Terror group Hamas fully supports Human Rights Watch. (The feeling is mutual.)

After Israel decided not to renew the work permit of Omar Shakir of Human Rights Watch because of his support for boycotts of Israel, Hamas decided to issue a statement of full support for Shakir and HRW.

Hamas condemns the Israeli occupation’s deportation of the director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) in Palestine Omar Shaker as an act against humanitarian work and human rights. Indeed, the Israeli occupation is unable to see its crimes and violations being documented by such organisations.

This Israeli demeanor aims to block reality and hide its daily violations, including killing and targeting Palestinians, in order to evade accountability.

The Israeli practices should prompt the international community to defend the rights of the Palestinian people and hold the Israeli occupation accountable for the crimes committed against Palestinians.

Hamas spokesperson

Fawzi Barhoum

It's a two way street. Hamas supports HRW because HRW excuses Hamas war crimes.

From a thread I wrote on Twitter on Monday:

It is worth reminding everyone that @HRW doesn't only have a bizarre obsession with demonizing Israel, but that its obsession spills over into excusing Hamas war crimes.

Here's one example.

The @ICRC definition of "human shields" is "the intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives."

ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/…

Plainly speaking, it means that Hamas or Islamic Jihad placing rockets or bases or weapons caches in civilian neighborhoods makes them guilty of the war crime of human shielding.

During the 2014 war, @KenRoth consistently absolved Hamas of that crime.

HRW and Ken Roth made their own, more restrictive definition for Hamas, saying that Hamas must FORCE civilians to stay in the area.

Although that definition is not consistent even within @HRW.

They've said that fighters joining a wedding march would violate that law.

What's the difference between putting military targets in a civilian neighborhood or in a wedding procession? Yet HRW consistently DEFENDED Hamas for placing arms in civilian neighborhoods.

Then, the news came out that Hamas actually instructed civilians to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate to safer places.

Here's the memo from the Gaza Interior Ministry.

بيان هام: الداخلية تدعو المواطنين لعدم التعاطي مع رسائل الاحتلالhttps://web.archive.org/web/20140806094734/https://moi.gov.ps/news/67887/%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%D9%8A

So now there is an element of coercion, but STILL @HRW excused Hamas saying that they still weren't guilty of the crime of human shields.

What kind of a human rights org goes out of their way to excuse war crimes?

But only when the criminals are fighting Israel.

Amazing, no? 

During that war, Hamas kept civilians in an UNRWA shelter even after Israel warned them to leave. It warned Fatah members not to leave their homes under threat of being shot.

These are war crimes even according to HRW's more restrictive definition. But HRW never admitted it.

 There is only one possible reason for this "human rights organization" to excuse and deny Hamas war crimes against civilians. Because HRW wants to paint Israel as the truly evil party, and mentioning Hamas war crimes dilutes that goal.

This is inexcusable.

This is HRW. Postscript: @HRW wrote its own factsheet on the Gaza war where their definition of shielding is accurate, yet @kenroth kept insisting that Hamas wasn't guilty. hrw.org/news/2014/08/0…

From my post at the time (Ken Roth tweets in italics:)

August 4 Do you want to know what "human shields" really are beyond ritualistic sloganeering? Read @HRW's Q&A on the law: http://trib.al/l8wdv4t 

Truth: This is sort of amazing. Here are Roth's previous tweets defining human shields:

 Jul 19 Much confusion about "human shields" which generally require coercion. Different from unnecessarily endangering civilians, tho both illegal.
 Jul 24 #Hamas is putting civilians at risk but "no evidence" it forces them to stay--definition of human shields: @NYTimes. http://trib.al/61iwSoM 
Jul 25 Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas http://trib.al/CA94avT  but no human shield unless coerced to stay http://trib.al/YQwIIau 

Yet when you read the official HRW Q&A that Roth tweeted here, you see a completely different definition - one that is actually accurate!

Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating military objectives – including fighters, ammunition and weapons -- in or near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack.

There is nothing here about coercion. 

HRW's definition is completely at odds with the definition their own executive director gave three separate times! The HRW definition simply says that using civilians to shield military objectives is what makes one a human shield. 

Roth's tweet, by invoking "ritualistic sloganeering," of his critics, gave the impression that HRW's definition was agreeing with his multiple tweets, but amazingly it proves him wrong.

Roth never corrected his earlier tweets, though, nor did he acknowledge that his critics were correct all along.

Of course Hamas is a supporter of Human Rights Watch. HRW actively tries to make Hamas look as good as a genocidal terror group can possibly look.

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.