Several days later and despite over 4,000 rockets fired from Gaza, much of the UN system has still failed to internalize the situation, preferring to fall back on knee-jerk anti-Israel responses. Below are recent examples of egregiously biased statements from the UN Human Rights Council, UNRWA and UNICEF.

UNHRC Appointees Distort International Law to Attack Israel

The UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a statement from five UNHRC “experts” led by Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk, who consistently turns a blind eye to both Palestinians and Israelis victimized by human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and others in favor of focusing solely on attacking Israel.

“This most recent violence has a depressingly familiar pattern to it,” said the experts. “Israel and Palestinian armed groups in Gaza exchange missiles and rockets following dispossession and the denial of rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, with Israel’s far greater firepower inflicting far higher death tolls and injuries and a much larger scale of property destruction.”

Nowhere in the statement is the primary initiator of this recent violence mentioned by name: Hamas. Nowhere is Hamas’ role in escalating this violence mentioned. Instead, it is Israel that is held responsible as the party that has far greater firepower, that inflicts far higher death tolls and denies Palestinians their rights according to the UN experts.

False Moral Equivalence

The reference to an “exchange of missiles and rockets” creates a false moral equivalence between one side that initiated hostilities by deliberately firing at civilians and the other that is exercising its legitimate right to self-defense.

The statement says that Israel’s actions to stop the rocket fire from Gaza “constitute indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against civilians and civilian property. These attacks likely violate the laws of war and constitute a war crime.” That this is followed by a paragraph claiming that rocket fire from “Palestinian armed groups” is deemed merely ‘reckless’ while “similarly” to Israel’s actions also “likely a war crime.”

Five UNHRC appointees condemn only Israel for "indiscriminate attacks against civilians."

Meanwhile, Hamas launching thousands of rockets at civilians is merely "reckless."

Will U.N. chief @antonioguterres condemn this outrageously one-sided statement?https://t.co/oTXTUnHcBk pic.twitter.com/1L9wHvyTQa

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) May 20, 2021

On the contrary, as former U.S. military judge advocate David French states: “The use of an otherwise-civilian building for military purposes converts it into a military target. This is a basic aspect of the law of war. The blame for the attack on the target thus rests with the entity that converted it into a military target.”

Hamas has deliberately embedded its military assets within the civilian population, firing rockets from residential neighborhoods, thus turning these buildings into legitimate military targets under international law. Despite this, Israel has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, warning civilians by phone to evacuate in advance of airstrikes, and other methods such as the “knock on the roof,” where non-explosive missiles are dropped to warn those inside to exit before larger bombs destroy the building.

Yet the statement by the five UNHRC appointees distorts the concept of proportionality in armed conflict to accuse Israel of violating international law when, in reality, by hiding behind its own civilians, exposing them to attack while deliberately targeting Israeli civilians, it is Hamas that is the guilty party. Despite this, the UN experts seek to deny Israel’s right to self-defense.

Falsely Accusing Israel of Targeting Journalists

According to the statement:

The experts condemned the Israeli attack on a civilian apartment building which housed the offices of several international news agencies. “Violence or threatened violence against journalists, particularly those reporting in a conflict zone, breaches the freedom of expression and the right of the media to report unhindered,” they said.

Yet it was not the news agencies in the building that were targeted but Hamas assets located there. Rather than threatening or carrying out violence against journalists, the IDF warned the occupants of the building in advance in order to ensure civilians, including those journalists, were not injured or killed.

Former AP correspondent says source close to IDF suggests “there were indeed Hamas offices” in Gaza building that housed AP.
“Any press organization operating in a dictatorship is going to be compromised, and will further compromise itself to conceal how it has been compromised.“ https://t.co/mNRT4zqzJ9

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) May 16, 2021

All About the “Occupation”

Ultimately Hamas gets a free pass from the UN experts as the root cause of the violence does not include systemic factors such as Palestinian rejectionism, terrorism, incitement, antisemitism or the rejection of multiple peace offers over the decades. Instead:

“The underlying reality is that there is an occupying power, with one of the best equipped militaries in the world, ruling over an occupied people who have the right to be freed from an unwanted and protracted alien regime,” they said. “This struggle is deeply unequal. The 54-year-old Israeli occupation – already the longest occupation in the modern world – is becoming even more entrenched and even more abusive of fundamental human rights.”

The current conflict is emanating from Gaza, a territory that has not been occupied since Israel’s withdrawal in 2005. Hamas has turned Gaza into a terror statelet with significant consequences for the entire Palestinian people. The UN experts, however, choose to ignore the human rights abuses of a Hamas regime that keeps its own people under its brutal control.

