* NEW: Reader letters; updated Dec. 26, 2006 06:25 PM.
* Please write to Kenneth Roth & Sarah Leah Whitson of HRW.
A comment by Norman G. Finkelstein
11.29.2006
Even by the grim standards of Gaza, the past five months have been cruel ones.
|
Some four hundred Palestinians, mostly unarmed civilians, have been killed during Israeli attacks. (Four Israeli soldiers and two civilians have been killed.) Israel has sealed off Gaza from the outside world while the international community has imposed brutal sanctions, ravaging Gaza’s already impoverished economy. “Gaza is dying,” Patrick Cockburn reported in The Independent, “its people are on the edge of starvation….A whole society is being destroyed….The sound that Palestinians most dread is an unknown voice on their cell phone saying they have half an hour to leave their home before it is hit by bombs or missiles. There is no appeal.” |
|||||||
Predictably Gaza teetered on the precipice of civil war. “The experiment was a success: The Palestinians are killing each other,” Amira Hass wryly observed in Haaretz, “They are behaving as expected at the end of the extended experiment called ‘what happens when you imprison 1.3 million human beings in an enclosed space like battery hens.’”
It is at times like this that we expect human rights organizations to speak out.
How has Human Rights Watch responded to the challenge?
It criticized Israel for destroying Gaza’s only electrical plant, and also called on Israel to “investigate” why its forces were targeting Palestinian medical personnel in Gaza and to “investigate” the Beit Hanoun massacre.
On the other hand, it accused Palestinians of committing a “war crime” after they captured an Israeli soldier and offered to exchange him for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli jails. (Israel was holding 10,000 Palestinians prisoner.) It demanded that Palestinians “bring an immediate end to the lawlessness and vigilante violence” in Gaza. (Compare Amira Hass’s words.) It issued a 101-page report chastising the Palestinian Authority for failing to protect women and girls. It called on the Palestinian Authority to take “immediate steps to halt” Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel.
Were this record not shameful enough, HRW crossed a new threshold at the end of November.
After Palestinians spontaneously responded to that “unknown voice on a cell phone” by putting their own bare bodies in harm’s way, HRW rushed to issue a press release warning that Palestinians might be committing a “war crime” and might be guilty of “human shielding.” (”Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks“)
In what must surely be the most shocking statement ever issued by a human rights organization, HRW indicted Palestinian leaders for supporting this nonviolent civil disobedience:
Prime Minister Haniyeh and other Palestinian leaders should be renouncing, not embracing, the tactic of encouraging civilians to place themselves at risk.
The international community has for decades implored Palestinian leaders to forsake armed struggle in favor of nonviolent civil disobedience. Why is a human rights organization now attacking them for adopting this tactic?Is it a war crime to protect one’s home from collective punishment?
Is it human shielding if a desperate and forsaken populace chooses to put itself at deadly risk in order to preserve the last shred of its existence?
Indeed, although Israeli soldiers have frequently used Palestinians as human shields in life-threatening situations, and although HRW has itself documented this egregious Israeli practice, HRW has never once called it a war crime.
It took weeks before HRW finally issued a report condemning Israeli war crimes in Lebanon. Although many reliable journalists were daily documenting these crimes, HRW said it first had to conduct an independent investigation of its own.
But HRW hastened to deplore the nonviolent protests in Gaza based on anonymous press reports which apparently got crucial facts wrong.
Why this headlong rush to judgment?
Was HRW seeking to appease pro-Israel critics after taking the heat for its report documenting Israeli war crimes in Lebanon?
After Martin Luther King delivered his famous speech in 1967 denouncing the war in Vietnam, mainstream Black leaders rebuked him for jeopardizing the financial support of liberal whites. “You might get yourself a foundation grant,” King retorted, “but you won’t get yourself into the Kingdom of Truth.”
HRW now also stands poised at a crossroads: foundation grants or the Kingdom of Truth?
A first step in the right direction would be for it to issue a retraction of its press release and an apology.
HRW executive director Kenneth Roth “commended” Israel during its last invasion for warning people in south Lebanon to flee - before turning it into a moonscape, slaughtering the old, infirm and poor left behind. It would seem that Palestinian leaders and people, too, merit some recognition for embracing the tactics of Gandhi and King in a last desperate bid to save themselves from annihilation.
(Many HRW staffers have reportedly been appalled by the press release. Your letter of protest can make a difference. Email HRW Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson: whitsos@hrw.org - and HRW executive director Kenneth Roth–RothK@hrw.org.) Please cc letters to this website for posting.
Reader letters
Note: Click here for letters dating Nov 22 - 28, 2006
NEW! From: scott sorrell
To: RothK[at]hrw.org
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:41 PM
Subject: statements from HRW on Gaza
Dear Sir,
I have been a vocal defender of you in the past, but the most recent statements by HRW on the situation in Gaza is simply unacceptable morally.
I was deeply offended at the HRW official stance on Palestinians standing up in a non-violent fashion and deterring the destruction of Palestinian homes. which can ONLY be classified as collective punishment.
Where is the sense of justice that HRW continually quotes when HRW berates a group for courageously doing what the international consensus cannot, namely staking life and limb for a simple basic moral principle?
Please take the moral high ground once again, and place HRW’s usual impeccable reputation on the line for the diensfranchised, dispossessed, and displaced Palestinians.
Our future generations will judge us on how we as a collective humane group deal with this polarizing issue, and HRW should play the role of the leader, not the blind follower of power politics.
Best wishes,
Scott Sorrell
Lafayette, LA
From: mr1001nights[at]aol.com
To: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Mr. Finkelstein
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:50:49 -0500
I think that in order to determine whether HRW’s statement is fair, we should change the words IDF/Israel for the word HAMAS in this key paragraph:
“An important consideration [in determining whether HAMAS' actions fell within the purview of the law regulating the conduct of hostilities during armed conflict], is whether HAMAS had reason to believe that the ISRAELI house [a three-story building housing three families] was being used for military purposes at the time of the planned attack. To date, Human Rights Watch has not obtained conclusive evidence as to whether the house was being so used, but eyewitnesses we have been able to speak with, including two journalists on the scene, claim they saw no such evidence. HAMAS, moreover, has not responded to our requests to explain what military objective it could have had in targeting not a militant but his home after having ordered it vacated.
Would HRW ever write something like this?
Jonathan
From: paulowh[at]hotmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, roth@hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: HRW Retraction
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:51:53 +0000
Human Rights Watch,
Are Human Rights meant only for the rich? Accusing Palestinians of War Crimes for Human Shielding in the protection of homes and loved ones is insane. The madness that is allowed to take place due to the interests of power, and then blaming the victims of war crimes is the epitome of hypocrisy. All people live their lives in order to maintain basic human needs, food, shelter, and community, but what we are witnessing in the Israel/Palestine conflict is the raping of the Palestinians of these basic necessities. If anyone is to be accused of War Crimes, it should be all those Occidental Nations who watch and support the ravaging of the Palestinian people at the hands of the IDF. If we are to speak frankly, the ones committing war crimes are all the nations and peoples who stand idly by watching, and allowing such atrocities to take place, and in this I too am guilty.
The Occidental Nations have undermined Palestine’s democracy, allowed for the division and suffering of Palestinians due to their race, have allowed the displacing of Palestinians from their land and homes, and have been attempting to rape the Palestinian people of their dignity through financial blackmail.
Is this how the West champions Human Rights? For the interests of Power, has Human Rights Watch sided with the Executioners? The onus to rectify the situation in the Middle East is not on the victims, but the perpetrators, and in this light HRW should retract its statement.
