Editor’s note: Those deploring this disgraceful HRW statement should write Sarah Leah Whitson, who heads up the HRW’s Middle East Division: whitsos@hrw.org. Please cc letters to this web site for posting.

Reader letters below, LAST UPDATED: Nov. 28, 2006, 12:45 AM

OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks
11.22.2006 | Human Rights Watch

(Jerusalem, November 22, 2006) – Palestinian armed groups must not endanger Palestinian civilians by encouraging them to gather in and around suspected militants’ homes targeted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Human Rights Watch said today.

Calling civilians to a location that the opposing side has identified for attack is at worst human shielding, at best failing to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attack. Both are violations of international humanitarian law.

According to media reports, on Saturday the IDF warned Mohammedweil Baroud, a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees, to leave his home in the Jabaliya refugee camp as they planned to destroy it. Baroud reportedly summoned neighbors and friends to protect his house, and a crowd of hundreds of Palestinians gathered in, around, and on the roof of the house. The IDF said that they called off the attack after they saw the large number of civilians around the house. On Monday, the BBC also reported that the IDF had warned Wael Rajab, an alleged Hamas member in Beit Lahiya, that that they were preparing to attack his home, and that a call was later broadcasted from local mosques for volunteers to protect the home.

“There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm’s way is unlawful.”

Various media have reported that other Palestinian officials and armed groups have voiced support for these tactics. In a visit to Baroud’s house on Sunday, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority reportedly said: “We are so proud of this national stand. It’s the first stop toward protecting our homes … so long as this strategy is in the interest of our people, we support this strategy.” A spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees was also quoted as saying: “We call upon all the fighters to reject evacuating their houses, and we urge our people to rush into threatened houses and make human shields.”

“Prime Minister Haniyeh and other Palestinian leaders should be renouncing, not embracing, the tactic of encouraging civilians to place themselves at risk,” said Whitson.

On November 3 the BBC also reported that Hamas radio broadcasted an appeal to local women to go to a mosque to protect 15 alleged militants holed up inside from Israeli forces surrounding the building. Many women went to the mosque and reportedly two were killed and 10 more injured when Israeli forces opened fire.

It is a war crime to seek to use the presence of civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations or to direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attack. In the case where the object of attack is not a legitimate military target, calling civilians to the scene would still contravene the international humanitarian law imperative for parties to the conflict to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attack. In the event that such abuse takes place, however, parties to the conflict remain obliged under international humanitarian law to take precautionary measures and not to target civilians or cause excessive civilian injury or damage in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.

In other words, while civilians placing themselves in the way of military actions take on heightened risks, they cannot be considered legitimate targets by the opposing force, and parties to the conflict should cancel or suspend attacks where excessive civilian damage is anticipated. Human Rights Watch said that the IDF had properly respected its obligations under international humanitarian law in suspending the attack on the Baroud home that would have caused substantial civilian harm.

Human Rights Watch, however, also reminded the IDF that even in the absence of deliberately orchestrated measures to maximize a civilian presence near its targets, any destruction of civilian property must be done strictly in compliance with international humanitarian law. An ostensibly civilian object such as a home can be the subject of attack only if it is being used for military purposes at the relevant time and its destruction makes a direct and immediate contribution to the fighting.

“The IDF should immediately explain what its military objective is in targeting the homes that it has ordered to be vacated,” said Whitson.

According to the Israeli human rights organization B’tselem, between July and November 15 this year, the IDF destroyed 251 homes in Gaza, leaving 1577 people homeless. In 105 of these cases the IDF destroyed the home by airstrike after warning the inhabitants to leave. While the IDF generally claims that militants used those homes to store weapons, they have not presented any concrete evidence in individual cases.

Human Rights Watch has also reported extensively on the coerced use of Palestinian civilians during military operations, and documented the use of Palestinian civilians as “human shields” and for military purposes during the Israeli military operations in Jenin in 2002. The Israeli High Court confirmed the illegality of using human shields in 2002.

As recently as July 2006, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups have documented the IDF’s forcible use of Palestinians as human shields in a well publicized incident during military operations in Beit Hanoun. According to the groups, the IDF blindfolded six civilians, including two minors, and forced them to stand in front of soldiers who took over civilian homes during a raid in northern Gaza.

American nun, priest join Gaza standoff

11.22.2006 | The Washington Post | The Guardian

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

An American priest and nun spent several hours Wednesday at a militant’s home that Israel has targeted for destruction, the first foreigners to join a weeklong standoff between Palestinian “human shields” and the Israeli air force.

Father Peter Dougherty, 65, and Sister Mary Ellen Gundeck, 55, both Michigan-based peace activists, said they were sent by God to help protect the Palestinians. The pair arrived Wednesday morning at the family home of Mohammed Baroud, a militant involved in rocket attacks on Israel.

For the past week, Palestinian militants and civilians have crowded into five militants’ houses to try to thwart Israeli threats to hit them
with missiles. The use of human shields is a new tactic in the Palestinians’ war against Israel’s mighty military.

Since militants allied with the ruling Hamas party kidnapped an Israeli soldier in June, the air force has destroyed the homes of at least 73 militants, usually after calling owners and warning residents to evacuate.

House demolitions are considered harsh punishment in crowded Gaza. Most people live in densely populated apartment blocks with extended families, and dozens are often left homeless when one building is destroyed.

