Open thread

It seems the right thing to do....

Read More

B'Tselem releases Gaza report (UPDATED)

From YNet:

A new report published Wednesday by rights group B'Tselem reveals that the IDF killed 1,387 Palestinians, 773 of whom were non-combatants. On the other hand, a report published by the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center shows that at least 1,000 of the Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip were Hamas combatants or were suspected of being combatants, and were therefore marked as targets by the IDF. [Here is an earlier ICT report - EoZ.]

According to the B'Tselem data, 773 of those killed did not take part in the hostilities, 320 of whom were minors under the age of 18 and 109 were women (above the age of 18). The rest of those killed were 330 armed combatants, 245 Palestinian policemen – most of whom were killed in aerial bombings of the police station – and 38 others whose participation in the hostilities could not be determined.

The report itself is not yet on B'Tselem's website so I cannot see all the details, but it is supposed to list the names of all the victims so it will be interesting to compare it to the PCHR, PMoH and Al Mezan lists.

Just from this summary we can see that B'Tselem seems to not consider whether those killed were members of terror groups; they are only looking at evidence that they were armed at the time they were killed. While this is understandable - one has to define "civilian" somehow, and this definition seems in line with international human rights standards - it necessarily means that terrorists who were hiding as civilians would be undercounted. For example, I have previously posted a video showing terrorists dressed as civilians shooting a rocket from the middle of a tree-lined street in Jabalya and running away after the fuse is lit. If they were killed a minute later by the IDF, without any weapons on them and two blocks away, B'Tselem's methodology would presumably call them "civilians."

For better or for worse, it is more reasonable and probably more accurate to assume that all members of terror organizations were de facto militants at the time they were killed rather than make a presumption that they were civilians.

Hopefully the report will be on-line soon and we can look into the details and see how it jives with the research that Suzanne, t34zakat, PTWatch and I have been doing. But since we have so far found 656 legitimate targets, compared to B'Tselem's number of between 575 and 613, we can determine that B'Tselem is being liberal in its definition of "civilian."

It also shows that they are more intellectually honest than the PCHR, which defined Hamas policemen - most of whom were al-Qassam Brigades members - as civilian by default.

UPDATE: It turns out that the ICRC wrote its own interpretation of how to define combatants when dealing with non-state actors who don't wear uniforms. They are to be commended for at least tackling the issue.

They write:

As has been shown above, in IHL governing non-international armed conflict, the concept of organized armed group refers to non-State armed forces in a strictly functional sense. For the practical purposes of the principle of distinction, therefore, membership in such groups cannot depend on abstract affiliation, family ties, or other criteria prone to error,
arbitrariness or abuse. Instead, membership must depend on whether the continuous function assumed by an individual corresponds to that collectively exercised by the group as a whole, namely the conduct of hostilities on behalf of a non-State party to the conflict. Consequently, under IHL, the decisive criterion for individual membership in an organized armed group is whether a person assumes a continuous function for the group involving his or her direct participation in hostilities (hereafter: "continuous combat function").

Continuous combat function does not imply de jure entitlement to combatant privilege.52 Rather, it distinguishes members of the organized fighting forces of a non-State party from civilians who directly participate in hostilities on a merely spontaneous, sporadic, or unorganized basis, or who assume exclusively political, administrative or other non-combat
functions.53

Continuous combat function requires lasting integration into an organized armed group acting as the armed forces of a non-State party to an armed conflict. Thus, individuals whose continuous function involves the preparation, execution, or command of acts or operations amounting to direct participation in hostilities are assuming a continuous combat function. An individual recruited, trained and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate
in hostilities on its behalf can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before he or she first carries out a hostile act. This case must be distinguished from persons comparable to reservists who, after a period of basic training or active membership, leave the armed group and reintegrate into civilian life. Such "reservists" are civilians until and for such time as they are called back to active duty.54

Individuals who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group, but whose function does not involve direct participation in hostilities, are not members of that group within the meaning of IHL. Instead, they remain civilians assuming support functions, similar to private
contractors and civilian employees accompanying State armed forces.55 Thus, recruiters, trainers, financiers and propagandists may continuously contribute to the general war effort of a non-State party, but they are not members of an organized armed group belonging to that party unless their function additionally includes activities amounting to direct participation in hostilities.56 The same applies to individuals whose function is limited to the purchasing, smuggling, manufacturing and maintaining of weapons and other equipment outside specific military operations or to the collection of intelligence other than of a tactical nature.57

Although such persons may accompany organized armed groups and provide substantial support to a party to the conflict, they do not assume continuous combat function and, for the purposes of the principle of distinction, cannot be regarded as members of an organized armed group. 58 As civilians, they benefit from protection against direct attack unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities, even though their activities or location may increase their exposure to incidental death or injury.