Paul
From: colleenmcguire[at]mindspring.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: RothK[at]hrw.org
Subject: War crime to encourage defense of homes?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:00:38 -0500
Dear Ms. Whitson and Mr. Roth,
When a people are as besieged as the Palestinians (over 400 dead, mostly unarmed civilians) engage in non-violent self-defense, I am shocked that Human Rights Watch proposes to accuse a “Palestinian commander” as guilty of a war crime for rallying his people to resist attacks non-violently. I suppose HRW would have regarded Ho Chi Minh as a war criminal too for rallying his people to resist foreign invaders on their territory.
Colleen McGuire
New York City
From: atahindi[at]yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:51 PM
To: SarahLeah Whitson; Ken Roth
Subject: On Human Rights Issues Concerning Palestinians
Dear Sir and Madam,
It is from my great respect for the believers of Human Rights, such as yourself that I commend your work. In contrast, it is my experience living in the military conditions of my motherland that I find shame in your criticism of the Palestinian people.
Never have I been so confused as to how the Palestinians, who have never had a national standing army governed by the Palestinians alone, be guilty of war crimes. Is it now a crime to demand the release of thousands of innocent prisoners, including women and children, who are locked up on no crime at all. Growing up, I saw many of my friends taken to prison. One of them, taken and held for three years. Do you know why? Because when they were rounding up the youth during their invasion of Ramallah in 2002, he did not listen to their call to come outside the house with the rest of the city youth. He did this because he was the man in the house and could not leave his mother and sisters alone.
When the Palestinians take the degrees of civil disobedience, such as the thinkers of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Henry David Thoreau explored, we are considered of war crimes. By putting our bodies to protect our own, with no weapon in hand?
I have read about the respectable Mr. Roth and his struggle for Human Rights, especially after his father fled Nazi Germany . Truly, do I ever commend such a wonderful man who fled persecution. That the Palestinians, who are being starved and murdered, have fought against a cruel and illegal military occupation, is now a war crime?
Do not tell me otherwise. If you are both parents, imagine my father. He waited for us on his balcony, in open sniper range while helicopters searched our villages and shot their missiles. Imagine how he felt wondering if we, his children would come home tonight. Imagine the pain he felt. It came to a point that when he would ask me how was our trip to school, I would say Thank God, no problems. But I lied to my father. Everyday, and I promise you, everyday, I was shot at. I was children shot with their backpacks still on their backs. I saw everyone run from the gases they shot our way. I even got so used to it, people would wonder how was I so calm when I would carry the children and run with them to where the gases had not reached.
It is really sad if you cannot imagine this. I, a firm believer in human rights, am appalled by your decision and choice of words. Your reports are absolutely shameful, especially coming from educated people such as yourself. So instead, when I take my kids to visit their motherland, I should expect them to lie to me as well. Thank you for your time in reading this. Though I find it shameful, your perceptions of Palestinians, I still applaud your work in the various other fields of Human Rights.
Best Regards,
Ata Hindi
Subject: RE: On Human Rights Issues Concerning Palestinians
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:49:23 -0500
From: “Assef Ashraf” ashrafa@hrw.org
To: atahindi[at]yahoo.com
Thank you for your correspondence. Please refer to http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm for a further response.
Sincerely,
Assef Ashraf
Middle East and North Africa Division Associate
Human Rights Watch
350 Fifth Avenue , 34th floor
New York , NY 10118-3299 USA
Tel: +1 212 216 1824
Fax: +1 212 736 1300
From: greg.in.bet[at]gmx.net
To: RothK[at]hrw.org, whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Gaza situation, non-violent resistance
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:13:53 +0100
Dear Sarah, Kenneth,
I am sure that you have received many, many emails taking you to task for your report. I am equally sure that you expect that, as it comes with the territory when speaking out. I trust that you have the patience, dedication, and wisdom to read one more and listen to the advice that has been given by so many other people as well as by me.
I’m aware that some people, somewhere in your careers will have told you that you lose your legitimacy as a defender of human rights if you don’t speak out against violations of human rights, whoever carries them out. I know that what I’m going to say may cause you to stop reading, but here it is anyway. That isn’t what causes you to lose legitimacy.
What makes you lose legitimacy is when you don’t stand up for the oppressed, the weak and the defenceless. When you criticize the weak, fighting for their very survival, this makes all of the people around the world who are your natural allies stop listening to you. It makes all your hard work go unnoticed, unused, and uncared for. The fight for human rights can only have meaning if it is a struggle on behalf of those without power against those who do.
By failing to recognise the justice of the action and the justice of the struggle, Human Rights Watch has scored a strategic own goal. Already in the Middle East there is a suspicion that the dialogue of human rights hides either a cultural or explicit colonial agenda. Your pronouncement has further isolated those working for human rights in the region, and made their work considerably harder.
Only a retraction of your statement would help to solve this. Sadly, I doubt that Human Rights Watch is prepared to suffer the loss of face. The cause of the powerless is the worse as a result.
Regards,
Greg Jack
From: yasmine.abukhazneh[at]gmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: HRW Press Release
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:50:50 +0200
Dear Human Rights Watch,
Please keep in mind that innocent civilian’s lives are at stake, and your duty is to report these crimes objectively- in the hope that this information will curb future attacks of the sort, by making the world more aware of the injustices that are being practiced around the world. I was very disheartened with the HRW reports.
Yours Sincerely,
Yasmine M. Abu Khazneh
Dear Sara Leah Whitson - HRW Middle East Director
As an Israeli born citizen who is a veteran of the 1956 Israeli invasion of Egypt and the 1967 Israel’s pre-emptive war on its Arab neighbours , I was appalled to read the Homan Rights Watch’s press release which condemns the Palestinians for being guilty of “human Shielding “. Israel , as you may be well aware of, has one of the strongest army in the world which deploys high-tec weaponry ,such, as guided missiles, Apache helicopters, unmanned drones , F16 jet fighters, multi-functions tanks ,and armoured Caterpillar bulldozers in its relentless onslaught on the Palestinians . The State of Israel receives from USA 2.4 billion dollars per year in military aid which is spent by Israel on purchasing and developing advanced weapons that are “battle-tasted ” on the crowded Palestinian refugee camps and run down townships and villages in Gaza. The Human Right Watch’s group seems to ignore the fact that the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is between an illegal OCCUPIER - who constantly violate UN resolutions , The UN Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention and human rights law - and an OCCUPIED people which is surrounded and ruled for the past 39 years by a mighty army that has a complete command of the sea, airspace and ground the land of Palestine . It is ,in the words of John Dugard - the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights - an enclosed prison whose keys were thrown away .
The Israeli military continues to carry out with impunity its collective punishment against the Palestinians - demolishing houses while their inhabitants are still inside and using non-combatant Palestinians as human shields - as it has done in its incursion of Jenin (2002) . The Palestinian non-violent resistance is an act of defiance demonstrating the human fortitude and courage of wives , mothers and grandmothers who dare standing up to Israel’s inhuman and illegal actions while the international community keeps its silence. The Human Rights Watch group appears anxious to regard the conflict as a symmetrical struggle between two equal states, or powers, and to produce a spuriously balanced reporting . By doing so HRW lost its moral credibility and personal integrity.
Yours sincerely
Ruth Tenne
London
From: jav_petkov[at]yahoo.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: “Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks”
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Dear Mr. Kenneth Roth and Ms. Sarah Leah Whitson,
I would like to express my amazement by the idiocity in HRW report published at
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm .
