Ken Roth Is Not An Expert In International Law - But He Plays One On Twitter

Ken Roth is entitled to his opinion.

And Ken Roth thinks the Israeli settlements are illegal.

So far, so good.

But Ken Roth is also the executive director of Human Rights Watch

MEQ Summer: Human Rights Watch Protects the Arab Tyrants

The following by Gerald M. Steinberg is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

Human Rights Watch Protects the Arab Tyrants

by Gerald M. Steinberg
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2013, pp. 49-58 (view PDF)

In October 2011, as the Libyan uprising neared its end with the death of Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi, Human Rights Watch (HRW)—a highly influential global organization claiming to promote universal moral principles—published a statement condemning Western governments for their "apparent eagerness to embrace Qaddafi because of his support on counterterrorism, as well as lucrative business opportunities" that, according to HRW, "tempered their criticism of his human rights record in recent years."[1]

What this statement conspicuously failed to note is that HRW had been an active participant in this eager embrace of the Qaddafi regime.

New Additions To Board Of Human Rights Watch Only Adds To Its Bias and Lack of Credibilty

PRESS RELEASE April 23, 2013  Contact: Lenny Ben-David NGO Monitor 054-216-8155 lenny.bendavid@ngo-monitor.org  Human Rights Watch's Board Changes Add to Bias and Lack of Credibility Jerusalem -  The announcement this week that Human Rights Watch (HRW) chairman of the board, James Hoge, Jr. is being replaced by co-chairs Joel Motley and Hassan Elmasry, effective October 2013, will further damage the NGO's credibility, said Jerusalem-based research institute NGO Monitor.

Human Rights Watch Again Issues False Allegations vs. Israel

PRESS RELEASE December 20, 2012  Contact: Ariella Kimmel NGO Monitor +972-53-522-3966 ariella.kimmel@ngo-monitor.org

Human Rights Watch Again Issues False Allegations vs. Israel NGO's attacks following a series of moral embarrassments Jerusalem - After losing credibility over a number of Middle East-related issues, Human Rights Watch (HRW) is once again leveling false charges against Israel. The claim that there was an "unlawful" attack on "journalists" and buildings containing the offices of news agencies during the recent Gaza fighting is false both legally and factually, and the timing of this release appears to be a cynical attempt to divert attention from many scandals currently plaguing the organization," stated Jerusalem-based research institute NGO Monitor. "This is yet another example of HRW's systematic lack of credibility and its biased approach to Israel," said Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. "Calling a military attack 'unlawful' is a serious charge, which should not be made lightly. But HRW cannot substantiate these allegations."

Human Rights Watch Founder Condemns HRW Laxity On Hate Speech

Robert Bernstein, founder of Human Rights Watch, asks the obvious question: Why do human rights groups ignore Palestinians’ war of words?:

As Assad Slaughters Syrians, Where Is Human Rights Watch?

I wrote yesterday about how the Arab League has watched while Assad has been shooting unarmed protesters in Syria.

One could argue that the Arab League is not exactly known for advocating human rights.
But what is Human Rights Watch's excuse?

Human Rights Watch has been poorly prepared in dealing with the slaughter of protesters by Assad--and it shows:

Has Amnesty International Seen The Light?

On September 4, the NGO Monitor came out with a report: Amnesty continues to distort human rights rhetoric to attack Israeli actions in Lebanon, documenting what they politely called "problematic statements" made by the group during Israel's war with Hezbollah:

By artificially separating Hezbollah attacks from the Israeli responses, the analysis lacks credibility, inverts the priority of core human rights values and glosses over Hezbollah's missile attacks and use of human shields. Similarly, the authors have erased the context, including Syrian and Iranian support and provision of missiles to Hezbollah, while claiming a level of military expertise where none is evident. In addition, the conclusions are based on unverifiable evidence provided by "eyewitnesses" in Lebanon, whose may be strongly influenced by support for or threats from Hezbollah. As a result, this report is internally inconsistent, lacks credibility, and should be seen as a political statement rather than a careful evaluation of human rights issues.

