James J. Zogby, lies and fauxtography

James J. Zogby is a respected public figure in the USA, and a known critic of Israel. Recently the blog Elder of Zion caught him tweeting a lie. He published four photos depicting encounters between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians, all suggesting aggression and abuse by the Israeli side. One of them was a badly edited photo that I had the honor of busting years ago.  Exposing that hoax was easy since the original picture was available.  But even without it, the final result had its own credibility problem.  Namely, a supposedly threatening Israeli soldier, standing in an unnatural position, with knees folded, while carrying a backpack and a heavy gun. The best way to describe his position is that of sitting on air. Only circus acrobats can do that while carrying heavy cargo. And even they would not be able to threaten anyone at the same time.

Two other photos have similar credibility problems. One of them claims to show two armed Israeli soldiers abusing four Palestinian women and a toddler.  The problem is that the image of the soldier aiming his gun at them does not make sense. This soldier is holding an assault weapon with just one hand. He is holding it at the middle of the weapon, were the trigger is. Holding the weapon like that will harm his wrist. And if he was to fire it, he would not have been able to control the recoil; risking injuries to himself and to the soldier next to him. Another problem is the shadow the rear side of the gun leaves on his upper arm. While the rear of the rifle is a complete cylinder like structure, its shadow is more cone-like, with many gaps in it. The weapon itself is carried sideways, an odd position during patrol.

It is also worth noting that the two soldiers appear dressed for different seasons. The big smiling soldier on the right is dressed more warmly than the gun carrying soldier on the left. He wears a heavy coat that covers all the way to the neck and a pair of fury gloves; while the other soldier has uniforms, fitting lighter weather conditions.

The third picture shows a soldier aiming his weapon at a small child. We can say that with a sense of confidence, because he is aiming his weapon in a downwards position. What other reason he could possibly has to do that to a women and child that are just walking by?

Fake

Based on the information in that picture it is a clear case of a soldier abusing his power against a small child. One problem though, the picture is fake, edited. Look at the ditch the woman is over-passing. This ditch is coming downward from the hill, were the terraces are located. Terraces, agriculture on the hillsides, are the main form of Palestinian agriculture in the West Bank. What is this ditch supposed to do? Deliver water from the hill, were they are needed, downwards? Or maybe the water in that ditch goes upwards by itself? Maybe there is an explanation that the picture did not catch, some kind of structure, or a field. There isn't! I can say that with the utmost confidence because I have found a picture depicting the original scene. It took some time, but I have found it. And the ditch is nowhere to be seen.

Real

Comparing the two photos, shows that the one tweeted by Zogby was definitely edited. It also shows that the main scene in both pictures is the same. For Israel this pretty damming, but if this is the case why edit the photograph?

The answer is in what was edited out. According to the caption above the real photo, found at Getty images, this picture was taken on January 2004 at the Hawara checkpoint by AFP photographer Jaaffar Ashtiye. This information is valuable, and you won't find it in the fake image.  The photographer says in the caption that the soldier is aiming his weapon at a mother and a child.  However, at this close distance he can only aim it at one of them. Since the photographer is a Palestinian, he obviously has his biases, which affects his explanations of what he sees and photographs; (as do I have as an Israeli). We can see his biases in his description of the background situation. However, this does not affect the objectivity of this photo. He describes the soldier as aiming a weapon at two persons because he cannot tell who it is aimed at. The angle of the camera keeps him from doing that. It is clear that even the person that took the real photograph, the unedited one, cannot tell if the weapon is aimed against the child or not.

It is not aimed against the child!

I know that for a fact not because I am bias; and not because I know for a fact that the IDF is the most moral army on Earth. Even if we accept as a fact James Zogby's view of the IDF, as the most oppressive evil armed force on Earth, there is no way this soldier was aiming his weapon at the child. If he had done that, that would be not only an abuse of power against the weak, helpless, and undefended. It would also be a gross dereliction of duty.

There are four things we need to remember about the real picture. It is January 2004, not long after a wave of suicide bombing and other types of terrorist attacks that murdered hundreds of Israelis. These are attacks that occurred nearly every day. This is the Hawara checkpoint, southwest of Nablus, along the security barrier. The security barrier is a major factor in reducing the success rate of such monstrous attacks into near zero. The checkpoints monitor the entry of Palestinians into Israel, and are a key part of that security. IDF soldiers are not mind readers. And there are, and there have been women terrorists. The main job of this soldier, and the others at the checkpoints, is to prevent terrorists from entering Israel and attacking civilians in major population centers. If he was aiming his weapon at the child, he wouldn't have been aiming it at the mother.