At first I thought that the words
“There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack. Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm¢s way is unlawful. “
presented in Norman Finkelstein’s site are taken out of context and that it has somehow “slipped” out and you didn’t really mean what I thought you meant. Then I read the original article. I searched for any icons or subscript denoting it as a paid publication, IDF public announcement or something esle to distinguish between a regular HRW article and the biased report I was reading. I did not find any so the http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm indeed appeared to be a genuine HRW publication.Therefore I would like to ask the following questions:
Why do you think calling unarmed others for help is a war crime? What was the damage resulting of this action?
Were the members of the human shield forced to participate or was it just a person desperately asking neighbours to save a home promising to return the favour when IDF comes for theirs?
Why is the demolishment of some person’s home a “valid military target”? Indeed it is valid if random a.k.a. collective punishment is a valid military tactic. But it is not, is it?
I hereby urge HRW to retract issuing an apology for “Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks” published on November 22 of this year.
This press release currently is a perfect fit for another chapter in Finkelstein’s “Beyond Chutzpah” book. And it really hurts to see HRW in such shameful context.
Faithfully yours,
Javor Petkov
Sofia, Bulgaria
From: abuhabsah[at]gmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Concerning Palestine
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:58:55 -0600
If the emotions and thoughts of an avid observer of your organization mean anything to you, then I hope you take the next few sentences very seriously. I hereby condemn your organization in the highest possible form as a result of your recent report titled, “OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks”. The very fact that one of the members of your staff had even fathom the thought of even considering labeling this act to save what’s left of humanity in Palestine as “wrong” is beyond ridiculous and very much quite ludicrous. It must not be obvious to you that I find it kind of funny and I find it kind of sad that Human Rights Watch published this article. Both funny and sad that you see a non-violent resistance somehow being morally wrong. So now I understand violent resistance is wrong and non-violent resistance is somehow even more wrong, I say to you and you’re organization, how dare you? How dare you publish such filth? Are the natives of Palestine not allowed to resist? According to your organization, do they even classify as a Human Being’s? Can you please inform me of what human rights do the natives of Palestine have? I hope you consider my thoughts seriously. Thank you for your time, but if you ask me, according to HRW, the natives of Palestine are not even allowed to have time, only humans have time, and you’re organization no longer classifies native Palestinians to be of the human species. This is the part where I would normally shed a tear, but then again, only human’s cry.
Sincerely a Palestinian-American,
Nidal Abuhabsah
From: martianjournalist[at]yahoo.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:00:52 -0800 (PST)
Dear Mr. Kenneth Roth and Ms. Sarah Leah Whitson,
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry after reading your report at
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm
You say “There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack. Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm’s way is unlawful”
By that definition, every civil disobedience action organized by Mahatma Gandhi was a “war crime”. He deliberately asked poor Indians to put themselves in harms way (and never to retaliate), challenging the overwhelmingly militarily superior British occupiers to carry out violence against them if they so wished.
And you miss a crucial point here, namely that the Hamas member or the Popular resistance member whose houses were targeted to be blown up by the IDF never coerced any of those women to come stand as human shields over the houses. The women came to become human shields directly in line of Israeli fire because their inner conviction led them to do so.
So then, if the women were not coerced but came from their own free will, are you accusing those women of war crimes?
Unarmed civilians putting themselves in the line of fire because they believe solidarity and threat of bad publicity will stop the aggressors from carrying out the attacks on their neighborhoods is a war crime?
Let me ask you this question - what other choice do they have to protect the homes?
And if the IDF thinks that those houses in the territories illegally occupied by Israel are weapons caches, then why not conduct a police raid instead of destroying whole structures that are homes to women and children, among others?
Common sense suggests that they do not want to capture the weapons and militants in the houses, even if their allegations are true. The whole purpose is to destroy homes at will at a moments notice, which is obviously part of a deliberate ethnic cleansing policy on part of the Israeli state against the Palestinians.
Imagine if an occupying military power were destroying homes in your suburbs whenever and wherever it felt like and at a moment’s notice - what would be the foremost concern in your mind?
How would it feel to be like a lab rat or a guinea pig, completely at the mercy of a vastly superior occupying military force that could take your house down at it’s whim and fancy?
Would you just passively accept it , or try to get a some control on your own security and well being back from the occupier in order to maintain elementary sanity in your life?
Palestinian mothers have just discovered a brilliant non-violent tactic to get some human dignity , in form of control over their own security and well being, back from the IDF, who have consistently treated the Palestinians as lab rats, and especially more so after the unilateral dismantling of illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza.
Palestinians still have no control over their economy, travel, basic infrastructure, even their own tax money. They are trying to put their lives on the line in order to gain the basic human dignity of not having their homes blown up at the whim and fancy of the IDF - and you call that a war crime? ? Is that not shameful?
Regards,
Bramhesh
From: hegramso[at]frisurf.no
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Human shields
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:54:49 +0100
Dear Mr. Kenneth Roth and Ms. Sarah Leah Whitson.
You people seem to have learned something from Golda Meir’s famous statement: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we can’t forgive them for making us kill theirs.”
How low can an Arab sink? Request unarmed fellow oppressed to protect homes with their bodies and risk that the IDF kill them? I agree that it is an annoying passive aggressiveness and a dirty power tactic of the Palestinians not being armed with at least some stones or molotov cocktails when they confront Israeli helicopters, bulldozers and tanks. It makes the occupied look innocent and the occupiers bad. So bad that the IDF had to drop slaughtering the Palestinians and couldn’t level the homes to the ground. I fully understand your objections.
We know what a burden it is for the IDF to both get rid of the Palestinians and to run a laboratory of more than a million guinea pigs for the weapons industry of the West.
So send the Palestinians to Haag and make them speak a language the IDF can coop with.
Best whishes from a woman overseas.
From: Workforjustice[at]aol.com
To: RothK[at]hrw.org, whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: “Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks”
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:04:30 EST
Dear Kenneth Ross and Sarah Leah Whitson:
“Prime Minister Haniyeh and other Palestinian leaders should be renouncing, not embracing, the tactic of encouraging civilians to place themselves at risk.” As a supporter of HRW, I am dismayed by your recent condemnation of the extraordinary courage of Palestinian citizens to stand up to their oppressors and tormentors through non-violent actions. This is civil resistance, plain and simple. And it is what the world has requested and expected of them for some time now. Were not these the very methods used by Gandhi to liberate India from English colonialism?
I have suffered in spirit with the Palestinian people for many years and have found the silence of the international community in the face of outrageous injustices deafening and appalling. Thus, when I watched especially the women of Beit Hanoun face arrogance and deadly weapons, I felt both a profound sense of solidarity and renewed hope in the capacity of the human spirit. Even when some of their comrades fell, they were not intimidated. To think that Human Rights Watch missed the spiritual power of that moment is startling in its implications.
Here is my original response to the event, published by the Tucson Citizen:
In every great struggle for freedom and justice there comes an electrifying moment when the tide turns: Mahatma Gandhi marching with his followers to the sea, Rosa Parks refusing to relinquish her seat and move to the back of the bus, Palestinian women rushing to the rescue of their trapped men, facing bullets and death.
Human beings were not made to live as unequals, behind barbed wire and walls, endlessly oppressed. Nor were they made to be conquerors, occupiers, torturers. It is the tide-turners who tilt the scales toward balance, providing movements with the energy to end one people’s domination of another.
Already, the women of Beit Hanoun are hailed as heroes in the valiant struggle for Palestinian rights and self-determination.