I need to read the whole thing, but I believe that the vast majority of terrorists that our group identified would fit under these criteria. The Hamas and PIJ obituaries list exactly what heroic deeds they were doing at the time they were killed, for example. Most of the others were identified as members of specific brigades, which means that they would be (IMO) considered equivalent to uniformed army.

A couple of al-Qassam Brigades people, like a cook and a group of singers, might be considered civilian by the ICRC definition.

Notably, many experts were upset that the ICRC refused to define voluntary human shields for military targets as combatants.

Read More

HRW: The can of worms (Ma'ariv)

Israel Matzav translates Ma'ariv's article about the problems at Human Rights Watch, which include the new information about Marc Garlasco's Nazi-paraphernalia hobby:

If it were one case, one could argue it was a coincidence. Even two are not proof. But the more about that is disclosed about Human Rights Watch (HRW), the most important international body to protect human rights, the more that it seems that something really stinks there. No, that's not a delicate word, and certainly not diplomatic one. But it is doubtful that there is a better word to describe the can of worms that is gradually being dug up there. ...Now Marc Garlasco, who is HRW's senior military analyst, and who was the linchpin of past poisonous reports against Israel, joins the party. For example, Garlasco is the man who determined that an Israeli shell caused the deaths of an entire Palestinian family in Beit Lahiya, on the Gaza beach, in June 2006, and who made various other charges related to the Second Lebanon War and to Operation Cast Lead. Garlasco has made so many mistakes that they cannot be counted. But he is against Israel. And that is permitted. It is not clear yet whether Garlasco himself is a Nazi. Those claims deserve close scrutiny, but it seems possible to make do with what we already know. We're talking about a Nazi memorabilia collector. This is not an innocent collection. In many cases, the collectors are expounders of a clear ideology; there are no sane people there. ...What is clearer is that HRW is being disclosed as a dangerous group, which needs a serious shakeup. Human rights in the world deserve much better protectors than a terrorist-lover like Stork or collectors of Nazi memorabilia, like Garlasco.

Read the whole thing.

Read More

How's the Arafat "murder" investigation going?

At the sixth Fatah conference, a committee was set up to investigate Yasir Arafat's "murder."

Yesterday, Fatah leaderAbu Othman mentioned that there is only one thing that is slowing down the investigation: evidence.

Apparently, the poison that they are so convinced killed Arafat is undetectable, so they cannot determine for sure if it killed him via skin contact, or food, or (just guessing here) high-powered Joo-Rays. * This of course makes it difficult to know exactly what killed Arafat, but one thing is certain: Israel killed him to destroy the Palestinian Arab political movement. Which, as you may recall, was riding so high while Arafat was holed up in his compound with an assortment of terrorists he was protecting.

Othman goes on to say that the murderers didn't count on the wonderful leadership abilities of Abu Mazen/Mahmoud Abbas. You know, the guy whose "leadership" consists of "lets sit here and wait until we are given a state on a silver platter."

So the investigation continues, and as long as the lack of evidence is not an impediment, we can be sure to find out the truth of the murder very soon now.

[*I wrote that phrase above remembering accusations of Arabs being killed by nefarious Joo-rays, and I was trying to be as outlandish as possible here, but a search showed that indeed, a PA representative once accused Israel of murdering Arafat in that very manner. Once again, it is difficult to parody Palestinian Arabs when they say things that are more outlandish than any parodist could imagine.]