Dougherty and Gundeck said they had visited several of the houses under threat on Tuesday, and on Wednesday they reached Baroud’s three-story home.

“It is wrong for Israel to bomb people’s houses,” Dougherty said. “We are here in solidarity, and to try communicate to the world what is really going on.”

The nun and priest, dressed in shirts and pants, said they were staying for
several hours at each of the targeted houses. They were warmly welcomed by Ahmed Baroud, a brother of the militant.

The building’s rooftop has been decorated with Palestinian political faction banners. Local leaders of the rival Hamas and Fatah groups spend the nights there, gathering around a small fire to show Israeli aircraft they are still in the targeted house.

In the past, a call from the Israeli military would send residents rushing from targeted houses in panic, carrying blankets, savings, and identity cards.

Hamas said it would continue to use human shields. Local Hamas leader Nizar Rayan called on Palestinians to hold their Friday prayers on the rooftops of the five targeted houses. Other Palestinian factions have also endorsed the move.

However, the New York-based Human Rights Watch said militants calling on civilians to act as human shields was a “war crime.”

“There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director. The rights group also criticized Israel’s policy of shelling houses.

The Israeli military said the militants were exploiting civilians.

“It just further demonstrates the cynical use of civilians by terrorists,” said Israeli army Capt. Noa Meir. She said she was not familiar with any specific attempt by foreign volunteers to enter Gaza and serve as human shields.

Dougherty said civilians thwarting shelling was “a wonderful nonviolent action.”

Visiting U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbor said on Tuesday the human shield tactic was a sign of Palestinian desperation.

“There is something frankly almost pathetic in the sense of despair … civilians rallying in a defensive gesture,” she said during a Gaza visit.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

Reader letters

To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: HRW position on Palestinian human shields
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:43:02 -0800 (PST)

Dear Ms. Whitson,

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around HRW’s position of denouncing the actions of voluntary Palestinian human shields. A respected organization like HRW producing such a statement is suprising and disappointing to say the least. That aside, I have some questions about the legitimacy of the reports surrounding these events as well as the apparent bias which seems to be emerging from this. If you could kindly clarify some of these issues for me, I would be most thankful.

The statement read:

“Palestinian armed groups must not endanger Palestinian civilians by encouraging them to gather in and around suspected militants’ homes targeted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Human Rights Watch said today.”

I feel there is an issue here of interpreting the actions as VOLUNTARY vs. COERCIVE involvement. It’s one thing for disadvantaged, desperate populations to do these actions out of their own volition and take responsibility into their own hands in order to protect what very little they have left, quite another thing if this was done under the aegis of force. Reading your statement, if one did not know any better, it sounds like this was done involuntarily which does not seem to be the case at all here.

It continued with:

“According to media reports, on Saturday the IDF warned Mohammedweil Baroud, a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees, to leave his home in the Jabaliya refugee camp as they planned to destroy it. Baroud reportedly summoned neighbors and friends to protect his house, and a crowd of hundreds of Palestinians gathered in, around, and on the roof of the house.”

Which media reports exactly? Who were they written by and who or what were the sources? Were these independant media reports from both sides or reports based on IDF news briefings? A clear bias here seems to be at work here. Another issue I have here is the language being used. It says that “Baroud reportedly summoned…” Again, I feel this is falling into “legalese” and is trap for the undiscerning reader that Baroud forcibly used these persons. “Summoning” people implies sending directives which need to be obeyed. From what I can gather of this situation, the persons who came in order to shield his home came voluntarily and in a show of support and solidarity, not because they had to but because they wanted to, big difference.

“There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm’s way is unlawful.”

What do you expect people to do? Just stand by and watch placidly as their homes are reduced to rubble and they become homeless? With all due respect, the absurdity of your statement is illustrated even more starkly when seen in light of all successful non-violent struggle. Voluntarily standing in harm’s way in a non-violent manner has, surprisingly, a respectable track record of actually working for the long-term with far more successful results than violent struggle. HRW should be applauding the Palestinians for taking this route, not condeming them.

The only thing I can deduce from all of this is that HRW is increasingly becoming far more sensitive to the wants and needs of it’s donors than to the actual and continuing human suffering we’re witnessing. The bias is wrong and needs to be balanced and corrected if HRW wants to keep it’s integrity at all.

Sincerely,

Bobby

* * * * *

From: Jemersberger[at]aol.com
To: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Exchange with Human Rigts Watch
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:45:24 EST

Dear Sarah Leah Whitson

I can’t stop shaking my head at HRW’s recent press release that
condemns non-violent resistance by Palestinians to Israeli terrorism.

I very much doubt.your interpretation of international law is valid.
Calling on civilians – without any hint of coercion or deception – to risk
their lives to defend others is a “war crime”? Was Ghandi a war criminal
then according to HRW?

Even if your interpretation were valid surely a human rights group
should be calling for a revision of such an absurd law – not lecturing the
victims of terrorism on preposterous legal obligations.

Does the world need human rights group who strive to make non-violent
resistance illegal?

Unfortunately this is not the first time HRW has disgraced itself
with absurd press releases that say what the powerful want to hear [1].