It becomes clear that the priority of the UN experts is not to bring any positive contribution to restoring regional stability. For the experts, it’s about punishing Israel as peace is only possible by “imposing a meaningful cost on Israel, the occupying power, to fully end its illegal occupation.”

Hamas Prevents Humanitarian Aid; UNRWA Blames Israel

Nothing illustrates the disconnect between UN bodies and the reality of the situation more than UNRWA’s press release calling on Israel to “enable humanitarian supplies and its staff timely access to Gaza, in accordance with its obligations under international law.”

On the very same day, Israel reopened its Kerem Shalom and Erez border crossings to enable humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. Hamas, however, launched a mortar attack on the Kerem Shalom crossing, injuring an Israeli soldier who was facilitating the transfer of the aid.

To her credit, UN Humanitarian Coordinator Lynn Hastings unequivocally condemned the attacks.

🇮🇱 Israel reopens border crossings to facilitate entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

🏴‍☠️ Hamas bombs the crossings preventing the aid from entering.

When will @UNRWA follow the lead of UN Humanitarian Coordinator @lynnhastings and condemn Hamas' attacks? https://t.co/1g5xooGP2s

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) May 19, 2021

Yet, UNRWA’s spokesperson was still tweeting footage of television interviews 24 hours later, calling on Israel to open the crossings even as Israel was attempting to facilitate a transfer of humanitarian aid from Jordan before this too was prevented by another mortar attack.

UNRWA continues to call on Israel to enable access to the Gaza Strip:

“Humanitarian corridors are always extremely effective in situations of conflict. They’re supposed to protect humanitarian convoys going into a danger zone.”

🎙️: @TamaraAlrifai, UNRWA Spokesperson pic.twitter.com/VmM9G5syqp

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) May 19, 2021

UNRWA has so far failed to condemn Palestinian attacks on border crossings that have prevented humanitarian aid from reaching their own people. While the crossings have been forced to shut as a result, UNRWA continues to falsely place responsibility on Israel.

UNICEF: Only Gazan Children Count

UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore, who was famously probed by then Senator Barack Obama for racism, issued a press release that stated: “Gaza’s one million children are reeling from the mounting consequences of violent conflict with nowhere safe to turn. Lives have been lost, and families shattered.”

Gaza’s one million children are reeling from the mounting consequences of violent conflict with nowhere safe to turn.@UNICEF is calling for the immediate cessation of hostilities on humanitarian grounds to allow the entry of staff and essential supplies. https://t.co/y0kySBcYs9

— Catherine Russell (@unicefchief) May 18, 2021

While Fore focuses on child deaths, injuries and mental health issues in Gaza, she fails to note the suffering of Israeli children, particularly those in the south of the country who have been subjected to the trauma of rocket barrages.

Children’s rights should be universal. Yet UNICEF’s statement only pays lip service to Israeli children in its final paragraph.

In addition, Fore repeats UNRWA’s call for the entry of humanitarian aid while ignoring Hamas’ bombing of the border crossings and Israel’s efforts to facilitate that aid.

The post UN Bodies Attack Israel appeared first on UN Watch.

Unfortunately, much of what was said demonstrates the UN’s one-sided and biased approach towards Israel and a serious disconnect from the reality of an unprecedented number of rockets and the Palestinian incitement to violence that preceded the barrage.

Secretary-General Releases Evenhanded But Amorally Equivalent Statement

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attempted to be evenhanded, saying he was deeply saddened to learn of increasingly large numbers of casualties, including children, from Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, and of Israeli fatalities from rockets launched from Gaza.

However, he called out only one side by name, saying Israel’s security forces “must exercise maximum restraint and calibrate their use of force,” adding “The indiscriminate launching of rockets and mortars towards Israeli population centers is unacceptable.”

Why did the Secretary-General not call out the parties firing rockets? Why not hold Hamas and other terrorist organizations responsible for their actions? While civilian casualties in Gaza are tragic, the UN has repeatedly failed to acknowledge Hamas’ deliberate strategy of launching rockets from within civilian areas, inviting an Israeli response and putting innocent Palestinians at risk.

For years, UN reports ignored the use of human shields by Hamas, incentivizing these terror tactics in the future. The risk posed to the civilian population of Gaza was exacerbated. To truly mitigate harm done to civilians, we should condemn Hamas actions—and the UN's complicity.

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) May 12, 2021

Guterres’ evenhandedness ultimately creates an amoral equivalence between the two sides, one of which, Israel, is defending itself and responding to an unprecedented barrage of rockets fired by Gazan terrorists, while the other side seeks to deliberately maim and murder as many Israelis as possible.