Read More

HRW responds, and so do I

Human Rights Watch is providing an offense (in every sense of the word) to defend their researcher Marc Garlasco. Earlier this evening I, and other bloggers who commented on the story of Garlasco's obsession with Nazi artifacts, received a canned response from HRW:

Several blogs and others critical of Human Rights Watch have suggested that Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch’s longtime senior military advisor, is a Nazi sympathizer because he collects German (as well as American) military memorabilia. This accusation is demonstrably false and fits into a campaign to deflect attention from Human Rights Watch’s rigorous and detailed reporting on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by the Israeli government. Garlasco has co-authored several of our reports on violations of the laws of war, including in Afghanistan, Georgia, and Iraq, as well as by Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Garlasco has never held or expressed Nazi or anti-Semitic views.

Garlasco’s grandfather was conscripted into the German armed forces during the Second World War, like virtually all young German men at the time, and served as a radar operator on an anti-aircraft battery. He never joined the Nazi Party, and later became a dedicated pacifist. Meanwhile, Garlasco’s great-uncle was an American B-17 crewman, who survived many attacks by German anti-aircraft gunners.

Garlasco own family’s experience on both sides of the Second World War has led him to collect military items related to both sides, including American 8th Air Force memorabilia and German Air Force medals and other objects (not from the Nazi Party or the SS, as falsely alleged). Many military historians, and others with an academic interest in the Second World War, including former and active-duty US service members, collect memorabilia from that era.

Garlasco is the author of a monograph on the history of German Air Force and Army anti-aircraft medals and a contributor to websites that promote serious historical research into the Second World War (and which forbid hate speech). In the foreword he writes of telling his daughters that “the war was horrible and cruel, that Germany lost and for that we should be thankful.”

To imply that Garlasco’s collection is evidence of Nazi sympathies is not only absurd but an attempt to deflect attention from his deeply felt efforts to uphold the laws of war and minimize civilian suffering in wartime. These falsehoods are an affront to Garlasco and thousands of other serious military historians.

It is hard to tell how much of this is HRW being obtuse and how much is them pretending to be obtuse.

Most of their argument is strawman and irrelevant.

I never accused Garlasco of being a Nazi or even a Nazi sympathizer, and as far as I can tell most bloggers who took up this story didn't either. HRW's tarring us with that brush is, frankly, offensive, and it serves to detract from the real issue that they studiously ignore:

HRW's poster boy for human rights research nurses a serious obsession with, and fascination for, the worst human rights abusers in history.

Saying that this is him doing "research" is an insult to everyone's intelligence. He is a collector of Nazi-era German objects like daggers, Iron Crosses, swastikas. He has written hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts on forums dedicated to the topic. He has written a 400 page book on the topic. Writing a monograph on German medals does not make one a "historian" in any real sense; it makes him a rabid collector. I am fairly sure that his purchase of many of these items would be illegal in many European countries. To deflect those disturbing facts by saying that he also owns a few American air force memorabilia is to dodge the real issue.

It is extraordinarily bad taste and truly offensive that the same person who habitually castigates the Jewish state to a worldwide audience has a creepy obsession with the symbols of those who tried to destroy all Jews.

No amount of doubletalk and misdirection can take that away.

Read More

Reason for cynicism about Egypt's new love of synagogues

Last month I mentioned that Egypt was restoring an ancient Egyptian synagogue. Even though it sounds like a great idea, I was somewhat cynical as to Egypt's motives.

It looks like my cynicism was correct, even as my guess as to motive was somewhat misplaced:

Egyptians generally do not make any distinction between Jewish people and Israelis. Israelis are seen as the enemy, so Jews are, too.

Khalid Badr, 40, is pretty typical in that regard, living in a neighborhood of winding, rutted roads in Old Cairo, selling snacks from a kiosk while listening to the Koran on the radio. Asked his feelings about Jews, he replied matter-of-factly. “We hate them for everything they have done to us,” Mr. Badr said, as casually as if he had been asked the time.

But Mr. Badr’s ideas have recently been challenged. He has had to confront the reality that his neighborhood was once filled with Jews — Egyptian Jews — and that his nation’s history is interwoven with Jewish history. Not far from his shop, down another narrow, winding alley once called the Alley of the Jews, the government is busy renovating an abandoned, dilapidated synagogue.

In fact, the government is not just renovating the crumbling, flooded old building. It is publicly embracing its Jewish past — not the kind of thing you ordinarily hear from Egyptian officials.