Joe Emersberger

[1] I’m still waiting for anyone at HRW to reply to this

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10011

REPLY FROM WHITSON OF HRW

Thank you for your note. If you read our press release carefully,
you’ll note that we do not criticize the Palestinians for defending
Baroud’s home nor do we criticize non-violent resistance. Instead, we noted that it was
unlawful for military commanders, such as Baroud, to urge civilians to the
site of an attack, putting them in harm’s way, as the fundamental goal of
international humanitarian law is to protect civilians and keep them out of
military conflict as much as possible. I hope you can understand the
distinction, and the different responsibilities and obligations of civilians vs. military
forces.

Coercion is not a requisite element; it is the act of seeking to
involve civilians in military conflict that is the problem. We have of course
commented repeatedly on Israel’s unlawful conduct as well, and I invite you
to check out our website at _www.hrw.org_ (http://www.hrw.org/) to see all that we
have said.

Dear Sara Leah Whitson:

I have read your press release carefully. Your distinction between
armed actors appealing to non-violence or others doing it does not make
your stance less appalling. Armed actors IN PARTICULAR should be encouraged to
appeal to non-violence.

As for your previous work I have read your exchanges Jonathan Cook.
They do not flatter HRW in the least. Your organization is in dire need of
more empathy for the victims of terrorism and less fear of the powerful.

Joe Emersberger

* * * * *

According to press reports Israel has accepted the offer by Palestinian factions for a ceasefire. Am I correct in surmising there’s a Palestinian war crime lurking in this waiting to be discovered by HRW?

* * * * *

From: prochoice8[at]hotmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: “human shields”
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:27:47 +0000

Dear Ms. Whitson,

being a woman myself, I fail to grasp the logic of HRW´s news of
November 22, 2006 titled

OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military
Attacks

Your wording, instead of describing what happened, suggests that
civilians gathering around the houses targeted for destruction by
the IDF are “used” and have no will of their own.

While the last third of the article (and an older HRW report) states
correctly that IDF coerced civilians to be where they did not want
to be (for example in front of a tank) and/or do what they would
never do of their own free wills (for example press people living in
such a targeted house to leave), I cannot find any evidence that the
cited Palestinian houseowners or officials coerced the civilians.

As far as I can see these civilians (judging from the pictures in
the press often women) use the traditional techniques of civil
resistance, and have decided to try protect their own and their
neighbors´ homes, as most houses in densely populated Gaza are
apartment buildings. I live in a rented apartment, too, and if there
were no other houses to move into, I would risk my life protecting
it; not for the house owner, but for myself. I do not care for
Western politicians´ hot air about my decisions, and I get a feeling
that Middle Eastern women more and more do the same.

Your demand to withold information civilians need to know for their
own (because of the occupation extremely limited!!!) choices is not
only endorsing censorship, but worse: taking away women´s ability to
cope in most dire circumstances.

And your using the word “protect” repeats the militaristic world
view that those with the shooting iron have the right to decide
everything and upholds the illusion that any armed forces could
effectively protect civilians.

Looking into any modern warfaring should show you that this is an
illusion, a political fairy tale. The best (and rarely working)
possibility is civilians using their own brains and networking
techniques, and a small military force using their means against a
bigger military force as best as they can, restrict themselves to
that, both groups passing on information they obtained, and nobody
trying to forbid the other´s judgement and values. Perhaps there is
a small chance for the Palestinians to develop a kind of Lebanese
situation – provided that international organisations and the press
catch what is going on, accept the civilian mode and stop selling
the old militarisms to the world.

Of course it is nice to try bring law to military forces, I only
doubt it will ever function. But because of my failure to get rid of
German remilitarisation and to stop Denmark becoming an ally in the
lies-to-begin-with-war I will not criticize you or HRW on that
approach, but please be careful what effect the words used have on
civilians.

Rune C. Olwen
(Danish-German border region)

* * * * *

From: damiano_2[at]yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:30 AM
To: SarahLeah Whitson
Cc: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks

Like many other correspondents, I’m speechless. I suppose Corrie’s death was her own fault by “putting herself in harm’s way”. If she had survived would you have had her, or ISM, charged with a war crime? Maybe you need to get out of the office more.

Damian Walls

Lawyer,
UK

Thank you for your note. If you read our press release carefully, you’ll note that we do not criticize the Palestinians for defending Baroud’s home nor do we criticize non-violent resistance. Instead, we noted that it was unlawful for military commanders, such as Baroud, to urge civilians to the site of an attack, putting them in harm’s way, as the fundamental goal of international humanitarian law is to protect civilians and keep them out of military conflict as much as possible. I hope you can understand the distinction, and the different responsibilities and obligations of civilians vs. military forces. We have of course commented repeatedly on Israel’s unlawful conduct as well, and I invite you to check out our website at www.hrw.org to see all that we have said. You’ll see what we’ve said about Rachel there as well.

Sarah
Leah

From: damiano_2[at]yahoo.co.uk
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:40:26 +0000 (GMT)

thanks. maybe you have something there but as i understand it the guy was appealing for people to protect his HOME, simply as a homeowner/occupier, not a military base or some such, and as you well know [more than i], the context is that the IDF regularly blows up homes including dwellings not in any way linked to palestinian military action but simply as a brutal act of revenge. if baroud had summoned people to protect an arms dump say, then you might have a point. i think your position is completely naive. or, to put it another way, if a palestinian civilian had said to other civilians “this guy’s house is going to be attacked, let’s protect it” that would be ok by your reasoning?