But then, just 10 days later, the Boston Herald reported on that very same Amnesty International, which seems to have done an abrupt about-face:

Amnesty International has introduced a comprehensive report accusing a terrorist group of war crimes.In utter defiance of the predominant American left, European and United Nations view that Israel engaged in gross war crimes against civilians and freedom fighters in Lebanon, Amnesty International has announced that in its opinion, Hezbollah is guilty of war crimes. Hezbollah purposefully and indiscriminately targeted Israeli civilians.

The AI report notes that despite Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s subsequent protestations to the contrary, he stated publicly and repeatedly during the conflict that he was firing his missiles at civilian areas to make Israeli civilians pay for their army’s actions, and with his uncontrolled Katyushas, an indiscriminate weapon, he killed 43 of them. He had advised Israeli Arabs to leave those areas.He had provoked the war with a cross border attack in which some Israeli soldiers were killed and others seized.

Now the question is whether Amnesty International, with the publication of this new report, is changing its approach or is merely trying to look respectable--after all, besides emphasizing the actions of Israel vis-a-vis Hezbollah, AI has also been a persistent if not single-minded critic of the United States as well in its war against terrorism.

Alex Margolin, NGO's publication manager, responded in an email that he believes that AI has taken a small step that distinguishes it from other groups, such as Human Rights Watch.

But despite its length and detail, the report remains incomplete as long as Amnesty fails to address the serious issues surrounding Hezbollah's use of human shields and the impact their war tactics had on the Lebanese civilians. Amnesty must follow through with detailed studies of the situation, and be open to revising their earlier claims about Israel's role in the deaths of Lebanese civilians should the facts show that Hezbollah were actually responsible.

As far as what is behind the report, I think it is a simple question of credibility. Human Rights Watch has experienced an unprecedented level of criticism for their biased work on the war in Lebanon -- the Weekly Standard ran a cover story on this, and there have been numerous op-eds. Amnesty had already released a 50-page report that focused exclusively on Israel's actions. It doesn't take an expert in international humanitarian law to know that firing 4000 Katyushas on residential areas is a war crime. If Amnesty refused to look at the situation honestly, how could it be taken seriously?

It is reassuring to see that such groups actually are not impervious to public scrutiny and criticism--and maybe we'll see a similar turn-around from HRW as well. The effectiveness of such scrutiny only emphasizes the need to keep these kinds of issues in the limelight and part of public discussion.

As for the AI report itself, according to the Boston Herald, it still did not deal with the question of the estimated 1,000 Lebanese civilians who were killed in the populated areas where Hezbollah and set up command positions. They said the issue is too complex to comment on.

It is too important not to.
AI needs to realize that.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hezbollah and Amnesty International and lebanon.

Human Rights Watch and Red Cross on Kidnapped Israeli Soldiers: zzzzzzzzzzzz...

Israel Matzav notes how the Red Cross has yet to be able to visit Israel's kidnapped soldiers--nor has it raised a stink over it either.

Arutz Sheva asked the ICRC some questions:

Asked what public pressure the ICRC is exerting in order to get to see the three, the spokesperson noted the issuance of several press statements expressing the organization's concern over the plight of the abducted soldiers.

The last such press announcement was issued on August 9, stating that ICRC president Jacob Kelenberger had arrived in Israel and would discuss with Israeli officials "the humanitarian situation in northern Israel and in Lebanon, access to those in need, and the fate of captured soldiers and other people detained in connection with the conflict." [emphasis added]

...In response to the claim that no announcement on the matter had been issued in a month, and that the captives' issue seemed always to be buried among other issues, Yechezkel-Oron said, "The official announcements do not reflect the extent of our activity on the matter. There are behind-the-scenes contacts being made all the time. We are not a military organization, and we cannot force them."

Arutz-7 then asked why the ICRC does not hold a special press conference to declare that Hamas and Hizbullah refuse to allow visits to the captives. "Would this not keep the matter in the public eye, be the subject of newspaper articles, and force the world community to take note?" she was asked. The spokesperson responded that the ICRC and its demands had been mentioned in recent media articles regarding the captives.