“If you don’t restore the Jewish synagogues, you lose a part of your history,” said Zahi Hawass, general secretary of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, who in the past has written negatively about Jews because of the clash between Israel and the Palestinians. “It is part of our heritage.”

So why the sudden public display of affection for Egypt’s Jewish past?

Politics. Not street politics, but global politics.

Egypt’s minister of culture, Farouk Hosny, wants to be the next director general of Unesco, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. In the context of this conservative Islamic society, Mr. Hosny, 71, is quite liberal, running afoul of Islamists when he criticized the popularity of women wearing head scarves, for example.

But to appease — or please — his local constituency, he said in 2008 he would burn any Israeli book found in the nation’s premier library in Alexandria. He has apologized, but that has done little to end the attacks on his candidacy to lead an organization dedicated to promoting cultural diversity.

So his subordinates sped up the restoration process. After a year of study, the work began in June. They pitched a blue tent, and held a news conference — two, in fact — right inside the old synagogue around the corner from Mr. Badr’s shop.

For Egyptians like Mr. Hawass, speaking about Egypt’s Jewish past with pride has required a degree of finesse. Mr. Hawass has in the past refused a suggestion by the American Jewish Committee to consider building a small museum to house Egypt’s historic Jewish artifacts, as the government has done to preserve many of Egypt’s Christian artifacts.

“If you make a museum like that while Israel is killing Palestinian children, people will kill me,” he said.

Read More

Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood gets more radical

There was a major meeting of Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood over the past month, and one of the most contentious topics was whether it should maintain an official relationship with Hamas.

Some members, considered "doves" in the context of extremist Islam, wanted to distance themselves from Hamas and the clear damage it has done to the Palestinian Arab cause. It also looks like there was some disagreement as to the extent of the Ikhwan's cooperation with the Jordanian government, which the hawks blame for having a peace treaty with Israel.

It appears that the "hawks" won the day, and amid much contention four of the "dove" leaders have resigned from the Muslim Brotherhood's executive council.

This might bring Jordan's Brotherhood more in line with Egypt's branch, which was the source for every radical Sunni Muslim group in existence today.

Read More

HRW researcher's disturbing hobby

Marc Garlasco, the HRW senior military analyst who has written a number of reports harshly critical of Israel and whose own expertise has been called into question, has a side hobby:

Collecting Nazi memorabilia.

I noticed his obsession yesterday, to the point that he has even written a book on the topic. He has written a number of posts on various forums about Nazi memorabilia, such as daggers, Iron Crosses and the like.

While this may not be illegal or immoral, it does raise some disturbing questions about his Israel obsession.

I mentioned my findings to Omri at Mere Rhetoric, and he now has many more details to show the connection between the HRW researcher and the Nazi war buff. Read the whole thing.

UPDATES: See also Solomonia and Yaacov ben Moshe.

And the CAMERA blog.

This is getting some traction.

The people who are on Marc's forums are upset, saying that they do serious research and this does not prove he is a Nazi. However, no one is accusing Garlasco of being a Nazi; the question is whether there is a connection between his twin obsessions of Nazi paraphernalia and Israel's right to defend itself - and whether HRW sees this as a problem for their vaunted "objectivity."

UPDATE 2: Noah Pollak from Commentary talks about this as well:

A Nazi-memorabilia hobby sure is a strange one for a professional human-rights activist to have. Are there any senior staffers at PETA who moonlight as collectors of fur coats and leg-hold traps?

Read More

UNRWA appeals for Zakat funds

Even though UNRWA is exclusively concerned with helping Palestinian Arabs, the bulk of its funding has always come from Western countries. Arab nations, even oil-rich ones, pledge far less than many European countries, and they often ignore their pledges. Even special UNRWA appeals to Arab nations are ignored.

After the Gaza conflict, UNRWA appealed again to rich Arab nations to help, asking for over $180 million, and only one stepped up:

UNRWA spokeswoman, Elena Mancusi Materi, says most of that money came from traditional Western donors, except for one generous contribution from an Arab country.

"We received $34 million from Kuwait. Then we received $400,000 from Qatar," Materi said. "We received, I think, $100,000 from Saudi Arabia … But, it is nothing major apart from the very big and generous Kuwaiti donations for Gaza."