* * * * *

From: costelloja[at]yahoo.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Gaza
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:18:31 -0800 (PST)

Dear Sarah,

Your argument is ridiculous. In general, the use of human shields is wrong because the human shield is being used against his will. These people are voluntarily going to the houses; no one is forcing them. Using your logic, any leader who organizes a non-violent protest against violent state power could be committing war crimes (as long as the violent state warns them first with leaflets or a phone call).

Personally speaking, trying to apply principles of international law to people who are trapped in a prison and treated worse than dogs is also ridiculous.

John

* * * * *

From: khadijau[at]gmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: NormanGF[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Statement on Palestinians
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:38:07 -0800

Ms. Whitson,

I found the latest HRW report denouncing the apparently grevious Palestinian “war crime” of using nonviolent civil protest to thwart illegal Israeli shelling into densely populated areas to be quite cowardly/shameful/difficult to rationalize. Nobody has been injured in this recent spate of protests; surely in the dark annals of human cruelty HRW observes every day even just considering the brutality of the Palestine/Israel situation alone, encouraging nonviolent voluntary protest in instances that harm no-one with the intention to nonviolently protect homes does not constitute a war crime, regardless of whether or not a militant person encourages it. The statement HRW released, was, altogether, quite a travesty, and this is a conclusion coming from someone who supports HRW and admires most of what it does.

Sincerely,
Khadija

* * * * *

From: alshokouh[at]yahoo.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Outrageous and Shameful
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:06:56 -0800 (PST)

Ms.Sarah Leah Whitson,

HRW’s Middle East Division,

By reading the following from HRW’s Middle East Division:

“OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks”

(http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm)

I am just speechless. All I can say is: it is outrageous and shameful.

Ali Shokouhbakhsh

Economics Instructor

San Jose California

SarahLeah Whitson whitsos[at]hrw.org wrote:

Thank you for your note. If you read our press release carefully, you’ll note that we do not criticize the Palestinians for defending Baroud’s home nor do we criticize non-violent resistance. Instead, we noted that it was unlawful for military commanders, such as Baroud, to urge civilians to the site of an attack, putting them in harm’s way, as the fundamental goal of international humanitarian law is to protect civilians and keep them out of military conflict as much as possible. I hope you can understand the distinction, and the different responsibilities and obligations of civilians vs. military forces. We have of course commented repeatedly on Israel’s unlawful conduct as well, and I invite you to check out our website at www.hrw.org to see all that we have said.

Sarah Leah

From: alshokouh[at]yahoo.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Outrageous and Shameful
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:54:39 -0800 (PST)

Dear Ms. Sarah Leah,

HRW’s Middle East Division,

Thanks for reply.

The Palestinians people were volunteered (and not forced) to defend their brothers and sisters. What else they have got left to defend themselves other than their bodies? What else they have got left to lose?

With all do respect, an statement like: “Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks,” is only expected from sources like Fox News. And don’t you think it can become an excellent propaganda tool for the supporters of this illegal and murderous occupation?

Regards,
Ali

* * * * *

Dear Ms Whitson

It was with unexpected speed that Human Rights Watch responded to the non-violent protest by Palestinians to protect the home of one of their own, called by you and the Israeli army, a military commander. You mention that Palestinians were acting as ‘human shields’ and as such in contravention of humanitarian law. I would put it to you that under the Geneva conventions, human shields are people taken against their will to protect an occupying army in its attacks on civilians. This is a pattern used with regularity by the Israeli army and seldom, if ever, criticised by HRW. Perhaps if, under duress, local people were forced to protect a warlord, a criminal, or other self appointed fighter, then you could say that this was a situation where the words ‘human shield’ would have some purchase. Unfortunately for your purposes, this was not the case. This ‘military commander’ is considered a defender of his people and as such has a status in his community, a status that Israel, the occupying power, wishes to destroy. So a call went out and the people came of their own volition to protect a man whom they regard as their protector against the fourth largest army in the world, bent again on destruction. No guns or force were used to make them come. They came in non-violent solidarity; and in a world where guns speak and violence is the order of the day, this was a sign of hope that there are alternatives to violence, war,death and destruction and I would have thought that your organisation would have welcomed this action rather than condemned it.

In your defence you call upon your critics to note ‘that it was unlawful for military commanders, such as Baroud, to urge civilians to the site of an attack, putting them in harm’s way’. Would you kindly direct me to the paragraph in the Geneva conventions which makes such a stipulation.

It is worth stressing that the civilians are only in harm’s way because the occupying power, acting against the Geneva conventions, is choosing the option of collective punishment, about which your site has nothing to say. Collective punishment is of course outlawed by the Geneva conventions and is a prima facie war crime.

You have directed critics to HRW’s site to understand how impartial you are in this matter.

In the interests of balance I did take your advice and discovered, lo and behold, that while the world and many in Israel itself looks on with horror at the barbarism in Gaza, Human rights watch has little to say. This year for instance while the people in Gaza have been living in a prison, and are defenceless against the Israeli army,and facing according to the UN rapporteur, ‘a humanitarian crisis’ Human Rights Watch’ response has, to be charitable, been sluggish and limited in the extreme.

