza Strip. But when the same
reality of the war provides a defense to the Israeli side, this reality
evaporates into a condition of not been mentioned or investigated. We saw that
in the Beit Hanoun account, where the witnesses at the UN run school could not
have seen whoever fired the mortar rockets at them because of the urban nature
of the area, (unless unique and unusual conditions of visibility existed, none
of which are provided.) And we saw that
in the Rafah account. Here they argued
that the Israeli drone operators could see the children near the targeted
motorcycle, since the Israeli Spike missiles have an optical guidance system.
But they did not address the possibility that the presence of trees and
buildings near that school could have blocked that view. In the Jabalya account
they are intelligent enough to notice what is there for everyone to see. But in
accounts of Beit Hanoun and Rafah, where the same features provide a defense
for Israel, they are too inept to see the very streets they walked through,
when headed to investigate those UN run schools. This is an absurd that repeats
itself with the technical data, (information regarding the weapons and
munitions used, and their capabilities). When we examine the role of this
information in these accounts we see the same contradiction. We are given a
detailed description of capabilities, impact, and risks of the 155mm shells
involved in the Jabalya tragedy. (This is very useful in order to understand
what had happened. But it does not contradict the Israeli version; since the
main debate there is over the interpretation of international law). On the
other hand we have a complete lack of such information regarding the mortars
used in the Beit Hanoun tragedy. In this case they claimed the rockets showed
precision without giving the information from which they reached that
conclusion. They also did not explain how they could make such a deduction
based on just four rockets, and without identifying the intended target. With
mortars the level of precision is determined based on the distances of the
shells' hit points from the intended target.
The greater the number of hits that are closer to the intended targets
the more precise the mortar is. But a large number of hits are needed in order
to make that determination. Not doing that and not being able to identify the
type of rockets, 120mm or 81mm, suggests a lack of professionality. Yet they
are professional enough to identify the 155mm artillery shells of Jabalya and
the Spike missile of Rafah. Again, whenever a piece of information may leads
to an exoneration of Israel, incompetence reigns supreme. Selective
incompetence is a proof of bias, and bias is a calculated act. But even bias
can be blind to what is in front of it, and all around it. It is the very
nature of the most extreme forms of bias.
12. The final incriminating bias. The selectiveness demonstrated by HRW does not end
here. When we look deeper into their treatment of technical information we find
a greater absurd. They offer us the technical details regarding the Spike
missile, and its guidance system, but not its warhead, and not its trajectory.
The selectivity is practiced within a single investigation of the only weapon
been studied. This leads to the forth area
of selectivity, the area of the 'could have beens'. We came across one
case of a 'could have', earlier in this review. In the Beit Hanoun
account HRW argued that the presence of Israeli tanks in the vicinity of the UN
run school suggests that this is a place from which mortar rocket could have
been fired. And that is enough for them to make it an incriminating
argument against Israel. The problem is that there are more cases of 'could
have' in this account, where a missing piece of information could
support the Israeli side. And at the same time it couldn't, because the
reason could is the poorest argument there is, is because for every 'could'
there is a 'couldn't'. For example, there is no reason to state, with any
degree of confidence, that information regarding the Spike's warhead would
exonerate Israel. Perhaps there is a way a warhead can explode in a way that
spares one person that is nearby while killing many others that are farther
away. It is up to the experts to answer that. The same goes for the information
regarding the Spike's optical guidance system. It is possible its field of view
was blocked, but there is no way of knowing that for certain without examining
its trajectory and the field of view along that path. Based on the currently
available information, it is equally possible its field of view wasn't blocked.
We do not know that it was; we only know that it could have. Any could
have is a T junction. In the Beit Hanoun account HRW claimed Israeli mortar
shells were responsible. All their arguments were flawed, and the investigation
incomplete. This leaves the actual identity of those who did fire the mortar
round, undetermined. It could have been an Israeli source. It could have been a
Palestinian one. In Beit Hanoun HRW avoids other field of inquiry that could or
couldn't exonerate Israel. The missing technical information could exonerate
and show that no precision firing was involved. But there is always a chance no
matter how slim that it could do the opposite. The same goes for Palestinian
maintenance practices. In the Beit Hanoun account HRW argued that there is no
way four Palestinian rockets could veer of target, within the same round. That
is another faulty argument. If maintenance conditions are poor this will
happen. Since HRW did not investigate this matter, we only that it could
exonerate, not that it would. What we have here is a very strange selectivity.
One that is completely unnecessary if the intention is just bias. On one hand
we have the "could have been" argument that they do use. This
is the presence of Israeli tanks in the vicinity of the UN run school in Beit
Hanoun. Which HRW declare could have been the source of the mortars that
were fired at that school. This could
have been possibility is enough for them to make an argument in support of war
crimes allegations against Israel. On the other hand, there is a list of 'coulds'
that HRW has completely avoided. Most of them mentioned above. They are
integral parts of any investigation of this nature and are fundamental to
understanding what has happened. Yet, they are not investigated, not addressed,
and are not even mentioned. These raises two questions: first, why ignore these
'coulds'? Since all they suggest is that Israel could be innocent, they
also suggest Israel could be guilty. All
a biased HRW author has to do is to phrase the matter in a way that fits
his/hers convictions, just like they did with the tanks. Second question, how
did they know to avoid these 'coulds' in the first place? There is only
one answer to both of these questions. They knew in advance what really had
happened. In Beit Hanoun, as well as in Rafah. They knew the Palestinians were
responsible for both of these tragedies, and avoided any line of inquiry that
led into that conclusion. This is why they avoided all these 'could
have beens', and this is how they knew to avoid them in the first
place. In Beit Hanoun, the UN run school was hit by Palestinian mortar shells.
These shells either fell short of their intended target due to poor
maintenance. Or due to mistaken identity, a case of Palestinian friendly fire
situation. In Rafah however the picture is clearer. An Islamic Jihad faction,
working as volunteers inside the UN run school, lured children outside using
ice cream vendors. They willingly and knowingly sacrificed these kids in a
failed attempt to rescue three of their comrades that were on that motorcycle.
In sacrificing those kids, and causing their deaths, they committed a war crime
against their own people. And HRW knowingly covers that up in the abysmal
report reviewed here. A cover up that helps the main perpetrators of this war
crime escape justice, thus turning HRW personal into accessories to this war
crime.
As Elise Keppler, the acting director of HRW's justice program, had said, "For World's worst crimes, Justice really matters." And for justice to matter it also must have credibility, and implemented on all those who violate human rights, even if they are human rights activists themselves.
P.S.
Let us not forget the contribution of Hamas
START
No comments:
Post a Comment