Meanwhile, the US pledged $81 million.

This year, UNRWA is trying something new - appealing straight to Muslim Arabs to donate to UNRWA.

Palestine Today reports that UNRWA started a special Ramadan appeal for the $181 million it says it needs for Gaza by advertising in major Arab newspapers saying donated funds would fulfill their Zakat obligations during Ramadan.

The ads include a background image of a mosque destroyed during the fighting. I wonder if it was this one:

It will be interesting to see if ordinary Arabs, who are weaned with pro-Palestinian Arab propaganda from birth, will respond as stingily as their host countries do.

Read More

Pro-Gaza activists being harassed - by Egypt

From the Daily News Egypt:

A Palestinian mother of two detained at Cairo Airport has expressed anger and confusion at her treatment.

Manal Timraz, 39, and her two teenage sons were stopped by a member of airport security bodies immediately after they passed through passport control at 1 am on Monday.

Timraz is involved in humanitarian relief work for Gaza, and in May joined a European-organized relief convoy which passed the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza. She also initiated the One Million Candles for Gaza campaign after she lost 15 relatives — including 11 children — in a single Israeli bombardment of the Jabalya refugee camp, Gaza in December 2008.

An article about the campaign was published in national state-run daily Al-Ahram in February 2008.

Timraz’s experience is the third in a series of similar incidents involving individuals stopped at Cairo Airport who have participated in pro-Gaza activity.

In April Laila El-Haddad — who blogs under the name Gazamom — and her two sons were prevented from entering Egypt en route to Gaza and held at the airport for two days.

US citizen Travis Randall, who lives and works in Egypt, was prevented from entering the country earlier this month. Randall was involved in a pro-Gaza march in Egypt in February of this year.

We'll see what kinds of international criticism Egypt receives for harassing Gaza activists.

Read More

PalArab media roundup 9/7/09

Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman reportedly told Hamas leader Khaled Meshal that Hamas must release Gilad Shalit if it expects the Gaza siege to be lifted.

The Palestinian Bureau of Central Statistics released data showing tht the levels of illiteracy among Palestinian Arabs is far lower than for the Arab world at large, 5.9% vs. 28.9%. Within the territories, Jericho has the highest illiteracy rate (8.3%) and Gaza has the lowest (4.4%).

There has been a recent mini-uproar over allegations that the UAE has been expelling hundreds of Palestinian Arab workers. The UAE and the PA representative there deny any such policy but Farouk Kaddoumi is trying to gain political points by complaining about it.

Palestine Today has an adoring interview with Islamic Jihad members in the West Bank who are in hiding to avoid arrest by Israel and the PA, and mentions their steadfastness in being away from their families during Ramadan.

Now that Gaza children are safe from the evils of Holocaust education, a "human rights" activist is trying to ensure that they learn about PalArab prisoners in Israeli jails.

The Jordanian agriculture minister, admitting that he doesn't have the legal authority to stop Israeli imports of fruits and vegetables, is mandating that all such products be labeled "Made in Israel" so that consumers would have a choice of whether to boycott them or not. The ministry would heavily penalize any importer who tries to hide that goods came from Israel.

Palestine News Network reports that Islamic Jihad is not happy with Hamas' Islamization of Gaza, believing that it is premature to start imposing such rules on the citizens. But it doesn['t want to criticize Hamas publicly for fear that the perception of infighting will look bad.

During Ramadan, there has been a huge demand for watercress in the PalArab territories. Apparently, there have been rumors that watercress improves sexual performance in both men and women and everyone has been buying them up for their evening iftar meals, leading to shortages.

Read More

HRW's pattern of bias in its "Precisely Wrong" report

No one denies that civilians were tragically killed in Gaza. The major question that human rights organizations like HRW and Amnesty International have to deal with is whether the civilian casualties could have been reasonably avoided, or if they appear to have been deliberate.

Clearly, they have no insight into the thinking of the IDF commanders, so it is literally impossible to prove that the IDF killed civilians deliberately. Instead, these groups will attempt to find evidence - physical, or via interviews - that seem to prove that the attacks were deliberate. While this can never be considered conclusive, it is a reasonable approach to take all the existing data and look to see if the evidence fits better into a narrative of deliberation or a narrative of accidental or collateral killings.