Here isw an example of an ICRC press release, with the issue of Shalit's kidnapping buried among other issues. Maybe part of the problem is the Red Cross' sense of priorities. Take a look at this press release they put out on July 13:

ICRC gravely concerned about humanitarian situation in Gaza
Geneva (ICRC) – The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is alarmed about the deteriorating situation in the Gaza Strip.

The continuing escalation of violence, with military operations taking place in highly populated areas, has serious consequences for the civilian population.

Over the past two weeks, Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip have led to the deaths of dozens of people and the wounding of many more, among them a large number of civilians. In one single incident on 12 July, nine family members – including children – were killed in their home by an air strike in Gaza City. In some cases, people living near operations have been unable to leave their homes for several days.

The ICRC has urged and continues to urge Israel to respect the rules of international humanitarian law. In particular, in the conduct of hostilities, Israel must take all precautions to spare civilian life and property. It must also ensure that the wounded have access to medical facilities.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is continuing to deteriorate. The strike on Gaza's only power plant on 28 June reduced the power supply in the Strip by half, with direct and indirect effects on the population. Hospitals and a large part of the water and wastewater systems now depend on generators that consume considerable amounts of fuel, which is also in short supply owing to recurrent closures of the Strip. Furthermore, the strict controls imposed on the passage of basic items into the Strip have exacerbated the difficulties faced by residents, who were already living in precarious conditions. Under international humanitarian law, Israel is responsible for meeting the basic needs of the population, which include food, medical supplies and means of shelter.

As a further consequence of the ongoing situation in the Gaza Strip, hundreds of Palestinians have been stranded on the Egyptian side of the Rafah terminal, two of whom have reportedly died. The material and psychological conditions in which these people live are deteriorating day by day and no solution to their plight has been found by the parties concerned. The ICRC has already offered its services to facilitate their passage into the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, together with the Egyptian Red Crescent, it is providing the affected people with assistance.

The ICRC is seriously concerned about the consequences of the repeated launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip against the civilian population in Israel. These attacks, which have wounded several people, are indiscriminate and thus prohibited by international humanitarian law.

Finally, the ICRC urges those detaining IDF corporal Gilad Shalit to treat him humanely and allow him to contact his family. It has informed all the parties that it stands ready to provide its services.

The Red Cross' 'humanitarian concern' places Shalit last as a priority. One wonders if ICRC's "behind the scenes" efforts are as buried as their casual reference to Shalit in their news release.

Arutz Sheva gives links for contacting the ICRC:

The ICRC can be emailed as follows:
The Washington office
The Geneva office
The Tel Aviv office

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch has not exactly been banging the drums either about the kidnapped soldiers.

Part of the problem may be their contradictory message. On the one hand they have news releases that claim:

Since June 25, Palestinian armed groups have abducted and killed an Israeli settler in the West Bank and are currently holding Israeli soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit hostage, whom they have offered to release in exchange for some of the Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. A hostage is a person held in the power of an adversary in order to obtain specific actions, such as the release of prisoners, from the other party to the conflict. Holding persons as hostages and the summary execution of anyone held captive are war crimes. [emphasis added]

Clearing, the reference to the holding of hostages as a war crime is referring to Shalit.

But on July 26, in an open letter to Ahmadinejad, HRW helpfully writes:

On July 12, Hezbollah launched an attack on Israeli positions, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two. The targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law. However captured combatants in all circumstances must be treated humanely.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah stated that Hezbollah will use the captured soldiers to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab prisoners from Israel. The use of captives who are no longer involved in the conflict for this purpose constitutes hostage-taking. Hostage-taking as part of an armed conflict is strictly forbidden under international law, by both common Article 3 and customary international law, and is a war crime. [emphasis added]

So HRW wants Ahmadinejad to know that kidnapping the soldiers was OK, up to the point of demanding prisoners in return.

Questions:

So according to HRW, even though there was no state of war between Lebanon and Israel, it is OK for Hezbollah to attack Israel and create the conflict under which the soldier they set out to kidnap becomes an enemy soldier? How nice of them to send a letter to Ahmadinejad giving their seal of approval for the actions of his proxie.

But what about when the group doing the kidnapping is acting independently of the country which it inhabits? Or is HRW saying that Hezbollah attacked Israel on the authority of the Lebanese government? Is HRW claiming that Israel and Lebanon were enemies before the attack?