On 20/6/06 HRW called for an impartial investigation into the deaths in Gaza beach, rejecting the Israeli army investigation as flawed.

On 29/06/06 HRW brought out a report which stated that ‘Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s only electrical plant needlessly punishes the civilian population….(and) Palestinian militant groups are committing a war crime (my italics) by using a captured Israeli soldier as a hostage to seek the release of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel’.

I would point out that Israel says she is ‘at war’ and perhaps HRW agrees with this. Or what other explanation does HRW offer? If she is at war surely it is time for negotiation and any captured soldier of the occupying power is a prisoner of war to be exchanged at the end of hostilities. This is not a war crime.

Incidentally there are over 9000 Palestinian prisoners including elected members of the Palestinian authority some of whom are administrative detainees, kept without release date in Israeli prisons. I have perused your site and do not find any report on this fact. But perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know where such a report could be found.

However, the destruction of electrical power supplies is collective punishment of civilians, which according to the Geneva conventions is indeed a war crime. You do not call it such. And you cannot even get your statistics right. In the last month alone 350 Palestinians have been killed. In your statement of 10/11/06, again requesting an independent investigation, this time for Beit Hanoun, you suggest that 49 people have been killed since September 2005. Clearly there is something distinctly fishy happening here. You are moving heaven and earth to protect Israel’s name, while using all your muscle to attack the Palestinians. I note that the only other report you have made into Gaza this year is the one of 18/11/06 which demands that the Palestinian authority end rocket attacks on civilians. No demand that Israel ends its collective punishment and blockade on Gaza.

I would draw your attention to your aims:

We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice.

We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable.

We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law.

We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.

I would suggest that certainly with respect to Israel/Palestine you stand with the occupier and his army to uphold discrimination, to deny political freedom, to shield inhumane conduct in wartime and to muddy the waters about injustice, by targeting the occupied, while limiting your criticisms of the occupier. It would seem that you and your organisation are lost in some desert without a moral compass.

Yours sincerely
Diana Neslen

From: SarahLeah Whitson
To: diana
Cc: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: Report on response to Israeli home demolitions

There is more than one provision of IHL that speaks to keeping civilians away from harm, but the one from the GC is this:

Prot. 1 (51.7) of the GC says: The presence or movements of the
civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to
render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in
attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield,
favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict
shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians
in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to
shield military operations.”

As u can see, there is nothing about compulsion; it is ery much about using civilians/directing movement of civilians.

As for the rest, if you don’t think our work on Israel has been good enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I hope you can do better.

From: diana
To: SarahLeah Whitson
Cc: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Report on response to Israeli home demolitions

The issue is military objectives. I rack my brains to discover what military objectives Israel has in destroying a house within Gaza. Perhaps you could enlighten me. I do not count houses as military installations but then I am clearly not apprised of the nuances of occupation, where Israel in the ascendant clearly uses house demolition as a tool of war.

And it is not opinion that makes me dissatisfied about HRW’s actions, it is the evidence of your own work on Gaza this year which has made a spurious equivalence between the actions of a population under siege and that of a barbaric occupier, always finding the population under siege as being more blameworthy than the occupier.

I would refer you to the latest European Parliament resolution on the Gaza situation which actually does achieve a reasonable balance but recognises where the blame lies.

From: SarahLeah Whitson
To: diana
Cc: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: RE: Report on response to Israeli home demolitions

Diana, that’s why we worded our presser the way we did:

It is a war crime to seek to use the presence of civilians to render
certain points or areas immune from military operations or to direct
the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order
to attempt to shield military objectives from attack. In the case where the object of attack is not a legitimate military target, calling civilians
to the scene would still contravene the international humanitarian law
imperative for parties to the conflict to take all feasible precautions to
protect civilians from the effects of attack. In the event that such abuse
takes place, however, parties to the conflict remain obliged under
international humanitarian law to take precautionary measures and not to
target civilians or cause excessive civilian injury or damage in relation
to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.

From: diana
To: SarahLeah Whitson
Cc: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Report on response to Israeli home demolitions

Sarah

I refer you to this report

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5212870.stm

and ask what response HRW made at the time?

If no response to what was clearly a significant breach of the Geneva conventions, why not?

If a response, why has it not been circulated with the same fanfare as the action by Palestinians in Gaza ?

When was the last time that HRW talked about human shields with respect to Israel’s actions?

Does HRW use the words human shields or ‘coerced civilians’ when they talk about Israel’s actions with respect to the use of civilians to protect their army in the occupied territories?

In 2002 you praised the Israeli court decision to end the use of ‘coerced civilians’ or human shields. What evidence do you have that this decision is being implemented in the field?

Thank you
Diana Neslen

* * * * *

From: mmhhii[at]gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:54 AM
To: SarahLeah Whitson
Cc: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: HRW and human shields

Dear Sarah Lee Whitson,

You write, that the purpose of international humanitarian law is “to
avoid drawing civilians into military conflict”. True, but in saying
so, shouldn’t you focus on what Israel does, instead of condemning the
non-violent response of Palestinian women to an announced Israeli
attack?