Was she a terrorist?

Probably not.

Most likely not.

But until it is verified there is a slim chance that she is. Given the horrific nature of such attacks a slim chance is a risk not worth taking. Not professionally, and not personally, since the victims could be people close to this soldier. They could be family, they could be friends, and they could be friends of friends. It does not matter. He will still have to look at the survivors, and relatives in the eyes, when he goes back home.  Until it is verified, she could be hiding a bomb or a weapon in her bag or beneath her coat. So until it is verified that she is not a terrorist, the soldier must aim his weapon at her, and not the child, who is definitely not a terrorist. If she is a terrorist, and he aims his weapon at the child, he could create an opportunity for her to attack the soldiers at the checkpoint, or smuggle a bomb into Israel. If we had even a handful of such bad soldiers, the frequency of successful terrorist attacks inside Israel, would have been far greater.

So, why is he aiming his weapon downwards?

This is the razor-sharp dilemma he is going through, him, and the entire IDF. What if she is a terrorist? What if is she is not?

The only way to stop a terrorist about to attack is by firing at him immediately. And the best way to do that is by aiming at the upper body, where the injuries are more lethal. This guarantees to stop the terrorist's attack. As the white dirt on the soldier's elbow indicates, this was how he was aiming before she came close.

But what if she is not a terrorist? Why risking accidentally killing an innocent person?

This is why he employs two measures to defend her. He aims his weapon to the lower body, where the injuries are less lethal, and he keeps his trigger finger, away from the trigger. This way he is been both moral, keeping her safe as a civilian, and provides an effective defense to Israeli civilians, should it turn out that she is a terrorist. This is not an ideal solution; it has its pluses and minuses for both sides.

This explains the "odd" behavior of the second soldier, the unarmed one. We see more of him in the edited footage because the real picture, the one from Getty images, is not the source material for the forgery. Photojournalists take many pictures in quick succession, in a short amount of time. Therefore, there had to be more pictures depicting this original scene. One of them, taken almost immediately after the published one, is the source material for the forgery. Both of them show this soldier walking close to the arched wall. They show him keeping a large distance between himself and the woman with the child. Why is he doing that? Is he afraid of them? Are we to assume that when one soldier is abusing them, the other is afraid of them? Does that make sense? The only way this makes sense is that they're both doing their job, one is providing security, the other is checking papers, and looking for hidden weapons. He is keeping to the wall in order not to get into the firing line. He also keeps a safe distance from her in order to have enough time to response should she attack him. When the soldier handling security is been lenient for humanitarian reasons, the soldier handling the verification process must be extra cautious.   

Israel's "critics" may dismiss this explanation, but there is one person that agrees with this; the forger; the one that created the fake photograph used by Joseph Zogby. Why else, edit the photograph? What reason is there to edit out the checkpoint? The Israeli checkpoints along the West Bank are the target of a lot of outrage by opponents of Israel, with claims of abuse, ordeal, and worse. There is not supposed to be any reason for a critic or a hater to remove the checkpoint from the image. But much like those fake pictures, first impression is misleading. First, who said this outrage is based on accurate information? Second, anyone familiar with the issues that make up the Israeli Palestinian conflict knows that any true discussion of the checkpoints will bring up the Israeli side of the issue: The right of all Israeli civilians, men, women, and children for security; and the duty of the Israeli government, any government; and its armed forces; to provide it! And Israel's haters wish to erase that. They are really not that different from the terrorists that physically erase those lives. 

They have another thing in common with them; Palestinians lives do not mater to them. Look at that ditch. It had been added to create the illusion that the mother and the child are just walking by. And therefore the soldier aiming his weapon at them is doing so in an arbitrary, and  abusive way. To make the ditch look authentic, the forger extended it towards the hill. But for anyone who knows a little bit of the Palestinian way of life in the West Bank this is a major red alert regarding the authenticity and credibility of the picture. As said above, the hills are where the terraces are. This an agricultural way of life that grows crops along the hillsides, in order to gather the rain water as they fall downhill. This is a method that won't be sending water downhill in a ditch. They are heading there anyway. This is something the author of the fake photo should know. This person, either does not care to know, or knows and does not care. Once ordinary Palestinians have no more use as propaganda pawns they are tossed aside into oblivion. This is the same disregard for human lives that Hamas and Islamic Jihad practice when they use Palestinian civilians as human shields.