How about Human Rights Watch?

Note that like ICRC, HRW also never came out with an independent news release about the kidnapping of Goldwasser and Regev. Their first release addresses the issue of Israel's reaction to the kidnapping.

Likewise, the first HRW press release in response to the June 25 kidnapping of Shalit came on June 29, in response to Israel's destruction of the power station.

Where is the outcry?
Human Rights Watch can be contacted here.

Technorati Tag: Israel and HRW and Human Rights Watch and Red Cross and ICRC and Shalit and Goldwasser and Regev.

Human Rights Watch: Human Rights Vs. Human Life

On August 17, Kenneth Roth,Executive Director of Human Rights Watch in New York, wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post explaining HRW's position on Israel's war with Hezbollah. Roth's intent is clear from the start:

Why did so many Lebanese civilians lost their lives to Israeli bombing? The government line is that the IDF was doing the best it could, but these deaths were the result of Hizbullah hiding its rockets and fighters among civilians. But that assertion doesn't stand up to the facts.

Roth graciously grants that Hezbollah 'sometimes' hid among Lebanese civilians, and 'possibly' committed the war crime of using civilian shields, but insists that in the 2 dozen instances of Israeli bombings of Lebanon that they investigated--"in none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack."

Roth insists HRW knows this based on their procedure:

We probed and cross-checked multiple eyewitnesses, many of whom talked openly of Hizbullah's presence elsewhere but were adamant that Hizbullah was not at the scene of the attack. We examined bombing sites for evidence of military activity such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers and military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters. If we were unsure, we gave the IDF the benefit of the doubt.

The case of Kana shows how this works.

Kana is a solid example of how HRW works? OK, let's take a look at Kana. On July 30, HRW reported:

Responsibility for the Israeli airstrikes that killed at least 54 civilians sheltering in a home in the Lebanese village of Qana rests squarely with the Israeli military, Human Rights Watch said today. It is the latest product of an indiscriminate bombing campaign that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have waged in Lebanon over the past 18 days, leaving an estimated 750 people dead, the vast majority of them civilians.

Then, 3 days later, on August 2, HRW reports its correction:

A preliminary Human Rights Watch investigation into the July 30 Israeli air strike in Qana found that 28 people are confirmed dead thus far, among them 16 children, Human Rights Watch said today.

The initial estimate of 54 persons killed was based on a register of 63 persons who had sought shelter in the basement of the building that was struck, and rescue teams having located nine survivors. It now appears that at least 22 people escaped the basement, and 28 are confirmed dead, according to records from the Lebanese Red Cross and the government hospital in Tyre.

Questions:

o If the second report is preliminary, what was the first one 3 days earlier--the erroneous one that HRW widely circulated?

o According to Roth, HRW investigations are full of probes and cross-checking of eyewitnesses as well as the investigation of the physical evidence. But at Kana, Roth's prime example of HRW's methods, there was apparently no checking with survivors--or did survivors confirm the higher numbers?

o Reporters have noted Hezbollah's presence, control, and intimidation. Was Hezbollah present during HRW's investigations and influence those interviewed? Since Hezbollah does not wear uniforms, how would HRW know? For that matter, what steps are taken by HRW to insure that their own members are not manipulated by Hezbollah in the way reporters have admitted they were?

o Moreover, since Hezbollah does not wear a uniform, how does HRW determine which casualties are Hezbollah and which are not?

In another well-crafted paragraph, Roth says:

But under international humanitarian law, just as Israeli abuses in Lebanon did not justify reprisals against Israeli civilians, so Hizbullah's war crimes did not justify Israel shirking its duty to protect Lebanese civilians.

First, Roth combines the idea of law and humanitarianism, which he utilizes later when he reinterprets international law. But what Roth also slips in is the insinuation that Hezbollah's thousands of bombs sent indiscriminately into Israel were neither acts of war nor terror but merely reprisals in response to so-called Israeli abuses in Lebanon.