In case you still resist to see the deeper truth of what is unfolding in Palestine (with yet another group having protected a home slated for demolition) permit me to make the point differently: When people have lost everything, they are no longer afraid, even of losing their lives. That state of freedom is the power that breaks the yoke of dominance an oppressor has over them. Therefore, Israel can never succeed in subduing a people willing to die – and die for one another!
I salute the Palestinians, their faith, fortitude and long-suffering. If anyone can lead humanity to a new beginning, an expanded version of what it means to be human, they certainly have earned their place in the struggle for the implementation of an idea whose time has come.
It saddens me that HRW cannot comprehend the immense significance of those newest developments in Gaza.
Sincerely,
Rev. Rosemarie Carnarius
From: jlucb[at]club-internet.fr
To: RothK[at]hrw.org, whitsos[at]hrw.org>
Subject: A turning point in HRW’s reputation?
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 15:05:50 +0100
Hello,
I’m writing to you regarding your latest report regarding the situation in Gaza, “Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks”, as I, up to now, used to to consider HRW reports as fair and indisputable.
In this report, you shockingly decided to criticise Palestinian’s desperate choice to put itself at deadly risk in order to preserve its threatened existence, and naming it a “human shielding”.
While the international community has for decades implored Palestinian leaders to forsake armed struggle in favor of nonviolent civil disobedience, HRW is now attacking them for adopting this tactic… (and for decades HRW thoroughtly documented Israeli soldiers very frequent use of Palestinians as human shields in life-threatening situations…)
Is civil disobedience as a form of resistance to continuous agression (documented by all human rights organisations, without exception) of the 4th more powerfull army in the world, becoming a war crime to HRW opinion?
In absence of any explanation from your side, your sudden bias seems to indicate a wish to appease pro-Israel critics, and to secure HRW funding …. ?
The end of HRW fair reporting?
Regards,
Jean-Luc LOUPIS
From: yonitpercival[at]hotmail.com
To: normangf[at]hotmail.com
CC: anaheedalhardan[at]yahoo.co.uk, audreybomse[at]hotmail.com, C.J.Mullin[at]lse.ac.uk, horseshoe37[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Human Rights Watch Statement
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:09:34 +0000
Dear Professor Finkelstein,
Here is what we emailed HRW today in response to your article. Unfortunately, the two email addresses provided in your article resulted in repeated failed deliveries. We therefore sent the email to every contact address on HRW website.
“Dear Sir/Madam,
Your organization’s recent statement which condemned the civil resistance in Gaza as an unlawful use of human shields and a ‘war crime’ is flawed in a number of respects:
1. It is factually incorrect, disclosing a failure to investigate.
2. It is legally incorrect, disclosing a failure to question whether the houses marked for demolition were legitimate military targets capable of giving rise to the prohibition against the use of human shields under the Geneva Convention.
3. It ignores the overriding objectives of international humanitarian law as a framework for the proper assessment of the reality on the ground.
These flaws are particularly disturbing when viewed against the background of the cautious approach and emphasis on investigation adopted by HRW in relation to alleged war crimes committed by Israel.
Their potential harm is considerable. We have little doubt that to the starving, tormented people of Gaza where suffering, injustice and death have made tears run dry and life lose its meaning, a statement such as yours serves only to raise further questions as to the true role which international law and the agencies which propagate it play in the regulation of conflicts, and is seen as nothing more than another example of Western double standards. Your statement defies logic, defies morality and does not make sense to anyone capable of independent thought, let alone to those who are actually suffering. Reading your statement, our conclusion was that HRW and IHL are merely another weapon in the arsenal the West has put at its disposal to achieve its political and strategic aims.
We understand that such considerations as the need to secure funding are important to your organization. However, to present yourselves at the same time as an independent, objective guardian of human rights makes you indirect participants in that same conduct which it is your brief to condemn.
Yours faithfully,
Yonit Percival, international lawyer
Gil Percival, student
Audrey Bomse, human rights lawyer
Anaheed al-Hardan, PhD student
Corina Mullin, lecturer “
Yours sincerely,
Yonit Percival
From: sunrisetrail[at]verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 10:21 AM
To: ‘RothK[at]hrw.org’
Cc: ‘Normangf[at]hotmail.com’
Subject:
Dear Kenneth, your recent record of disguised approval of Israel’s terrorist tactics is an utter abomination of what you supposedly stand for. You can make HRW a proud symbol for defenders of persecution or a quasi zionist propaganda vehicle but don’t think for a minute that your catchy name, (human rights watch) will fool the greater number of decent people on this earth.
Richard from Pittsburgh
From: dsatyra[at]gmail.com>
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org>
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: war crimes and misdemeanors
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:13:29 -0600
Sarah,
The following extracts are from three recent HRW press releases condemning the Palestinians of war crimes, articles in which evidence of war crimes committed by Palestinians and Israelis is provided. I would like to know why HRW refuses to accuse Israel of war crimes, even as it carefully documents them. In the examples I have selected, HRW has set up the standard of international law, then demonstrated how both Palestinian and Israeli activities have failed to live up to this standard and accordingly accused the Palestinians of war crimes while simply “expressing concern” over Israeli actions (which are typically far worse than Palestinian actions, as you are well aware), advising Israel to be more cautious. Indeed, in the last example (the Beit Hanoun massacre) HRW clearly demonstrates how Israel’s actions are in flagrant violation of international law, yet HRW simply urges Israel to investigate what happened. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that your job? I think it is, and I think you nearly did it well, ie, you investigated the situation and discovered a war crime…but then you merely asked Hitler if he would be so kind as to please investigate what those Nazi rascals of his were up to last weekend (dizzy infants!). For shame.
“In a stated bid to stop the Qassams, Israel has fired more than 8,000 artillery shells into northern Gaza since late 2005, including around 5,000 in a one-week period. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, this shelling has killed 47 Palestinians, both members of armed groups and civilians, including 11 children and five women, and has injured 192 others. The shelling has also displaced residents of northern Gaza and severely interrupted their daily lives. Under the laws of war, attacks are indiscriminate if they are not directed at a specific military objective and attacks against military targets must not cause harm to the civilian population that is disproportionate to the expected military gain. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid harm to civilians or civilian loss of life. According to a preliminary Human Rights Watch field investigation, the pattern of Israeli artillery fire into northern Gaza is indiscriminate because, given the type of weapon and location of the attacks, Israel has failed to distinguish between combatant and civilian.” (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/06/isrlpa13698.htm) — So close! It must have been right at the tip of your tongue. Say it with me, “W-A-R C-R-I-M-E.”
“On November 3 the BBC…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.” (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm) — Observe the invisibility, indeed, the complete absence of commentary about who killed and injured the unarmed civilian women.
“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.” (Ibid)
“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.” (Ibid)
“Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s only electrical plant needlessly punishes the civilian population and has created the potential for a serious humanitarian crisis, Human Rights Watch said today…The laws of war prohibit attacks on ‘objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.’” ( http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/29/isrlpa13662.htm)
“International humanitarian law prohibits direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects as well as indiscriminate attacks and attacks that cause disproportionate damage to civilians. A prohibited indiscriminate attack includes using weapons that are incapable of discriminating between civilians and combatants or between civilian and military objects…In the past, Israel has retaliated against Qassam attacks with large-scale military operations that have resulted in the deaths of civilians, leveled land, and demolished homes and other buildings. Most recently, the Israeli military launched a six-day operation into Beit Hanoun that killed at least 52 Palestinians and destroyed at least 30 houses, damaging dozens more. The day after withdrawing their troops, the Israel Defense Forces fired artillery shells at the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, killing 19 Palestinian civilians and wounding dozens more. Most of the dead came from the Athamna family, the majority of them women and children.” (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/18/isrlpa14639.htm)
So here you silently tip-toeing around Israeli war crimes. I may as well have picked these examples at random for this pattern is really quite consistent. Please help us readers understand this inconsistency.