And now we come to the last photograph, the only real one in this quartet.

Real but partial

The fact that it is real, unedited and not fake, does not means it does not have its own problems of credibility. First, one real photo does not redeem three fake ones. Second, context. Context is always important. In this case it is the impression created by three fake images. Since the images are fakes, so is the context they create. Third, the picture is indeed an upsetting sight. No one likes to see a child been arrested by a lot of men, each bigger than him. Rest assured that the soldiers doing this arrest do not like doing it. At the same time remember that arresting children is not illegal or abusive under international law. It all depends on circumstances and treatment. And what do we know about them? Based on that picture alone, Nothing! And this is the forth reason why the credibility of this picture is problematic. An old Jewish proverb says half a truth is worse than a lie. This picture, on its own, is much less than half the story. It does not tell us what happened before, and what happened after. Was the child throwing stones? Was he actually arrested or released shortly after? And if he was arrested, were his rights kept by the Israeli authorities, or not? You may agree politically with the act of Palestinian children throwing stones. That is your right, whoever you might be. But that does not change the fact that it is illegal, criminal, and violent. Your political convictions, just like mine, are not above the law. And what kind of politics sends children to do its bidding? …Violently?! 

In response to all the partiality of this picture I combined it with other picture to create a different context. I created two of them, one complex, one challenging. They may be biased, but all the pictures in them are real, and they come from Palestinian and international sources. 

 
.

Every aspect of Palestinian stones throwing has always been a spectacle.

 It had never been a resistance.

All these pictures together, 3 fakes, and 1 selective, combine into a false accusation against Israel and the IDF. It is a falsehood that wishes to erase Israelis, the way Palestinian terrorists have been doing. And it regards Palestinian civilians as nothing more than pawns. The way Palestinian terror organizations have been doing. The question is how much different James Joseph Zogby is from these terrorists, and forgers? He could have just fallen into the trap of confirmation bias. It is a trap we are all likely to fall into, and many of us did fall into. With the high and mighty, one sided moral judgment; he passed on Israel, it is difficult to disassociate him from the desire to erase Israelis; and from the willingness to reduce Palestinians to mere pawns, in the process. May be there are redeeming  factors. On the other hand, this is and has always been the essence of Palestinian and Anti Zionist politics. And he has always been a part of that system. But even if there are genuine, objective, redeeming facts, from his life and personal history, this cloud is gonna stick even if he deletes that tweet.

HRW non-in depth examination of war crimes in the Gaza conflict of 2014 Part 5 of 5

Human Rights Watch as war criminals

Helping criminals avoid justice is a criminal offense in its own right. It is known as accessory after the fact. And when that crime is a war crime, those who help the perpetrators avoid justice, should be regarded as war criminals as well.  There are several reasons why this entire account, of all three incidents is an accessory to the war crime committed by Islamic Jihad against their people at Rafah, on August 3^rd, 2014, in front of the Preparatory 'A' Boys' School.

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 3^rd, 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 3^rd 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 11^th 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

HRW non-in depth examination of war crimes in the Gaza conflict of 2014 Part 2 of 5

Faults in the Beit Hanoun account

According to HRW, on the 24^th of July at around 3 pm, four apparent Israeli mortar shells struck a coeducational elementary school in Beit – Hanoun. There is no dispute that this was a horrific tragedy, 13 people, among them 6 children, were killed, and dozens of others were wounded. What is under dispute is who is responsible. The Palestinian authorities and HRW blame Israel and the IDF. The IDF suggests there was a Palestinian culpability. Both allegations require strong evidences, none of them has any. When it comes to the allegations made by HRW's investigators, they are the first to acknowledge the weaknesses of their findings. As they had said so in the account, they could not determine whether these were 81mm shells or 120mm shells. This means that they have made their accusation with no evidences. If they could not identify the type weapon, how could they identify its source? Instead, they tried to compensate that with a series of arguments that dismissed the possibility of a Palestinian responsibility, making Israel the only possible culprit. All these arguments are flowed, each and every one of them.