But this paragraph takes the cake:

But giving warning, as required by international humanitarian law, does not relieve the attacker of the duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only combatants. Otherwise, Palestinian militants might "warn" Israeli settlers to leave their West Bank settlements and then be justified in attacking anyone who remained. Hizbullah might have done the same in northern Israel.

What "international humanitarian law" is Roth referring to here? Not the Geneva Convention. Roth claims that even after warning, Israel has "the duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only combatants." [emphasis added]

Roth is deceptive. By inventing the term "international humanitarian law" Roth clouds the issue--the Geneva Convention is a set of rules for the ugly, but often unavoidable, conduct of war, and does not forbid attacks where civilian lives are at risk. The avoidance of injury and casualty to civilians is desireable, but is not always possible. Thus the Geneva Convention, Chapter IV, Article 57 includes:

...(ii) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

(iii) Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; [in this case the prevention of the indiscriminate bombing of Israel, including the hospital in Haifa]
...

(c) Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects. [as opposed to forbidding the attack altogether]

Of course one can argue about Israel's attacks in the context of the outline of Article 57 , but by deceptively muddying the waters with talk of an "international humanitarian law," Roth implies the existence of law that exceeds what the Geneva Convention itself recognizes as legitimate.

Roth digs deeper into absurdity in that same paragraph:

Otherwise, Palestinian militants might "warn" Israeli settlers to leave their West Bank settlements and then be justified in attacking anyone who remained. Hizbullah might have done the same in northern Israel.

Since Palestinian militants terrorists make a point of targeting innocent women and children, in direct contradistinction to Israel's targeting of terrorists, Roth's argument is faulty--and by implying a justification of Palestinian terrorist attacks, insulting as well.

Roth concludes with his personal interpretation of how Israel should conduct war according to "international humanitarian law," a term he uses 3 times but never identifies:

It means attacking civilian structures and vehicles only if there is evidence that Hizbullah is actually using them. Even then, it means making serious efforts to determine whether civilian structures and vehicles contain civilians, and attacking only if the definite military advantage is so powerful that it justifies their deaths.

Above all, it means treating Lebanese civilians as human beings whose lives are as valuable as Israelis'. Protecting Israelis from Hizbullah's deadly rockets is vital, but it does not justify indifference to the taking of civilian lives on the other side of the border.

Roth has an obligation to ground his assumptions about international law in actual sources. His failure to do so is a reflection of his flight into fantasy, where abstract ideas of Human Rights take precedence over real threats to Human Life.

See also The Decline of Amnesty International at the Volokh Conspiracy
and
Human Rights Watch's Credibility--Not So Good

Technorati Tag: Israel and HRW and Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Geneva Convention.

How Reliable Is HRW In Lebanon?

Hat tip: Israel Matzav

On Saturday, Human Rights Watch has a revelation:

Hezbollah must immediately stop firing rockets into civilian areas in Israel, Human Rights Watch said today. Entering the fourth week of attacks, such rockets have claimed 30 civilian lives, including six children, and wounded hundreds more.

“Lobbing rockets blindly into civilian areas is without doubt a war crime,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. ”Nothing can justify this assault on the most fundamental standards for sparing civilians the hazards of war.”

...Some of the rockets, such as those that killed eight rail workers in Haifa on July 16 and two young brothers in Nazareth on July 19, have warheads packed with thousands of metal ball bearings that spray out from the blast. Launched on civilian areas, the ball bearings are intended to inflict maximum harm. [emphasis added]

HRW has also been busy tracking Hamas war crimes too, as they relate to the their indiscriminate use of Kassam rockets and kidnapping soldiers.

HRW is also accusing Israel of war crimes as well, not only discounting the warnings that Israel gave to civilians to leave the area, but denying that Hizbollah uses human shields:

The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack. [emphasis added]

There is a very real question whether HRW is doing its homework. The National Post (Canada) manages to report on 4 examples of Hizbollah using human shields--using hospitals:

The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell.

"Look what they did to this place," Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. "Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?"

The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.

Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel.

"What choice to we have? We need to fight back from somewhere," he said, tapping his foot on the ground.