How, for God’s sake, can Palestinian authorities, civil or military,
prevent Palestinian civilians from being drawn into military conflict,
when it is the Israeli army which is bringing military conflict to
their homes, camps, villages and cities, day in, day out, without
pause, pity, or respect for human life? Hasn’t the Gazastrip been
reduced by Israel (and its backers in the West) to a kind of
concentration camp, where over one million people are locked up in
horrible circumstances, attacked by the Israeli army, starved by an
international boycott, men, women and children, without adequate water
and electricity resources (bombed by Israel), without hope, without a
future?

But HRW find it in its heart to condemn the non-violent resistance to
yet another Israeli crime, because – yes, it’s true – a militia leader
made the original request, committing, in your words, a “war crime”.
I’m speechless.

Respectfully,

Mart Hiens

From: whitsos[at]hrw.org
To: mmhhii[at]gmail.com
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: RE: HRW and human shields
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:48:44 -0500

We focus well enough on Israel, as our website, and better yet, norm’s
latest book can tell you.

* * * * *

From: matthew.mabraha2[at]gmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Palestinians Civilians as Shields– An Inquiry
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:01:37 -0600

Dear Ms. Whitson:

I am surprised at HRW’s latest finding, described below, stating that Palestinian armed groups “must not endanger Palestnian civilians by encouraging them to gather in and around suspected militants’ homes targeted by the IDF.” Well, that’s precisely what I’d do to protect my neighbors’ homes against attack by an invading army engaged in an illegal military incursion. Would that mean I’m be aiding and abetting terror and terrorists? Isn’t that what AIPAC and the U.S. Congress do with regularity on Capitol Hill, add and abet ongoing war crimes, terror, and terrorism? Maybe I’m a simpleton but wouldn’t the sensible thing be to condemn the IDF and the Israeli government for targeting Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip? Just a question, really. Maybe it’s just me, but this HRW finding really defies all sense of logic, compassion, and (dare I say) every aspect of humanity and civilization. “We are all Palestinians now.” Or at least I am. This was my favorite line: “Human Rights Watch said that the IDF had properly respected its obligations under international humanitarian law in suspending the attack on the Baroud home that would have caused substantial civilian harm.” Now, that’s truly one for the ages.

Thanks, Matthew Abraham

From: whitsos[at]hrw.org
To: matthew.mabraha2[at]gmail.com
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Palestinians Civilians as Shields– An Inquiry
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:22:27 -0500

He didn’t “inform” them; he urged them to help him his defend his house. He is directly quoted in media reports saying this is what he did, and there have been no denials or different reports about that. Compulsion is not an essential element here; military commanders must not seek to use civilians, voluntary or not.

From: matthew.mabraha2[at]gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:44 PM
To: SarahLeah Whitson
Cc: Norman Finkelstein
Subject: Re: Palestinians Civilians as Shields– An Inquiry

Dear Sarah:

I appreciate the reply, but I’m not so sure that Baroud encouraged Palestinians to gather at his home to “defend” it–in an act of non-violent resistance–against an IDF air strike. What if Baroud “informed” Palestinians civilians of the impending IDF airstrike and these civilians voluntarily decided to use their bodies as “human shields” against the air strike? You’ve noted that it was unlawful for military commanders, such as Baroud, to urge civilians to the site of an attack, putting them in harm’s way. Does HRW have definitive evidence that Baroud “urged” Palestinians civilians to come to his home to defend it in act of non-violent resistance or did he simply “inform” them that the IDF had alerted Baroud to the impending air strike? The distinction is important, no? Here is how the story was reported in the HRW report from Finkelstein’s website: “Baroud reportedly summoned neighbors and friends to protect his house, and a crowd of hundreds of Palestinians gathered in, around, and on the roof of the house.” I think we can agree the the distinction between “summoning,” “urging,” “coercing,” and “informing” are crucially important. What compulsory power was involved in having the civilians gather at Baroud’s home? Have you ruled out the possibility that every single Palestinian civilian who showed up at Baroud’s home may have come out of a sense of honor, dignity, and in defiance of U.S. and Israeli war crimes against the indigenous population throughout the region?

Thanks, Matthew Abraham

* * * * *

From: satyra[at]gmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Human shields?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:54:31 -0600

Sarah,

“Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm’s way is unlawful.”

Frankly, I am surprised and disgusted by this HRW report (
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm), the above statement in particular. It is the pinnacle of irresponsibility to condemn peaceful resistance to illegal slaughter, and to remain silent on the murderous crimes of Israel. God forbid the Palestinians move a peaceful muscle to defend themselves; Perhaps they ought to just lay down and die?

Derek

On 11/23/06, SarahLeah Whitson whitsos[at]hrw.org wrote:

Thank you for your note. If you read our press release carefully, you’ll note that we do not criticize the Palestinians for defending Baroud’s home. Instead, we noted that it was unlawful for military commanders, such as Baroud, to urge civilians to the site of an attack, putting them in harm’s way. We have of course commented repeatedly on Israel’s unlawful conduct as well, and I invite you to check out our website at www.hrw.org to see all that we have said.