Their main argument is that of precision. From the HRW in-depth look. "The Israeli military denied responsibility for any civilian deaths in the school, saying that one "errant mortar" had hit the courtyard while it was empty. It also suggested that the school might have been hit by Palestinian rockets, saying that several rockets fired that day had fallen short and landed in Beit Hanoun.

It is highly unlikely that at least four of the inaccurate, unguided rockets used by Palestinian armed groups hit in and around the school within a few minutes."

First, how does this 'poor technology' argument rebukes the Israeli version?

The Israeli version describes rockets of poorer technology, rockets that fell short of their intended targets. So, in that regard HRW's argument is in accordance with the Israeli version. They too claim that Palestinians' rockets are of poor technology.

Second, how do they distinguish accurate high technology mortars, from inaccurate poor technology ones? What criteria are they using? From the above quotation, their criteria are the time lapses and distances between each of the mortar shells that hit the school's compound and its environs. And that is baffling. Time lapses between rockets launches are not a criterion that can serves that purpose. As these two youtube videos show, within 16 seconds 4 mortars can be fired by both an amateur, probably clumsy, Syrian rebel, and a professional team of US marines operation a heavy 120mm mortar (count from 0:52 to 1:08). Remember, according to HRW the 4 mortar shells fell within a time span of a few minutes. And one of their witnesses, Mohammed Hamad, saying that the second shell stroke half a minute after the first one.

As for distances, here HRW is not giving us any technical information on that subject. What is the distance between the places hit by mortar shells that can identify a high technology mortar over a poor technology one? We do not know, and we do not know if they know. They are also not telling us the distances between each of the mortar shells that have hit that school and its enviros. So, there is nothing to compare with even if the technical information was available. Without these details this argument is useless.

Third, what professional information is telling us about guided mortar munitions is that both guided and unguided mortar rounds fall at random. As the picture below show, the only difference between guided and unguided mortar shells is in the clustering of the strike sites. With a guidance system, more shells will fall closer to the intended target, increasing the likelihood of hitting it.  This means that precision is determined not by the relations between the strike sites, but by their relation to the intended target. If the strike sites of these four rockets show precision, it means that HRW investigators were able to identify their intended target and measure the distances from there. No such target is explained.

Forth, as the same picture shows, even with unguided mortar rounds, more than four shells will fall closer to the target. So how could HRW investigators make their determination based on only four mortar shells? That is another thing that requires explanation.

Fifth, these people are regarded as investigators. Taking measurements, and consulting professional experts, are elementary components in any investigation. Where is that information?  The lack of such information suggests that this was not a professional investigation.  This cannot be just a slip, since they know the importance of such information. As a response to similar accusations regarding this UN run school, the IDF had released a video supporting its version of events. This video shows a single errant mortar shell, hitting the center of the school's courtyard when it was empty. However that video has one important shortcoming, it had no time stamp telling when it was taken. And HRW were correct in criticizing the IDF and the video for not including that information. Without that information we'll just have to take the IDF at their word that it was taken that day. But there is no way of independently knowing when this video was taken. The same goes for HRW precision argument. Without the professional information, technical and physical one, that tells us why these mortar shells are supposed to show precision firing, all we have is their word. And since they clearly know that words and accusation are not enough, and supporting information should be provided. Why haven't they provided any? The absence of this information does not only empty the precision argument from any meaning, it also undermines their credibility.  It is just an empty statement, and they know it; since they presented the same standard on information provided by the IDF. And since it is not clear if they actually know how to identify precision firing, their word is also dubious.  With no supporting information, and no evidence of having any expertise in this field of inquiry, the precision argument has nothing to stand on. And the source of these mortars remains unidentified.

HRW second argument, excludes motivation: "It is also unlikely that Palestinian armed groups would have targeted the area near the school with mortars when Israeli ground forces do not appear to have been in the immediate area at the time. On the contrary, Israel claimed that Palestinian forces were near the school at the time. It is similarly implausible that Palestinian mortar fire hit in and around at least four times by accident." Excluding motivation and capabilities is a legitimate form of inquiry, as long as it is done properly. This one is simply incomplete. Accidents involving mortar fire can happen for a variety of reasons; some of them can impact all mortar shells and causes them to hit the wrong target, and stray away from the intended one. If maintenance is poor and safety standards are lacking all the rockets fired can do that, certainly more than one. Why do you think armed forces give maintenance and safety so much importance? Just look at the attention NATO is giving to this subject. With modern armed forces maintenance includes specialist officers, maintenance training, maintenance manuals, and maintenance supervision and inspection. Excluding that requires reviewing and examining the maintenance standards and practices of the armed Palestinian groups.  And HRW haven't even approached that part. So that possibility remains open. Another plausible cause of accidents is the mortar itself, its level of maintenance, especially the aiming mechanism that could be malfunctioning. These two causes were not approached and therefor are not excluded.