Looking into the details of HRW's reports that condemn Israel, one can see a disturbing but consistent pattern that HRW seems to have shown a definite bias towards evidence that condemns the IDF while downplaying or ignoring evidence that could exonerate the Israeli army. From all indications, HRW is stacking the deck to make the IDF look as guilty as possible.

Here are some examples from the HRW report on alleged drone attacks on civilians in Gaza, entitled Precisely Wrong.

Gaza Technical College, Gaza City

HRW writes:

Around 1:30 p.m. on December 27, 2008, the first day of the IDF offensive, an IDF drone launched a missile at a group of young men and women standing across the street from the UNRWA-sponsored Gaza Technical College in downtown Gaza City [GPS 31.51162/034.44336] killing 12. Nine of the dead were college students, two of them young women; all were waiting for a UN bus to take them to their homes in Rafah and Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza strip. The three other civilians killed were bystanders. The missile struck 25 meters from UNRWA's Gaza headquarters, in the Rimal neighborhood of central Gaza City, which is frequented by UN staff and international aid workers.

According to nine witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch, including three international UN staff, no Palestinian fighters were active on the street or in the immediate area just prior to or at the time of the attack. Fighters from Hamas and the other Palestinian factions were rarely seen in the Rimal neighborhood where the attack took place, witnesses as well as Palestinian journalists and human rights activists based in Gaza said. This was one of the first airstrikes of Operation Cast Lead, and the street was crowded at the time of the attack as civilians went about their normal business.

Human Rights Watch altogether interviewed nine witnesses to the attack, three of them in a group and the rest individually. All gave corroborative details of the attack, which lent credibility to their claims. No fighters from Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups were in the area of the Gaza Technical College at the time of the attack, they all said. An UNRWA security guard who witnessed the attack told Human Rights Watch, "There wasn't anybody else around-no police, army, or Hamas."

What HRW is not mentioning is that one of the victims, Adham Hamdi al-'Adani, was identified in Hamas forums as a member of the al-Qassam Martyrs Central Region Deir el-Balah Martyrs Battalion.

HRW is purposefully misleading in another detail. While it is true that this was "one of the first airstrikes of Operation Cast Lead," it occurred a good 1.5 hours after the first Gaza City airstrike, according to PCHR. It seems unlikely that civilians were going about their "normal business" when the city was already under attack.

PCHR describes the targets in Gaza City this way:

At approximately 11:25 on Saturday, IOF warplanes bombarded Arafat police compound in the center of Gaza City, where the ceremony of graduation of trained officers was being conducted; the headquarters of the past Preventive Security Service and offices of Wa'ed Society for Prisoners in Tal al-Hawa neighborhood in the south of Gaza City; al-Mashtal site [detention center - EoZ] in the Beach camp in the west of the city; al-'Abbas police station; a bust garage belonging to Hamas near Gaza Harbor; and the headquarters of the Security and Protection Service and the presidential compound in the west of the city. They also bombarded a police station in al-Daraj neighborhood in the east of Gaza City, a site of the 'Izziddin al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas in al-Shoja'iya neighborhood and another one in al-Zaytoun neighborhood in the east of the city; a house belonging to the Humaid family in al-Tuffah neighborhood in the east of the city.

It is possible that the PCHR's list is not exhaustive, but it appears that every target mentioned besides the Humaid house was a legitimate target. Which of these listed corresponds to Al-Sena'a street in the neighborhood where the attack detailed above occurs? Could it be that HRW missed one of the al-Qassam sites that was obliterated, and that the eyewitnesses were covering it up? (If it was the Humaid house, it seems strange that HRW wouldn't mention the IDF bombing of a house in this case.)

Is it possible that 'Adani (PCHR: 'Udeini) was doing something other than just innocently going to class, a full hour and a half after the initial IDF assault on Gaza City? We have no way of knowing. But one can definitively say this: if HRW had the information about 'Adani's affiliation, it didn't see fit to mention it in its report; if it didn't have that information, it can hardly be considered to have done a complete analysis. Either way, HRW is not showing that it was objective in its research and reporting.