"This is Hezbollah's heartland."

using border villages:

"We've been preparing ourselves for this fight for the last five years. We can fight this for much longer," said Abu Ismail, a local Hezbollah leader near the village of Bint Jbeil who uses a nom de guerre, like most of his fellow fighters.

Residents of the cluster of villages closest to the Israeli border, Hezbollah's most loyal supporters, helped stow the weapons away.

But as the conflict continues, there is an undercurrent of anger among some residents.

"Hezbollah are using [us] as human shields," said Rima Khouri, gesturing overhead as Israeli warplanes sliced through the sky.

The Lebanese Christian woman fled from her village of Ain Abel to one of the swelling refugee shelters in the city of Tyre.

She was one of few people to speak freely about her anger at Hezbollah and their strategy of firing rockets into Israel from civilian areas.

and using homes:

Nasser Kareem shared her sentiments.

During a pitched battle in his village of Bint Jbeil last Thursday, the 48-year-old dentist watched from his kitchen window as Hezbollah fighters dragged a rocket launcher across the torn street in front of his house.

A few minutes later, he heard four successive blasts. Kareem barely managed to cover his four-year-old son's ears before the rockets were fired. His own ears are still ringing.

"Five minutes after they fired the rockets, the Israelis started bombing," he recalled from the safety of a shelter in Beirut.

"They are making us magnets for the Israelis," he said.

And in a village near Qana:

Anger boiled over last week when a shelter in Qana was hit, killing 29 people, most of them children.

"What have they done to deserve this? Is this a military target?" wept Mohamad Chaloub, clutching the lifeless body of his daughter.

Local officials said there were no weapons or rockets in the house where the children slept in Qana, no warning before the bomb fell.

But the next day, the same Lebanese Red Cross team that dug out the children's bodies stumbled across the shreds of more rocket launchers in a village nearby.

One was found deep inside a fruit orchard. Another was found wedged between two houses.

Rich Lowry of The Corner noted during his visit to Israel that Hezbollah had an observation post right next to a UN post on the Lebanon-Israel border.

In the same report, HRW has also accused Israel of attacking ambulances:

Two Israeli air strikes are known to have hit humanitarian aid vehicles. On July 18 the IDF hit a convoy of the Red Crescent Society of the United Arab Emirates, destroying a vehicle with medicines, vegetable oil, sugar and rice, and killing the driver. On July 23, Israeli forces hit two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances in the village of Qana.

Elder of Ziyon has a post that raises substantial questions on the accuracy of that claim.

According to Human Rights Watch, Hamas, Hizbollah, and Israel are all equally guilty of War Crimes.

Is the term "War Crime" going to be used indiscriminately, going the way of the term "holocaust"--and robbing it of any meaning?

The other question is: who is watching the watchers?

Tom Gross reports on how Hizbollah has manipulated journalists.

Israel Insider has a report on how UNIFIL officers have been bribed by UNIFIL officers who stood by and allowed IDF officers to be kidnapped.

Without independent confirmation, why should HRW's claims about the results of Israeli attacks in Lebanon, under the watchful eye of Hizbullah be believed?

Technorati Tag: Israel and HRW and HIzbollah and Hezbollah and Lebanon.

Will Israel Go To The Videotape?

Marc Garlasco just couldn't make up his mind about the Gaza beach incident.

Israel did it.
Israel did it not.
Israel could have done it.

Back on June 22, Kenneth Timmerman wrote about Garlasco and his meeting with the IDF and claims something I haven't seen elsewhere.

About Garlasco, he noted:

A self-styled "military expert" for Human Rights Watch, Marc Garlasco...who has no artillery experience or forensics training, has been unable to explain how a 155 millimeter artillery shell could explode amid sand dunes without leaving a huge crater.

But about the meeting, Timmerman notes:

"We came to an agreement with Gen. Klifi that the most likely cause [of the blast] was unexploded Israeli ordnance," Garlasco told the Jerusalem Post after the meeting.

But an Israeli official present at the meeting told NewsMax that that is not the case. "We agreed that no Israeli shell was fired at the beach that day, and that we could not yet determine what caused the explosion," an official present at the three-hour meeting said.

"It might have been an old Israeli mine, or an unexploded shell. Or it could have been a makeshift explosive device."