Derek
From: “philip grace”
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, roth[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: HRW Press Release
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:11:16 +0000
Dear Sir/Madam,
Has there been a coup at HRW by Mossad? By accusing the Palestinians of a war crime for protecting their homes from IDF bombing you are in effect giving the child-killers of the IDF the green light for such actions.
No doubt Israel will claim it was not them who committed a war crime by killing large numbers of Palestinians in such a bombing but the Palestinians themselves, citing the HRW press release.
Phil Grace, Liverpool
From: christopherpreciado[at]gmail.com
Date: Nov 30, 2006 9:27 PM
Subject: A Plea for Rectification
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
Dear Kennth Roth and Sarah Lee,
as a young boy, almost seventeen years of age I am pressed with the moral and historic onus of pushing the development of our species. In preparation and execution of this task, I must imperatively ascertain a plethora of knowledge, but what good is it if it’s half-met, wronged?
I cannot help the world without the help of others whose impetus is dedication to “protecting the human rights of people around the world.”
As much as HRW has supported shedding great light upon many issues and occurences around the world, I must express my gratitude for HRW guiding me towards a better understanding. For that I say, “My most humble and cordial thanks.”
But as I mentioned before, what good is knowledge if it is wronged, half-met? Where gratitude is given it is because it is due. And where critcism is due, I must issue it as well. To ignore would be impudence.
What travesty[!] of HRW to gravitate the pendelum of denouncements towards the Palestinians in their struggle for a dignified existence and away from the source of antagonism Israel.
Rather than “stand[ing]” on the side of the “victims” who act in desperation because of their meek power, in the face of monstrous aggression-occupation, HRW defectively condemns their recent form of struggle through obviously bias criticism.
Palestinians, in the miserable plight to conserve what dregs of life they have left, when life under occupation is between swallowed-pride or death, what form of struggle is the alternative from this peaceful one where disunity of peoples makes the struggle impossible for them in any other way?
As a respected reader, I “challenge [HRW]..to..respect..human..law” by retracting and issuing an apology for “Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks” published on November 22 of this year.
Please don’t deprive me, and so many others of HRW’s light. We all look to HRW for it’s light which illuminates the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors.
Thank you.
-Christopher Preciado
From: frank.mugford[at]tncltd.co.uk
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: How much watching is Human Rights Watch doing?
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 02:08:38 -0000
I ask myself how much watching you are doing; possibly from an IDF bunker? It takes half a brain cell to realise who are the oppressors and who the victims in Gaza, Lebanon, indeed anywhere that the Israeli government holds sway. The Israeli PR machine must be in full swing now to persuade the World that these dreadful Palestinians are so vicious in the way they stand in front of IDF bullets and get themselves hurt, or how they are such war criminals when they try and protect their pitiful homes by using their bodies.
The IDF serve a fascist, apartheid, racist regime who contravene countless UN resolutions and act against numerous International legal rulings yet HRW cannot find it in itself to roundly condemn them. Why?
- Bishop Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate, says that the Apartheid practised by the Israelis is far worse than he ever experienced in South Africa. What are HRW saying about his views?
- President Carter condemns what is happening in Palestine/Israel; what does HRW think of his statement?
I am continually amazed at the lack of care of so many of my countrymen; if the British hear of some cruelty to animals or similar, they are in uproar; recently a TV presenter was in a car accident and there was an immense outpouring of grief about his well being, to the extent that a small fortune was donated to the air ambulance that took him to hospital. Why, oh why is there not an outpouring of anger that my government, who not only fail to ask for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon, neither criticises, or dares to criticise, the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza and elsewhere? It is just obscene and I tend towards losing faith in human nature.
And now, there appears to be a lily hearted HRW who, on the evidence I have seen, must belong to a ‘Friends of Israel Group’ somewhere. Please explain yourself: you ought to be ashamed of yourself, as a lot of people should be ashamed for standing by and doing/saying nothing.
Frank Mugford.
From: Pupillo, Sebastian MR
Sent: Friday, 1 December 2006 11:33
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org; RothK[at]hrw.org
Subject: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Name change ?
I think you people should change your name. It will only be a minor spelling difference of the last word of it.
After Kenneth Roth “commended” Israel for warning people in south Lebanon before turning it into a moonscape and now the latest pathetic press release from your organization declaring that the non-violent resistance of Palestinians in putting their “bodies on the line” in protection of their homes and those of their leaders as possibly a “war crime”. You people obviously couldn’t see HUMAN RIGHTS if they fell on top of your noses. Try Human Rights What?
Change your name and you may get yourselves into the “kingdom of truth” that Martin Luther King spoke of.
From: SarahLeah Whitson whitsos[at]hrw.org
Sent: Friday, 1 December 2006 11:33
To: Pupillo, Sebastian MR
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: UNCLASSIFIED Name change ?
I am away from the office until Thursday, December 7, with limited access to email. Please phone me at [...] for matters requiring urgent attention.
From: NABRAHAM[at]hfcc.edu
Subject: Shameful Press Release
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:08:28 -0500
Dear Human Rights Watch,
It was dismaying to see HRW warning Palestinians in God-forsaken Gaza they might be committing a “war crime” and be guilty of “human shielding” for standing between Israel’s missiles and their intended targets, (”Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks”).
There is no need to reiterate Norm Finkelstein’s biting critique of HRW’s coverage of the Palestinians. You can read it at
http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein11292006.html
It seems that you are trying to appease the Israel-Uber-Alles crowd by feigning even-handedness. Such games always wind up backfiring on the players. Those whom you seek to appease will invariably demand more and more concessions, forcing HRW to twist and contort itself into a grotesque caricature of a human rights organization. In the end, the burlesque will leave you selling your soul to the devil.
To see how absurd you appear, imagine it is the early 1940s and Gaza is the Warsaw Ghetto - hungry, overcrowded, and encircled by the most powerful army in Europe. Imagine, further, a gaggle of women and children rushing to stand between the occupation army’s heavy artillery and the house of a resistance leader. Now, imagine a human rights organization issuing a statement saying the population of the Ghetto might be committing a war crime by engaging in human shielding.
When did it become a war crime for unarmed people - acting on their own volition - to stand up to state terror and violence? How many war crimes did Gandhi and Martin Luther King commit?
Let me pose the only rational question I can think of to your condemnation: What would you suggest Palestinians do when Israeli state assassins call their cell phones with a warning, absurd in a way Kafka would have appreciated, that in 30 minutes their house and anyone in it will be blown to smithereens? Perhaps the Palestinians, who have endured nearly four decades of this sort of monstrous violence, should just sit quietly watching the drama unfold on their TV sets, while they wait for HRW to develop sympathy for their plight equal to what it and Western opinion generally evinces - in hindsight - for the people of the Warsaw Ghetto.
A sage lawyer of my acquaintance likes to say that the Bad one does is never canceled out by the Good, no matter the preponderance of the latter. Please do not let the good you have done be undone by your inability to cut loose from the pressures and prejudices of those supporting Israel’s injustices toward the Palestinians. You know very well that Israel’s hideous occupation and attendant violence has utterly deformed Palestinian society, and generates the very responses you claim to be condemning among the Palestinians.