Samur family metal shop, Jabalya

This was one of the more infamous accidents that the IDF made during the war: misidentifying dozens of cylinders being loaded into a truck as being rockets, and not as the oxygen tanks that they were. The IDF video of that airstrike was widely watched.

HRW blames the IDF for not knowing the difference:

The family showed Human Rights Watch some of the oxygen canisters that it said it had moved that day before the Israeli strike. The canisters measured 1.62 meters long-shorter than the average adult man-and 20 cm in diameter. Grad rockets are 2.87 meters long, nearly twice the length.

Jabalya is in the northern Gaza Strip, which has been the origin of many of the Palestinian rocket attacks into Israel. Whatever suspicions that raised, however, the drone's advanced imaging equipment should have enabled the drone operator to determine the nature of the objects under surveillance. The video posted online by the IDF indicates that this was the case: two of the cylindrical objects the men were loading onto the truck are visible, and both are clearly shorter than Grad rockets, which, at nearly three meters are taller than any grown man and longer than the width of the Mercedes-Benz 410 flatbed truck onto which the cylinders were being loaded crossways. The Russian-designed Grad rocket is a known weapon in the Hamas arsenal, and consequently recognizable to IDF personnel. As such, given the visual evidence, the drone operator should have considered the likelihood that these were not Grad rockets. In addition, according to the IDF video of the attack, the truck was under surveillance for more than two minutes, and possibly longer because the truck was not moving, so the operator should have had time to consult with superior officers on whether the truck could be considered a legitimate target.

HRW is discounting a number of possibilities: that the person watching the truck might have thought that the rockets weren't Grads but rather Qassam-2 rockets, which are almost identical in size to the oxygen cylinders (180 cm vs. 162 cm) or perhaps another type, that the proximity to the metal workshop where Qassams are often built indicated a likelihood of them being rockets, whether two minutes is really enough time to check when being wrong would result in dozens of rockets being launched towards Israel.

In addition, HRW breezily mentions the dimensions of the Grad rocket as if everyone could recognize their size immediately. Yet Mark Garlasco, HRW's senior military analyst, at the time said:

"This case highlights the complexity of targeting in urban areas. Even when the commander is certain of his target based on active observation, this shows they can be mistaken. . . . It is difficult to know what your target is."

Garlasco, no fan of Israel and someone who has shown his bias before, hardly finds this an open-and-shut case of Israeli blame. And isn't it interesting that HRW's "senior military analyst" didn't immediately notice that the cylinders in the video were not as large as Grad rockets? HRW clearly gives the IDF more responsibility for accurately identifying a rocket in two minutes than it gives its own resident expert in a week of watching the video.

HRW also doesn't address another salient point that the IDF mentions about the incident:

The objects were being loaded into the truck next to a recognised Hamas rocket manufacturing site, and close to Hamas‘ central base. The loading point was also near an area frequently used by Hamas to launch rockets towards Israel.

All of these facts would tend to justify Israel's decision to strike, and HRW doesn't mention them - even though the IDF report was already released at the time the HRW report was published.

Al-Habbash family house, al-Sha'f, Gaza City

Another tragic case:

On January 4, at around 3 p.m., an IDF drone launched a missile at six children playing on the roof of the al-Habbash family home in the al-Sha'f area of Gaza City [GPS 31.50928/034.47826]. The missile killed two girl cousins, ages 10 and 12, and injured three other children, two of whom lost their legs.

The father and two lightly wounded sons, interviewed separately, told Human Rights Watch that there was no fighting in the area at the time of the attack. "There were no Israelis in the area; it was the second day of ground fighting," Muhammad al-Habbash said.

Admittedly, it is difficult to understand why the IDF would not have been able to identify the children on the roof, assuming that HRW is correct in saying that they were killed by a drone. However, the claim that there was no fighting going on in the area needs to be verified independently. On that same day in that same neighborhood that the PCHR identifies as Al-Tufah, al-Qassam Brigades member Mohammed Bashir Mohammed Khader was killed (PCHR, Hamas says January 6.) Is that not relevant?