...Fearing that Garlasco might twist the contents of the meeting, the Israeli military taped the entire three-hour session.

If this is true, by all means--let's go to the videotape!

...At least I hope it's video.
...and in color.

But if so, why didn't Israel go public with it?

See also Hurray For Pallywood--At Gaza Beach (June 19)
See also: More on Gaza Beach (June 20)
See also: Human Rights Watch / Garlasco Admit Israel Not Responsible (Updated) (June 20)


Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hadil Ghalia and Marc Garlasco.

Human Rights Watch / Garlasco Admit Israel Not Responsible (Updated)

Hat Tip: Shy Guy

Check out Adloyada on the story. She points out that the Guardian reported Garlasco was adamant that Israel was responsible for the Gaza beach incident:

You have the crater size, the shrapnel, the types of injuries, their location on the bodies. That all points to a shell dropping from the sky, not explosives under the sand," he said. "I've been to hospital and seen the injuries. The doctors say they are primarily to the head and torso. That is consistent with a shell exploding above the ground, not a mine under it."

Mr Garlasco also produced shrapnel from the site apparently marked as a 155mm shell used by the army that day.

Now HRW and Garlasco have reversed themselves and have admitted it could not contradict the IDF's exonerating findings, which is not as good as their saying "we jumped the gun, were totally incorrect, and caused Israel unwarranted aggravation and nasty press"--but we'll take it.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

Following the three-hour meeting, described by both sides as cordial and pleasant, Garlasco praised the IDF's professional investigation into the blast, which he said was most likely caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance left laying on the beach, a possibility also raised by Klifi and his team.

"We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause [of the blast] was unexploded Israeli ordinance," Garlasco told The Jerusalem Post following the meeting. While Klifi's team did a "competent job" to rule out the possibility that the blast was caused by artillery fire, there were still, Garlasco said, a number of pieces of evidence that the IDF commission did not take into consideration.

Garlasco admits he was wrong, while at the same time he saves face. Fair enough. But the issue is still not over. Lucy Mair, head of the HRW's Jerusalem office says:

We differ when it comes to other pieces of information from other sources that don't relate to the military strike such as the timing and the type of injuries," Mair explained. "While they [the IDF] made a very good presentation, we still think there are enough unanswered questions that have not been examined by Klifi's [Maj.-Gen. Meir Klifi - head of the IDF inquiry] team…and that is why we believe there should be an independent investigation."

As pointed out in More On Gaza Beach, it is hard to see that any good can come of that. However, if there is enough pressure, based on past experience Olmert just might give in on this point.

Update:

As Soccer Dad and Shy Guy point out, the party (if there ever was one) is over. Garlasco & Co. apparently never really said that Israel is right.

The HRW has a post that says outright: Israel: Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence

The Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) investigation of the Gaza beach explosion that killed eight Palestinian civilians and wounded dozens is incomplete because it excludes important evidence, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch researchers met yesterday with Israeli Major-General Meir Kalifi, who led the internal IDF investigation, to discuss its findings. After the meeting, Human Rights Watch reiterated its call for an independent investigation into the deaths.

...Kalifi told Human Rights Watch that Palestinians “have no problem lying,” and that the IDF discounted information gathered from any Palestinian information sources in its investigation. The day after the incident, the IDF asked the official Palestinian security liaison office to provide evidence for testing, but later dismissed the evidence provided, which consisted of 155mm shrapnel, both new and old, and dirt from the beach and crater. When offered evidence collected first-hand by Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza, the general either called it into question or declined to accept it.

I suppose that it is a small step from "cycle of violence" meme to saying that evidence from Israel and the people who kill them is of equal value.

Little Green Footballs notes:

Unbelievable. The Palestinians refused to allow the Israelis to investigate the scene at the time of the incident, and Human Rights Watch shill Marc Garlasco only got there several days afterward, giving the Palestinians more than enough time to alter the scene and plant false evidence.

LGF has another post linking to the Jerusalem Post article about how a victim of the Gaza beach exlosion who was transfered to a Tel Aviv hospital after Palestinian doctors 'worked' on her:

Niham, who regained consciousness at the hospital on Tuesday but remains in serious condition, suffered serious damage to her abdomen and upper limbs, with cuts all over her body, as a result of the surgical intervention performed on her at Shifa Hospital in Gaza, the hospital said.