I urge you to retract your condemnation of Palestinian peaceful tactics, and condemn instead the grotesque state violence those tactics are intended to counter.
Sincerely,
Nabeel Abraham
Professor of Anthropology
Henry Ford Community College
Dearborn, Michigan
From: karimguy[at]hotmail.com
Reply-To: karim[at]khayal.de
To: normangf[at]hotmail.com, whitsos[at]hrw.org
Subject: Regarding Palestinian resistance
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:38:29 +0300
Dear Sarah Leah,
The reason I contact you, is a shocking new statement by your organization Human Rights Watch. In this statement you harshly condemn the protection of a Palestinian Leaders house by friends and neighbours, who similar to the tragic Beit Hanoun massacre, courageously stood their ground in thwarting this crime. You shamelessly accuse the Palestinian leadership of endangering civilians, yet forget to mention that this was clearly an act of non-violent resistance and had there been any casuality, it would have been the responsibily of the occupying power, in this case Israel. Your use of the word human shield is absolutely inappropriate, since in this case all the participants were acting out of their own free will. Also disturbing is your pat on Israels back for deciding to cancel the attack and your obvious lack of strong condemning words regarding the Israeli pratice of house demolition. This absolutely emtpy press release of Human Right Watch, in addition to other similar staments made during the recent Lebanon war, has made many people, once ardent admirers, quite uncomfortable and rightly so. Your commitment should be to human rights and truth, not to empty phrases of balanced reporting, which quite opposite to its intent, turns thé victim into the perpetrator. I kindly ask you to retract your statement and if possible issue an apology.
Your sincerely,
Karim Khayal
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: RE: “OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks”
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:38:18 -0500
Greetings,
I write in protest and condemnation of HRW’s shameful press release cited in the subject. To call the voluntary, non-compulsory actions of citizens to defend a home from unlawful demolition, no matter who the occupants are, a “violation of international law” and a “war crime” is quite simply repulsive.
First, this is a non-violent tactic. Nowhere in the press release do you condemn Israel’s shameful destruction and evacuation of homes; instead you call that Israel “immediately explain” why it is doing so. Why is Israel granted the right to justify and not the Palestinians?
Second, I take issue with the chastising and imperative tone you take to Palestinians, with the comparatively meek plaintive tone taken with Israel. Your organization finds itself very capable of chastising the Palestinian leadership with imperatives like “must not”, “must cease”. Whereas the language for Israel is respectful and timid. Let’s take a look at your headlines:
About Palestinians:
“Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military
Attacks”.
“End Rocket Attacks on Civilians”.
“Factions Must Stop Endangering Civilians”.
“Government Committee Should Probe Lebanon Laws of War Violations”.
“Don’t Fire on Gaza Medics” (pretty please?)
“Israeli Cluster Munitions Threaten Civilians” (subtitle: “Israel
Must Provide Data”)
I call upon HRW to either ratchet up its condemnation of Israel or explain why it feels why obviously overpowered, and oppressed, opponents Palestinians are nonetheless worthy of equal or greater condemnation. Justice does require taking sides sometimes. Sincerely,
Stuart Popejoy
Brooklyn, NY
From: stiver-aloha[at]hawaii.rr.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org, “Human Rights Watch-NY” hrwnyc[at]hrw.org, “Human Rights Watch-LA” hrwla[at]hrw.org, “Human Rights Watch-SF” hrwsf[at]hrw.org, “Human Rights Watch-DC” hrwdc[at]hrw.org> CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Disappointment, Disbelief
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:20:24 -1000
What has happened to the the Human Rights Watch which issued two letter- and pitch-perfect letters to Senator Clinton and President Bush last November and December under the capable signature of Ms. Sarah Leah Whitson? (As I understand it, Clinton and Bush have not deigned to respond to you for this year-long length of time, Ms. Whitson…have you followed up? issued other letter(s)?)
Professor Finkelstein is an abiding hero to all who desire that the Palestinians be treated like human beings, no more and no less special than any Israelis. His words below sear and anger me regarding Human Rights Watch’s apparent capitulation to political correctness or outright intimidation by Militant Zionists of the stripe of the regime in Tel Aviv or the omniscient Israel Lobby in America.
The torment of the Christians and Muslims across the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as very similar misery for Palestinian Arabs in Israel proper, must be recognized and denounced forthrightly and fiercely until the occupation, the oppression, the apartheid, the myriad human-rights abuses, the slow genocide are forced to end.
I am also aware that Jonathan Cook, principled journalist reporting from Nazareth, has recently taken Human Rights Watch to task for unstellar human-rights “watching” regarding Israel’s destruction of Lebanon in July and August. Professor Finkelstein alludes to similar transgressions, lending suspicion as to the direction of HRW’s commitment to truth and justice not just in the OPT but in other areas under siege by Israel’s sadistic Militant Zionism. Mr. Roth: you might “commend” Israel for warning people to flee southern Lebanon; have you as assiduously condemned that same Israel for bombing those very people on the roads as they attempted to flee?
I expect your detailed response.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Stiver
From: myron[at]xytech.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: an issue of credibility
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:35:47 -0700
The charges made by Norman G. Finkelstein in this article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein11292006.html
are remarkably similar to those made by Jonathon Cook earlier this fall.
To me it’s unbelievable that you could commend Israel for any part of their conduct of the invasion of Lebanon this year. Considering the relative numbers of deaths and the fact that 2/3 of the Israeli deaths were soldiers and 80% to 90% of the much higher number of Lebanese deaths were civilian, how could anyone justify any part of this?
And to pat Israel on the back for warning Lebanese civilians before destroying their villages is ludicrous. Israel repeatedly bombed and killed civilians who were trying to flee their homes in response to the warnings.
There was also no excuse for the wholesale destruction of Lebanese infrastructure. And the crowning touch had to be the 1 to 2 million unexploded cluster bomblets dropped in the last 3 days of the war when the peace accord had already been agreed upon. This has rendered much of the south uninhabitable.
As for the Israeli war crimes against the Palestinians, I don’t know where any human rights organization worth the name could fault the Palestinians for fighting back against the genocide that Israel is perpetrating on them. Israel is in violation of pretty much every part of the Geneva Conventions. They have repeatedly defied the UN and the International Court when told to cease their illegal occupation.
The people in the Gaza are being systematically murdered, starved to death and driven from their homes. The West Bank although in better shape now, is having huge parts of its best land stolen by the illegal wall being built on their land. Anyone who has read their history knows that Israel has never intended to allow a single Palestinian to remain. They eventually plan on extending their border as far as the Litani River in Lebanon as well.
25 or 30 years from now when the history books are written, Israel’s racist actions against the Palestinians will be far more harshly judged than South Africa’s apartheid ever will be. At that time our children will be asking how anyone could stand by and allow these atrocities to happen. HRW will then be considered just one more of the apologists that allowed the rest of the world to place the blame on the victims.
If you cannot find the backbone to defy Israel and call a spade a spade and a racist state a racist state and a genocide a genocide then the most useful thing your organization can do is to get out of the area completely and leave it to real human rights organizations to take on the dirty work.
Myron Selby
From: dogbuckeye[at]yahoo.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK[at]hrw.org
Subject: praise for your press release on human shields in gaza
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Ms. Whitson and Mr. Roth,
Thanks so much for offering such a stern warning to the Palestinian fighters regarding their use of unarmed human shields, including the two elders from Michigan. Finally, a human rights organization that comes out against nonviolent direct action! And to think those Palestinians had the temerity to think they had a right not to be assasinated by racist colonial military regimes.