From: dsatyra[at]gmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Human shields?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:25:03 -0600

Sarah,

The whole point of non violent protest is to stand directly in harm’s way, so under what circumstances, if any, does HRW condone such a peaceful protest? It seems that the whole point is not that Baroud encouraged people to stand in the way of an Israeli attack, but rather that the attack itself is entirely unjustified, illegal, and immoral. As the attack was going to occur (b/c Israel acts as it pleases) it seems to me entirely justified that civilians made the choice to peacefully resist it. This event should encourage us to look more closely at the nature of these Israeli perpetrated murders, not to criticize the call to resist them in a non-violent matter. What are the Palestinians supposed to do when Israel makes the decision to illegally murder them, destroy their homes and lives, etc? It seems standing together in a peaceful pack is a pretty legitimate response and perhaps Baroud called for Palestinians promulgate the dignified tradition of Satyagraha.

Of course, HRW is an important organization and it is in light of its respectable reputation that the present release is so discouraging.

Thank you,

Derek

* * * * *

From: maren.hackmann[at]t-online.de

Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:30 AM
To: SarahLeah Whitson
Cc: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Condemning Nonviolent Protests? You can’t be serious!

Dear Sarah Leah Whitson,

When even the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), with its shameful history of presenting official Israeli announcements as facts, feels compelled to show a modicum of respect for Palestinians who have successfully thwarted Israeli attacks by practicing nonviolence, and when even the FAZ goes so far as to put the alleged Palestinian “misuse” of human shields in quotation marks, why is it that you, out of all people, must denounce their heroism?

When some bully at school, club in hand, threatens to beat a kid to pulp, and a few other little kids form a circle to shield him, do you find that repellent too? Or do you commend them for their display of courage and solidarity?

As Human Rights Watch notes in yesterday’s statement, between July and 15 November 2006 alone, Israel “destroyed 251 homes in Gaza , leaving 1577 people homeless.” According to the FAZ (!), Prime Minister Haniyeh, from Hamas, said that the Palestinian protests were also a message to the UN Security Council which has failed to condemn the Israeli airstrikes. Now, who’s the extremist? Who’s putting whom in harm’s way? And where are the criminals? On the roofs and the rubble of Gaza or perhaps in snug offices in the United States , Israel , and Europe ?

Sincerely,

Maren Hackmann

“SarahLeah Whitson” whitsos[at]hrw.org schrieb:

Dear Maren,

Thank you for your note. If you read our press release carefully, you’ll note that we do not, as you say below, ‘denounce” the Palestinians for defending Baroud’s home. Instead, we noted that it was unlawful for military commanders, such as Baroud, to urge civilians to the cite of an attack, putting them in harm’s way. We have of course commented repeatedly on Israel ‘s unlawful conduct as well, as Norm can tell you, and as you will find cited throughout his latest book.

Sarah Leah

From: maren.hackmann[at]t-online.de

To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Condemning Nonviolent Protests? You can’t be serious!
Date: 23 Nov 2006 16:05 GMT

Dear Sarah Leah,

I do appreciate your quick reply but, again, I am dismayed to find that the notion of solidarity is completely absent from your letter. The way I see it, any Palestinian who’s calling on others to protect a home, be it in Gaza, the West Bank, or East Jerusalem, is not only defending that particular home but organizing their people. And this is precisely what the Palestinians, including their military commanders, should be doing. To discourage them from doing so is, in my view, a desaster, especially when it comes from well-meaning people like yourself and respected institutions like Human Rights Watch.

Maren

* * * * *

From: tarnopol[at]cox.net

Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:39 AM
To: SarahLeah Whitson
Cc: Norman Finkelstein
Subject: Shields and shields

Dear Sarah Lee Whitson:

I had a feeling, long before the HRW announcement, that the use of the term “human shield” would cause confusion. Most people associate that phrase with the involuntary use of innocent people to deter attacks.

From what I’ve read, not only was the Gaza action voluntary — it took the government (what’s left of it) completely by surprise. This seems to rise out of the vaunted “will of the people.” That after the fact the government encouraged what was already occurring makes this not “human shields” in the involuntary sense, but rather extremely courageous, last-ditch use of the last weapon most Gazans have: their own bodies.

Am I to understand that HRW can’t tell the difference between what Gazans did of their own free will and this, quoted in the press release?
“As recently as July 2006, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups have documented the IDF’s forcible use of Palestinians as human shields in a well publicized incident during military operations in Beit Hanoun. According to the groups, the IDF blindfolded six civilians, including two minors, and forced them to stand in front of soldiers who took over civilian homes during a raid in northern Gaza.”
Any clarification would be welcome. I know you’ve been pounded recently for being to “critical” of Israel, but c’mon.

Thank you,

Doug Tarnopol

SarahLeah Whitson wrote:

Doug,

Thank you for your note. Contrary to what you might have read elsewhere, the fact is that Baroud, a military commander, was quoted as having urged people to come to the scene of the pending attack to protect his home, in violation of international law that requires parties to a conflict (e.g. military folk) from seeking to use civilians to shield from an attack and also from putting civilians in harm’s way, even if the attack is illegal. Compulsion in not a requisite element – encouragement, urging, etc., are all similarly unlawful. We have not criticized civilians for breaking the law – only the military commanders (and Baroud’s exhortation was followed by the spokesman of the PRC urging other civilians to repeat the action).

While this is different and as you correctly point out, less egregious, than the Israeli forcible use of civilians as human shields, it remains nonetheless a violation of international humanitarian law, the purpose of which is to avoid drawing civilians into military conflict, as much as possible.

Please do continue to monitor our work and I do welcome your comments about the fairness and accuracy of our coverage. We’re not perfect, but we do our best.