...In most cases, some shrapnel remains in the victim's body and stays there for the rest of his or her life, the hospital said.

The hospital stopped short of accusing Shifa's doctors directly of removing shrapnel for no medical reason, but it did say that it had never received such a patient with all the reachable shrapnel removed.

The HRW post also makes the point:

“An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible,” said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. “The IDF’s partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation.”

Two points that Israel should make the next time HRW and Galasco come into town.



See also Hurray For Pallywood--At Gaza Beach (June 19)
See also More On Gaza Beach (June 20)
See also Will Israel Go To The Videotape? (June 26)

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hadil Ghalia and Marc Garlasco.

More On Gaza Beach

On June 16, there was a request for a UN probe:

UN observer in Palestine, Riyadh Mansour, submitted a request to UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to order an international probe in the circumstances linked to the massacre of seven Palestinian family members on a Gaza beach last week.

It is to be noted that member states in the Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) and Non-aligned Movement (NAM) supported the Palestinian demand. Annan promised me to study the demand which needs Israeli approval, Mansour said, adding that he asked the Israeli leadership to forward an exhaustive report to the UN on the Gaza beach incident. [emphasis added]

The OIC reaction is an interesting contrast to the complete failure of the OIC to respond to their fellow Moslems when Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979:

According to Bernard Lewis, in The Crisis of Islam:

Two member states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting; Libya's delegate delivered a violent attack on the USA, while the representative of the PLO, a full member of the OIC, abstained from voting on the anti-Soviet resolution and submitted his reservations in writing.

...But it was left to the United States to organize, with some success, an Islamic counterattack to Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan. The OIC did little to help the Afghans...[p 91-92]

The Arab League, for its part, failed to condemn the Sudanese government’s policies in Darfur at their summit meeting in Khartoum in March 28-29 this year. I don't know anything about NAM.

Anyway, when Olmert rejected any international inquiry on Sunday into the incident, he was responding to the UN.

This is just as well, considering for example what happened when Israel agreed to let the Hague look into legality of the Security Fence:

Buried deep in the text of its opinion is a bombshell that purports to radically rewrite the rules of international law governing the inherent right of states to defend themselves and their citizens.

The ICJ recognises that this right is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the ICJ then says that this right is limited to self-defence in the case of armed attack "by one state against another state". That limitation does not appear anywhere in the text of Article 51 itself. Article 51 recognises that states have an inherent right of self-defence "if an armed attack occurs". It does not say that the armed attack must have been carried out by, or be attributable to, another state. [emphasis added]

This would impact the fight against international terrorism as well as affecting Israel's options if the PA claims (as it does) that it has no control over the terrorist attacks being launched against Israel. I don't know how much weight this decision by the ICJ actually has.

Who knows what kind of damage the UN could cause Israel if it was placed in a position of authority over Israeli actions.

Meanwhile, it is being reported that Israeli intelligence believes that Hamas increased tensions in the area--even before the Gaza beach incident--in order to head of Abbas' referendum. Apparently, someone forgot to tell Hamas that the referendum really has nothing to do with peace and recognition of Israel. According to the same article, Hamas may also intend to prevent Olmert from carrying out his Convergence Plan--whatever form it may take--but if it is carried out, then Hamas can again take credit.

Also, the Telegraph is reporting on the repurcussions of the shrapnel being recovered from the bodies of Palestinians Arab bodies. The difference is that they are reporting that the shrapnel recovered by Palestinian doctors shows it came from the Israelis, according to Marc Garlasco's examination. Look's like that will offset Israel's discovery that the shrapnel they recovered indicated it did not come from Israeli ordnance, the points raised by the German newspaper Sued Deutsche.

See also: Hurray For Pallywood--At Gaza Beach (June 19)
See also: Human Rights Watch / Garlasco Admit Israel Not Responsible (Updated) (June 20)
See also: Will Israel Go To The Videotape? (June 26)

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hadil Ghalia and Marc Garlasco.