So now what, will you announce a press conference calling on Israel to no longer prohibit Palestinians from importing weapons to legitimately defend themselves and their land? Or are Palestinians putting themselves at risk when they try to defend themselves or rightly seek to return to their stolen homeland?
You should all be ashamed to think you speak for human rights.
I personally know those two elders from Michigan, having shared several precious weeks with them in Palestine. I challenge you to meet them and learn why they did what they did.
Disappointed,
Mark Schneider
Denver, Colorado
From: ChristopherCamp[at]gmx.de
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Human Rights Watch Press Release of the 22-11-2006
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:19:29 +0100
Dear Mrs Whitson,
I am writing to you to express my very deep disappointment in Human Rights Watch. I am referring to a HRW press release of 22nd November 2006. In the text, Human Rights Watch expressly condemns non-violent action against the destruction of civilian homes.
No matter which way you slice it, you cannot justify the defamation of non-violent action against military action as an infringement of human rights, simply by saying that civilians were put in harm’s way. Most importantly, in this particular case, civilians put themselves in harms way, because that was the only means available to them to stop a civilian home from being destroyed.
Surely, Human Rights Watch must be aware of the fact that Gaza is one of the most crowded places on Earth and that the loss of a house has even more cataclysmic consequences for a family living in Gaza than it would have for a family living in Los Angeles, Paris or London. More often than not, it destroys the livelihood of an entire community, for in Gaza, it is not uncommon for several families to share a house.
I do not understand how the heroism and community spirit of the people of Gaza can be discribed as worse than the disgraceful behaviour of an international community that fails to supply the people of Gaza with goods they desperately need and that denies them the right to live in dignity and propsperity.
What I find completely inexcusable is the timing wording of a press release that seems to imply that a civilian home is a legitimate military target, thus legitimising the destruction of homes and barring the people of Gaza from ever trying to ever do anything about the destruction of their homes. It is the same sort of disrespect for Palestinian life that led to the destruction of Gaza’s only power station. The situation in Gaza is desperate, the economy lies in smouldering ruins and people are starving. And what does Human Rights Watch do? It issues press releases in which it instructs Palestinians to leave their homes so that soldiers can knock them down with a clear conscience.
I am extremely disappointed in HRW, an organisation that used to be interested in human rights. If Human Rights Watch wishes to continue to be seen as a real human rights organisation, then my guess is it should act less like a military advisor and more like an organisation that defends people’s human rights.
With my best regards and in the hope that HRW is not going to go down the same road that so many morally bankrupt institutions have,
Chris
Datum: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:20:26 -0500
Von: “Assef Ashraf” ashrafa[at]hrw.org
An: ChristopherCamp[at]gmx.de
Betreff: RE: Human Rights Watch Press Release of the 22-11-2006
Dear Chris,
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
Best,
Assef
From: ChristopherCamp[at]gmx.de
To: ashrafa[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Re: RE: Human Rights Watch Press Release of the 22-11-2006
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:13:25 +0100
Dear Assef,
thank you for your prompt reply. Let me assure you that I did read HRW’s press release very carefully and that I did take into account the inadmissability of using civilians for military means when I wrote my e-mail.
However, this is Gaza we are talking about - the most crowded place on Earth. There are nearly four thousand inhabitants per square kilometer. Any military action in Gaza WILL inevitably involve civilians and affect them in some way or other.
I did not read a HRW press release that debated the admissability of military action in a place like this. You cannot miss the point - an attack on a house in a densely populated reugee camp would have killed and injured people. So how come Human Rights Watch condemns people asking their neighbours to protect the members of the community from getting killed? How come it fails to see the bigger fault that is the planned attack on a crowded area?
Then there is the question of to what extent you can blame people for asking civilians to put themselves in harm’s way - how else do you think non-violent action against military action would be possible? Should the people in and around the house and on the roof have carried guns to get HRW’s stamp of approval? What’s the point of non-violent action vs military action if non-violent action is never allowed to achieve anything meaningful?
The obvious point remains - HRW should congratulate the brave people of Gaza on their effort to save dozens of lives. As for Mohammedweil Baroud, I think it is fair to say that it is negligible whether he was a “military commander” who asked civilians to put themselves in harm’s way. Even if you do take everything that is said about him for granted, he simply did what anyone would have done if they had found out that their home was going to be attacked - he asked for help. The fact that he’s a supposed “military commander” does not bear on this question at all.
You say in your reply that Human Rights Watch has criticised Israel in the past - I am aware of that. But I did not mention Israel in my letter to Mrs Whitson. My concern is that Human Rights Watch is losing sight of what is possible for the Palestinians to do in the situation they are in. It would appear that HRW perceives the Palestinians as a population that has at its disposal the same means of defending itself against an assailant that a country like Britain, France or the United States has. That is not the case. The Palestinians do not have an army. Their economy is wrecked. The Palestinians did the only thing they could do to stop the destruction of a part of the refugee camp, because they do not have rockets to shoot down incoming jet bombers or helicopters, they do not have soldiers to stop an incoming army and they certainly do not have an international community behind them that is ever going to do anything about their situation.
I very much hope that Human Rights Watch will make an effort to see things from the Palestinans’ point of view and I implore to retract your press release.
From: paula.abrams[at]chello.at
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:17 AM
To: SarahLeah Whitson
Subject: Non violent resistance in Gaza to house demolitions
Dear Ms. Whitson,
I was shocked to my depths by your comments criticising non-violent resistance by civilians in Gaza to house demolitions. To anyone with any knowledge about what has been happening in Gaza, not only in the last months but over the last years, indeed, since the Israeli occupation, it is obvious what war crimes are being carried out by the Israeli army. Many human rights organizations have called them just that! As the responsible person in your organization for the Middle East your objection to this form of peaceful resistance is nothing short of scandalous.
The country which should be receiving full condemnation by you, as the Director of the Middle East Division of Human Rights Watch, is the country of Israel, which since the beginning of November has brutally killed approximately 100 people in Gaza, including many women and children, I strongly urge you to reconsider your statement, which certainly weakens the credibility of your organization.
Yours sincerely,
Paula Abrams-Hourani
Vienna, Austria
From: SarahLeah Whitson
To: Paula Abrams-Hourani
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: Non violent resistance in Gaza to house demolitions
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. 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: paula.abrams[at]chello.at
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: rothk[at]hrw.org
Subject: Re: Non violent resistance in Gaza to house demolitions
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:40:40 +0100
Dear Ms. Whitson,
I have now looked at your home page and I must still voice my disagreement with the opinion of Human Rights Watch. Indeed, I am deeply disappointed at your focus and judgement. It seems that Palestinians are “damned” even if they use non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation and Israeli violence against their property and lives. To be frank, you seem to be blaming the victim and not the occupier.
Admittedly, I do not check the home page regularly but I wonder if you have condemned on your website the Israeli soldiers who shoot at unarmed people, beat and arrest them, in the West Bank, such as those in Bil’in, who are trying with nonviolent means to protect their town and land against the wall and settlements. Israeli and international peace activists have been involved and brutally attacked, as well. I was at such nonviolent demonstrations several times (not to mention several visits to Gaza) so I consider myself an eye witness. Unfortunately, very little has been said in the media about this - it seems as though Western media prefers to see Palestinians as violent people. I have even seen a photograph of a Palestinian child chained to an Israeli tank as a human shield.