The human factor is another possible cause that HRW did not exclud. They argue that armed Palestinian groups had no reason to fire at that area since there were no Israeli forces there. That is probably correct, but that is hindsight, their hindsight. Field commanders and their units do not have that luxury during an ongoing fire exchange. Many times they have to make snap decisions based on the information available to them at that moment; without having the ability, or time, to verify it. The main outcome of these objective constrains is that they increase the likelihood of mistaken identity. This is a part of the basic nature of every war; one that makes mistaken identity one of the biggest contributors to unwanted deaths. The most famous example of such unwanted deaths is what is known as friendly-fire incidents. It occurs when armed units from one side are firing at other armed units from the same side. Civilians can also be mistaken that way, buy both sides. How likely that is in this situation is undetermined since HRW did not approach this possibility, and therefor did not exclude it. Issues of bad maintenance and mistaken identity are common to every war and conflict. Ignoring them further undermine the professionality and integrity of this investigation.

HRW third argument claims to be eyewitness accounts. These are seven persons, which HRW credits their testimony with the ability to dispute the Israeli version. The Israeli version claims a single errant mortar shell hit the middle of the school's courtyard, when it was empty. HRW claims they're witnesses saw otherwise. From the article:" The accounts of seven witnesses who independently spoke to Human Rights Watch contradict the Israeli military's description of the video. All said that people were in and around the courtyard when the two mortar shells struck, and that many of the wounded people were hit there." That is not a contradiction. The Israeli version does not dispute the fact that this tragedy happened. It doesn't even dispute the fact that it was caused by mortar fire. All the IDF had said was that it was not one of their mortars. For the eye witnesses to dispute the Israeli version they would have to actually see and identify the source of the mortars fired at them. That is something that cannot be done. The mortar is an infantry carried long rage weapon that can be fired from behind buildings. With plenty of interferences to the field of view that exist in any urban settings, identifying and recognizing the party responsible for the source of fire is impossible. Unless unique conditions of visibility existed, there weren't any. If there were any, HRW and their witnesses would have been able to identify the exact location of the source of a mortar fire. They did not do that. The ability to identify the exact identity of the source of a mortar fire without its exact location is self-contradictory. This is basic common sense. The only way this could actually happen is if unique and even extra - ordinary conditions had existed at the time. No such circumstances are detailed to us.  Like a promise that cannot be delivered this is an expectation that should not have been made. The accounts of eyewitnesses should not be discarded, but you shouldn't give it capabilities it does not have. When you do that you make their testimony useless. Such a conduct is an abuse of the victims and demeaning the horrific experience they have been through.

    

Their witnesses do offer an important piece of information, the sightings of Israeli tanks. Unlike a mortar carrying infantry unit, tanks are large, noisy, ground shaking vehicles.  Easily seen and heard; and when they shake the earth beneath us even the deaf and the blind will notice their presence. And when they come in numbers they are difficult to miss. Nonetheless, HRW investigators went to the two locations identified by their witnesses. And in one of them they had even found boxes of 7.62mm ammunition, the standard ammunition for machine guns carried by tanks (and other vehicles). The most important thing regarding these 7.62mm ammunition boxes is that they are not 81mm ammunition boxes or 120mm ammunition boxes. And you don't have to be a military expert to know the difference between machine guns and mortars. But it was enough for HRW to find this evidence damming because:" The tanks demonstrate the presence of Israeli troops in the vicinity who could have been the source of the mortar rounds."

Could…have…been..?

Could?