Sarah Leah

From: tarnopol[at]cox.net
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Shields and shields
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:45:38 -0500

Hi, Sarah Leah:

Thank you for your prompt response, on Thanksgiving no less.

Baroud was the guy who went to the local mosque to ask for help, I take it? I see your point (from your perspective), but who ordered the Palestinian women to take the “militants” out of the mosque a few days before? Begging for protection seems like a difference in kind, not in degree, from ordering protection. Free will separates the two, or whatever kind of choice we have.

I do appreciate what HRW does, and realize it’s a tough job.

However, my question, which maybe you can answer, or point me toward some IHL (of which I only know second-hand): Under what conditions is organized (especially bottom-up) nonviolent resistance against violence is legal? Some must be. Was the Salt March illegal (retroactively), or civil rights marches in which violence was likely (in the US)? The Warsaw uprising, joining in which was a death sentence? French partisans in WWII? And so on.

I have a feeling these distinctions are slippery. It seems that forcing against one’s will is the key; if someone wants to risk his or her life, I see no reason to condemn that. The Palestinians have been abandoned by virtually everyone; what, exactly, are they supposed to do to resist, if this tactic is denied them? Hope that the IDF will be nice?

I think the extreme power differential has to enter into the judgment. Doesn’t IHL have some set of degrees — like the difference between first-degree murder and involuntary homicide? You have a dead person at the end, but intention enters into it. I mean, to take the obvious extreme example, would it have been a war crime for the inmates of a concentration camp to have used “human shields” — voluntary ones — in order to get at a guard tower and kill the guards? The background of the violation, if such it is, ought to be highlighted: the Israeli government has turned Gaza into a huge prison or concentration camp (not (yet?) a death camp), starving and shelling the Gazans systematically with international backing. In that context, if a bunch of brave or desperate Palestinians answer the call and use their own bodies — not Qassams — to protect each other, I mean, what’s the problem?

Of course, the Palestinians are daring the IDF to kill them. I call that courage — born out of desperation, as HRW and others have demonstrated.

Please take your time in responding, as it is TG day (as ethically mixed as that may be).

Best, Doug

* * * * *

From: feroze.sidhwa[at]gmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
Subject: concerning Israel/Occupied Territories
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:57:39 -0600

Dear Mrs. Whitson,

I am a contributor to HRW, and proudly so, but I must confess that I do not understand this statement concerning the new Palestinian tactic of civilians voluntarily placing themselves in harms way to stop Israeli violations of international law.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm

According to this statement “calling civilians to a location that the opposing side has identified for attack” is a violation of international humanitarian law. This may be so, but the statement does not include a single instance of any Palestinian armed group “calling civilians” anywhere. Instead it seems that Palestinians are announcing the fact that Israel has declared it will destroy a house or some other civilian object (which is illegal under international law), and then Palestinian civilians are voluntarily gathering at these locations since they know Israel does not want the negative press coverage that would surely result from dozens of unarmed civilians being killed in an Israeli air strike. Nothing in the press release indicates that participation in this 100% nonviolent tactic is anything but voluntary on the part of each and every person who has gathered at these sites.

If such tactics are illegal then I simply cannot understand how any nonviolent resistance by a civilian population to violence by an occupying army or brutal regime can ever be legal. The paradigmatic cases of nonviolent “national” resistance are the Indian Independence and American Civil Rights movements. In both cases national leaders (Gandhi, King and a long list of others) called on civilians to put themselves in harm’s way specifically and only because they believed that the society they were fighting against or trying to alter would not stand for mass civilian casualties. Indeed, Martin Luther King, Jr. was well known for deliberately putting women and children (and himself) at the front of marches in the American South and having those women and children march directly into police barricades, even when the relevant police authorities had explicitly stated that they would meet any and all marchers with extreme and often deadly violence.

Yet the Palestinian “armed groups” don’t even appear to have gone as far as King; it appears they have only endorsed the tactic of civilians placing themselves in harm’s way, not explicitly called on specific people to do so. And even if the Palestinian leadership has called on Palestinian civilians to gather at the site of expected Israeli air strikes, I fail to see how that is any different from King calling on civilians to throw themselves at police barricades, or Indian civilians lying down on train tracks in India to stop the movement of British troops.

The appropriate response to this new Palestinian tactic would have been for Human Rights Watch to renew its call for a real system of enforcement of international human rights law, and to decry the fact that the hunted and starving people of Gaza are forced to defend themselves and what is left of their society by risking even greater misery and mass death. HRW has an honorable legacy of cataloguing and publicizing human rights abuses in Israel/Palestine, including Israeli abuses of Palestinians, Palestinian abuses of Israelis and intracommunal abuses. This statement is a blow to that legacy. I doubt it will be retracted, but I do hope it will be accompanied by a reasonable statement laying out the plain facts of the matter: that Israeli targeting of the entire Palestinian civilian infrastructure in Gaza is a war crime and at this point has certainly reached the level of a crime against humanity, and that world (and especially American) complicity in this long-running murder of a nation must end immediately. Human Rights Watch has taken on a heavy burden by virtue of its mission, and it simply cannot afford to fail in its endeavour to “stand with victims and activists…to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice.” It is quite clear who the victims, activists and offenders are in this case.

Respectfully,
Feroze Sidhwa