In addition, it is strange that Human Rights Watch has focussed its attention now on violence against Palestinian women. In the last few months approximately 350 Palestinians, including 90 children, have been killed by the Israeli army in Gaza, not to mention the use of chemical weapons by this army and the fact that close to 800 Palestinians have been wounded, many disabled for life. As a woman, as a human being, I condemn wholeheartedly any violence against women but the violence of the Israeli occupation is uppermost in our minds right now and the starvation and collective punishment of the entire population of the Gaza Strip. There will be at least 90 vigils of Women in Black in cities in about 17 countries around the world on Saturday to protest the Siege of Gaza, which is complete and total collective punishment, and this should be the focus of your organization: This is THE war crime.
For your information I attach the press statement on Gaza of the European Jews for a Just Peace, to which I belong.
Yours sincerely,
Paula Abrams-Hourani
Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East (Austria)
From: costelloja[at]yahoo.com
To: rothk[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Press Release, Gaza
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:48:40 -0800 (PST)
Dear Sir,
I would like to express my dissatisfaction with HRW’s press release concerning the Palestinians’ act of civil disobedience in protecting the home of one of their own.
The courage of these people to spontaneously assemble, putting their lives at risk, to stand up to injustice is something I cannot understand. It is humanity at its most elevated.
We need HRW to continue to stand up for the voiceless, not to condemn them with some Dershowitzian legal gymnastics.
Thanks,
John
From: maren.hackmann[at]t-online.de
To: RothK[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Shame on Human Rights Watch!
Date: 30 Nov 2006 03:29 GMT
Sir,
Kindly remove your boot from the Palestinians’ necks and restore the credibility of your institution before it is too late. Retract that 22 November 2006 Human Rights Watch press release, “Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks,” immediately, and issue a public apology to the Palestinians.
Sincerely,
Maren Hackmann
From: maren.hackmann[at]t-online.de
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Some more comments
Date: 30 Nov 2006 03:26 GMT
Dear Sarah Leah,
I’ve already registered my dismay at your 22 November 2006 press release. Allow me to add that this dismay has grown with every reply you sent to other protesters.
Rather than admit that you had committed an error of judgment, you’ve kept trying to justify the unjustifiable. This is not only extremely disappointing and, as already noted, disastrous, but frankly bizarre. Perhaps, before urging your correspondents to check out Human Rights Watch’s website, you should have checked it out yourself. Consider this statement of yours, taken from a press release published two months ago:
“‘Rather than fanning the flames and allowing the violence to continue, Palestinian officials and party leaders should send a clear message that they will tolerate only peaceful means of protest,’ said Whitson.” (Human Rights Watch, “Factions Must Stop Endangering Civilians,” 6 October 2006)
But maybe I didn’t get your point. Perhaps “peaceful means of protest” are recommended to Palestinians only when they are fighting among themselves, whereas the correct Palestinian response to Israeli aggression is zero protest?
Unless Human Rights Watch has now decided to abandon the quest for human dignity completely, it had better retract this totally irresponsible, insane press release, and issue a public apology to the Palestinians without further delay. I do hope you see the urgency and seriousness of the matter.
By your logic, every Palestinian mother imploring her son not to emigrate is also a criminal. For isn’t he likely to be tortured, maimed, or killed if he stays? The Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem are all in harm’s way, as you well know. By criminalizing their resistance, and in fact their very presence in the Occupied Territories, you are effectively criminalizing them all.
Maren
From: smahajan[at]sbcglobal.net
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Is non-violent resistance a war crime?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:49:13 -0800 (PST)
Dear Ms Whitson,
I have tremendous respect for Human Rights Watch and fabulous work it does exposing the atrocities that the powerful commit regularly against the powerless. So I was quite shocked and disappointed by your recent statement condemning “Palestinian armed groups” for “endagering civilians by encouraging them to gather in and around suspected militants’ home targetted by the IDF”. Was it a crime, when Mahatma Gandhi urged fellow Indians to resist British Imperialism? Was the civil rights movement in this country a monumental crime? I think the only honorable thing you can do now is to retract your disgraceful statement and instead put blame squarely where it belongs, that is on the brutal Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank.
Sincerely,
Sanjeev Mahajan
From: luft1341[at]yahoo.com
To: RothK[at]hrw.org, whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:10:28 -0800 (PST)
Dear Madam/Sir:
I am truly appalled by your recent press release condemning brave, courageous, and consccientious citizens protecting the homes of other innocent Palestinians by the brutal IDF. HRW has indeed lost its credibility and is regrettably providing a legitimate excuse for other occupying regimes to continue their murderous and inhumane actions.
Mike B., M.D.
From: bryannaclarkgrogan[at]gmail.com
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: RothK[at]hrw.org
Subject: Human Rights Watch Press Release of 22-11-2006
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:15:30 -0800
Dear Ms. Whitson and Mr. Roth,
I have long been an admirer of the work of Human Rights Watch. However, of late I have been perturbed, if not downright shocked, by some of the pronouncements from HRW about Israel and Palestine. I, a feminist, was puzzled by your lengthy report about Palestinian violence toward women, when Israel is committing acts of violence against Palestinian women, children, and men every day, and when we know that levels of violence increase during times of extreme stress and trauma, and during wartime! Have you lost all sense of proportion? It’s almost as if you have to dredge up some dirt on the Palestinians so the Israelis won’t look so bad!
And then this last “report” criticising Palestinians for their acts of unarmed resistance, placing themselves between Israeli missles and the homes of neighbors! This is a pacifist response– what more can you ask? They get criticised for using armed resistance, and then when they use UNarmed resistance, they are villified! Would you prefer suicide bombers? Or maybe they should just shoot themselves and there wouldn’t be any problem? Sorry for sounding angry, but I am!
I think that the right thing to do would be to right an immediate retraction of the most recent press release and an apology to the Palestinian people as a whole. All people of conscience are watching and waiting for you to do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Bryanna Grogan
Canada
From: m_trujillo[at]verizon.net
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org, RothK@hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: HRW Press Release ‘Palestinians Protecting Their Homes’
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:14:44 -0500
Dear Ms. Whitson and Mr. Roth,
It never fails to amaze me what people will do for money and appoval. To condemn the Palestinians for protecting their homes from the onslaught of a murderous army that shows no pity or humanity (ie, the most MORAL army in the world). No one forced the Palestinians to shield those homes they did it voluntarily out of love, not like the IDF which coerces, forces, brutalizes it’s involuntary shields.
Ths IDF has been known to assist in the training of death squads in El Salvador, Columbia, Nicaragua, etc. They are very efficient, the SS would be proud of them.
You disgust me, you’re a bunch of cowards. Afraid you won’t find a good paying job if those pro-Israeli organizations don’t contribute.
Join the rest of the US, we could use the billions being sent to Israel here for health, education, housing. Instead our good friends the Israelis spend it on weapons to murder, displace and disenfranchise the Palestinian nation.
M. Trujillo, NYC
From: joebaker3379[at]hotmail.co.uk
To: whitsos[at]hrw.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:57:06 +0000
Ms Whitson, I wish to register my outrage at your recent press release condemning the besieged Palestinians’ efforts to protect the lives and homes of their own people, unlawfully targeted for murder by the Israeili army as a war-crime. It is the Israeli army that is committing war-crimes! Why are you reluctant to not accuse them? To label the Palestinian resistance - in this case entirely ‘peaceful’ as a war-crime is an appalling indictment of your organisation’s integrity. Whatever the reason for this press release, I shall not be donating to HRW again. My backing will go straight to Palestinian organisations.
Joe Baker, London
Reader letters to HRW, Nov 22 - 28, 2006
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