Could is a very user friendly word. You don't need the pinpoint location of Israeli soldiers when your allegations are based on could. Nearly every location in and around Beit Hanoun can fit the bill. After all, even if they were not seen at that particular spot they could have been there, or there, or over there, or elsewhere. When they use the word 'could' they openly admit they did not find the source of the mortar fire, yet that does not prevent them from making serious accusations. In a democratic country allegations are not based on could, but on did. Can you imagine a person been charged with a crime based on could have been the killer? Someone was killed with an icepick and the police are charging a person who was caught with a screwdriver. Their rational, since he was carrying a screwdriver, he could have carried an icepick. If something remotely resembling this example was to occur, human rights organizations world over would have protested. And they would have been right to do so. Charging someone based on could is arbitrary. The investigators simply picked the easiest locations to find. And that’s what makes it arbitrary. Piking this location just because of its visibility is an act of convenience, not of an investigation. Even if the precision argument wasn't so flowed, these "could have been…" charges would have been wrong. That is because under the basic principles of democracy and human rights, arbitrary punishment is wrong. True, HRW does not have the means to arrest and detain. But, Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa division, did call US secretary of state, John Kerry, to penalize Israel based on their investigations. She did so in a letter published on August 11^th, 2014, which is disturbing since according to this "In depth look," they were still investigating (or documenting) on August, 12, 13, and 29.

And there is another problem that needs explaining. Why would a group of tanks, with their own canons, and hi-tech aiming systems, as well as armored protection, need the assistance of a naturally exposed, mortar carrying infantry unit? That question is not been asked. The unlikelihood of such a situation only increases the arbitrariness of their accusations.  If they had found a mortar carrying infantry unit they would have been in a better position. They haven't, and that raises the specter of another possibility. That they did make an effort to find such, but failed, after all, they did spend three days on this case, while only one for each of the other two. What was the difference this time? What was it that required two extra days of work?

At best the Beit Hanoun investigation is a sloppy one. Since they haven't identified the exact munition involved, they have no weapon to connect to the crime. It is either 81mm or 120mm. And their precision argument that backs there accusations shows no understanding of mortar firing and has no necessary supporting technical information. They tried to exclude a Palestinian motive in this incident, without addressing the possibility of bad maintenance of mortars and bad intelligence on behalf of the Palestinian side. These are two factors that are the most common causes of unwanted deaths in times of war. They have no eye witnesses. All their witnesses saw is what anyone else in their position could have seen. They saw the mortar shells hitting the school's compound and its enviros, but not the source of this mortars and not the identity of those who launched them. And by failing to identify a mortar carrying Israeli infantry unit, operating at the time within the mortar range from that school; the failed in finding the opportunity IDF had to do this alleged crime. No weapon, no witnesses, no opportunity to do the crime, and the motives, and ability of the other suspects, the Palestinian armed groups, are not completely excluded. And yet they make definitive charges. These are serious charges that are not supported by a single fact, a finding, evidence, or a testimony. From this account there is simply no way of knowing who is responsible for that tragedy. 


Next

Jabalya girls' school and the 100% demand

START

HRW non-in depth examination of war crimes in the Gaza conflict of 2014 Part 1 of 5

'Operation Protective Edge', was the Israeli military incursion into the Gaza Strip during July and August of 2014. Following that operation the leading human rights organization 'Human Rights Watch' (HRW for short), published several accounts accusing Israel of War Crimes and indiscriminate killing of civilians. One of these accounts covered the alleged attacks on 3 UN run schools, in Beit Hanoun, Jabalya, and Rafah. Places that served as shelters for hundreds of civilians seeking refuge from the fighting and enjoyed the protection of international law. This paper is a critical review of that account. This critic bases itself on information available online from professional sources regarding international law, weapons and munitions. However, most of the information comes from HRW themselves, as published in this account and elsewhere.

Necessary background

Before reviewing this account we need to remember two important facts. The first is that the Israeli military operation followed a month long bombing of Israeli citizens by Hamas; a bombardment that placed over a million Israeli civilians in constant danger. The bombardment itself was an assault that followed the abduction, and murder, of 3 Israeli teens in the West Bank on July 20^th of that year. This was a crime committed by local Hamas activists, supported and encouraged by the leadership of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The second important reminder is that alongside 'Amnesty International' HRW is one of the two most respected human rights organizations in the world today. Due to this high statue HRW is trusted by many and its word valued by various segments of the global society. This includes people of influence in democratic countries; especially in the media, academia, and judiciary. But a careful reading and rereading of their allegations suggests that they have violated that trust and abused the power of their words. A power generated by their reputation and the high value our democratic civil societies give to the subject of human rights.