'Allaw family house, Al-Sha'f, Gaza City

Another seemingly tragic case:

On January 5, around noon, an IDF drone launched a missile at members of the 'Allaw family who were on the roof of their home [GPS 31.50828/034.47721], three blocks from the al-Habbash house, which was struck the day before. The missile killed a young boy and injured his brother and sister.

Human Rights Watch investigated the site of the blast and fragments from the missile. The site had the same fragmentation patterns as the other sites and the missile fragments were consistent with the other Spike attacks.

HRW may be correct, but the PCHR reported the case a bit differently at the time:

At approximately 14:15 on Monday, IOF artillery shelled a house belonging to the 'Allaw family in al-Tuffah neighborhood. As a result, 2 children from the family were wounded:

1.Mo'men Mahmoud Talal 'Allaw, 11; and

2.Mohammed Mhamoud Talal 'Allaw, 12.

Their sister, 8-year-old Iman Mahmoud Talal 'Allaw, was also wounded.

PCHR's casualty list released in March lists Mohammed as being killed on January 5th, so it is curious that the PCHR didn't count him as being killed on that weekly report. The differences in the times of the attack and that the PCHR considered it an artillery, not a drone missile, attack indicates that perhaps HRW's methods for identifying drone missiles is not as accurate as they think, or that PCHR's reporting was incorrect at the time. Either way, one or both of these human rights organizations were very mistaken about the event. And HRW should at least tangentially acknowledge that others disagreed about the circumstances, for if PCHR is correct, that calls into question nearly every case mentioned in this report as being missile strikes based on the patterns of the holes.

UNRWA Asma Elementary School, Gaza City

On the afternoon of January 5, 2009, the Sultan family from Beit Lahiya along with about 400 other people fled their homes due to fighting in the area and sought protection at the UNRWA Asma Elementary Co-educational "A" School in the center of Gaza City, which the UN had opened earlier that day as a shelter. The displaced families stayed in classrooms and used two bathrooms inside the main building. UNRWA officials registered 406 people in the school.

After dinner, around 10 p.m., three young men from the al-Sultan family wanted to use the bathroom but the facilities in the school's main building were occupied, so they left the building to use the bathrooms in the courtyard. While there, a single Israeli missile directly struck the bathroom, killing all three. The hole in the bathroom wall and surrounding fragment marks, as shown by CNN and the BBC, are fully consistent with impact from a drone-launched Spike missile.

But from the IDF's perspective, three young men appeared late at night outside a building,

a place where no civilians were known or presumed to be at night, especially since the school had been closed for nine days when the incident occurred. Earlier that day, the UNRWA apparently had opened the school as an emergency shelter, although it did not so notify the IDF prior to the strike. The IDF concluded that there was no reasonable explanation for the presence of the unit in the elementary school, other than their preparation for the terrorist activity. The IDF targeted the terrorist unit only after it cross-checked this information.

So why does HRW not blame the UN for not informing Israel of the use of this school as a shelter, thereby endangering people there? The IDF, closely coordinating with the UN, cannot help but assume that three young men going to the small building at night are terrorists.

Instead, HRW blames Israel. HRW notes, but airily dismisses, the IDF's information:

The IDF was reportedly not informed of its use as a shelter until January 6, but civilians lining up outside the school and inside the school compound would have been clearly visible by aerial surveillance.

The assumption is that the IDF is omnisciently seeing what every resident of Gaza is doing at all times, and cannot rely on the UN to relay correct information but must double, triple and quadruple check every possible explanation of why people might be acting like terrorists act when terrorists brag about hiding among civilians.

HRW, without knowing anything about the coverage and priorities of Israel's drones, facilely makes an absurd assumption that, somehow, Israel should have known that a UN facility was being used when the UN never told Israel about it. Yet anyone who has spent any time looking at footage from drones knows that they can only focus on a tiny percentage of Gaza at a time at a resolution that can identify people, and HRW betrays its own naivete when it makes a statement like that.

Yet it is consistent with the bias shown throughout the report: for every incident, HRW bends over backwards to find fault with IDF decisions and spends no effort trying to see if they have any justification - on the contrary, it uses borderline sarcasm to belittle IDF explanations.

This is not what the function of a fact-finding mission should be. This reflects the function of a partisan group, that already knows ahead of time what it is going to decide, and only admits evidence that supports its pre-existing verdict.

Read More