The short comings of this report center around three underline faults. These are, lack of evidence, holding a controversially strict interpretation of international law, and creating false expectations.

The false expectations begins where all writers create expectations, the headlines. 'In-depth look at Gaza school attacks.' It is not an in-depth look! Whatever the word 'look' supposed to refer to, an investigation, an examination, a general overview, or a brief skim through, in-depth it is not.

An In-depth investigation cannot contain a rich presence of expressions that suggest a lack of clarity. These are words and sentences such as "…could not identify the exact location of the fighting", "they believed it was at least a few hundred meters away,"  "The tanks demonstrate the presence of Israeli troops in the vicinity who could have been the source of the mortar rounds." And the general expression, "directly outside;" which can relate to any scale of a distance, near as well as far. Headlines and titles that contain the words in-depth create the expectation of an accurate and clear description of alleged crimes. The seriousness of the accusations alone, war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are the most serious accusations in international law, demand an accurate and clear language. Clearly, that is not the case.

But this inaccurate language does have a role. It acts as acknowledgement, evidence. Evidence demonstrating that a condition known as the chaos of war had existed. The fact that war is chaotic is common knowledge. But when it comes to reports covering the Israeli Palestinian conflict, made by human rights investigators from both HRW and Amnesty International, this inevitable reality of all armed conflicts does not exist. Here however, inadvertently or not, they acknowledge its existence. Because it is the only factor that could prevent them and their witnesses from getting and giving accurate accounts of the incidents reported. And since they are influenced by its uncertainty and confusion so were the Israeli troops caught in the heat of battle, battles. The very nature of the chaos of war is an indiscriminate one. All those caught in a battle are affected by it, soldiers and civilians from both sides. And once HRW had acknowledged its existence their burden of proof has changed dramatically. From here on, anyone accusing Israel of war crimes, unlawful killings, and indiscriminate use of fire power, has to show that in each of these horrific tragedies the causes of the civilian casualties and injuries went beyond the inevitable realities of the chaotic nature of the urban battle field. And when it comes to this reviewed account HRW falls short by over a mile.

Acknowledging the existence of the chaos and uncertainty of war is acknowledging that some civilian deaths are unavoidable. The causes are plenty, bad intelligence, failures in communication between various units, and all sorts of malfunctions with the technologies deployed. The slightest computer glitch can bring about unbearable sights of death and misery. Of course that does not exclude the belligerent parties from doing their outmost to avoid inflicting such harm on the civilians caught in between. On the contrary, it imposes on them the duty to go above and beyond in protecting non-combatants. But the same reality imposes on any human rights activist critical of a military campaign the need to accept that some civilian deaths will occur. It is a dreadful thing to do, especially for a human rights activist, but that is what they are investigating, a war, a violent chaos. And once they made the accusation of unlawful killings of civilians they immediately acknowledged the existence of lawful killings of civilians alongside it. These are death caused by known factors such as accidents and collateral damage, and lesser known factors, such as the inability to evacuate injured casualties because of the fighting or its consequences. Ignoring that runs the risk of developing interpretation of international law so strict and rigid; they will grant all forms of self-defense illegal. In an era when civilians are deliberately targeted by terror organizations this is a violation of the greatest of all human rights, the right to live and to be safe from harm. It is a right every sovereign country is committed to protect.

What is that acceptable death toll of enemy civilian population? Preferably and most preferably it is the lowest minimum possible. And possible is a key word here, because circumstances dictate possibilities, and circumstances change from one situation to the next. They don't always bring about the possibilities that facilitate our desired outcome. To those of us with a moral conscious, attempting to find an answer to this horrific question, this is an unbearable dilemma. This is a dilemma that is slicing us from within, because we do not want to see any civilian getting hurt; from either side.

Bringing that question to an open public debate will bring about countless of answers. Different people, with different backgrounds will give different answers. Human rights advocates, military experts, international law experts, politicians, journalists, ideologues, and opportunists. They all represent a wide array of different points of view, disciplines and expertise, opinions and convictions. All of which are probably very important in their own right, but are irrelevant to the issue at hand, since from a mathematical point of view the lowest minimum will always be one. One attack out of many in the general vicinity of a UN administrated school that happened to hit it. And one attack is exactly what HRW is presenting, one attack in Beit Hanoun, one attack in Jabalya, and one attack in Rafah. In actuality they have much less.

Next

Faults in the Beit Hanoun account