Humanitarian Coordinator Pays Lip Service to Rocket Attacks

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released a statement from Humanitarian Coordinator Lynn Hastings, “on the escalation of violence in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel.”

Escalation must stop to avoid more deaths and injuries. The protection of civilians is of paramount importance. Read my full statement: https://t.co/sek29F5X07 #Palestine #Israel pic.twitter.com/daTTJYj9fZ

— Lynn Hastings (@LynnHastings) May 11, 2021

While the statement made repeated references to the situation in Gaza, only one sentence out of the five paragraphs could possibly be interpreted as calling out Palestinian violations of human rights. But even this is presented in an abstract fashion: “Rockets are indiscriminate by nature and as such violate international law.” Yet again, no attribution of responsibility for the aforementioned rockets.

High Commissioner for Human Rights Accuses Israel of Using Force Against Innocent Protesters

In a press briefing, Rupert Colville, the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, at least referred to “Palestinian armed groups” when addressing the rocket fire. Colville, however, stated:

Israeli Security Forces must allow and ensure the exercise of the right to freedoms of expression, association and assembly. No force should be used against those exercising their rights peacefully. When use of force is necessary, it should comply fully with international human rights standards. This includes the prohibition of unnecessary or disproportionate use of force. This has not been the case in the past days.

We are deeply concerned at the escalation of violence in occupied #Palestine, incl. #EastJerusalem, and #Israel.

We condemn ALL violence and ALL incitement to violence.

No force should be used against those exercising their rights peacefully.

Read 👉 https://t.co/ZftM2ddahx pic.twitter.com/2V4Q50Ay7Y

— UN Human Rights (@UNHumanRights) May 11, 2021

Claiming Israel has been using force against peaceful protesters ignores the reality whereby Israeli police responded to violent Palestinian rioters who had stockpiled slabs, stones and fireworks on the Temple Mount compound in anticipation of provoking a confrontation. Once again, no responsibility for violence is attributed to Palestinian rioters or the incitement from Hamas and other extremists fueling the violence.

Michael Lynk Blames “Israeli Settler Organizations”

This twisting of reality was taken a step further by the UN’s permanent investigator of “Israel’s violations” Michael Lynk and another expert on housing who stated:

The recent scenes of Israeli police and security forces attacking large crowds of Palestinian residents and worshipers is only intensifying a deeply inflammatory atmosphere in the City. A militarized response to civilian protests against discriminatory practices only deepens social divisions.

For Lynk, who has a history of anti-Israel bias, Palestinian rioters are simply “residents” and “worshippers.” This wilful blindness to Palestinian violence and terrorism goes as far as ignoring altogether the rocket attacks from Gaza even though the press release was issued as those rockets were being fired.

Instead, according to Lynk, “The immediate source of the current tensions in East Jerusalem are the actions of Israeli settler organizations, whose stated aim is to turn Palestinian neighborhoods into Jewish neighborhoods.”

Mideast Peace Envoy’s Neutrality Questioned

As for the new UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland, his tweet calling for an end to hostilities brings his neutrality into question when he expresses his concern for the people of Gaza while ignoring Israelis under fire.

Sir, you are no longer Norway’s envoy to the Palestinians, you are the U.N. envoy for Mideast peace. If you speak of “the cost of war in Gaza” while ignoring 900 war crime rockets fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad at Israeli towns in 36 hours, your neutrality comes into question. https://t.co/yFokwK5Bp0

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) May 12, 2021

* * *

Ultimately, the UN system and its officials appear to be disconnected from the reality that millions of Israelis face under rocket bombardment. The rockets rather than the terrorists who launch them are called out, while Israel is blamed as the trigger for the violence and itself accused of violence against seemingly innocent Palestinians.

It’s time for the to UN hold the Palestinians accountable for their own terrorism and violence aimed at Israeli civilians. It’s time for the UN to stop excusing Palestinian terror as an understandable if not justifiable result of Israeli policies.

The post UN Bodies Demonstrate Reality Disconnect Over Palestinian Rocket Barrage appeared first on UN Watch.

• March 30, 2019 – Rioters throw stones and explosives at Israeli troops.
• May 12, 2019 – Gazan armed with knife arrested after crossing into Israel.
• June 29, 2019 – Four Palestinians armed with knives detained near Gaza border.
• July 27, 2019 – Rioters hurl explosives and grenades toward border fence during riots.
• August 1, 2019 – Hamas militant killed after crossing border fence armed with AK-47 and grenades; two Palestinians armed with knives, aged 11 and 15, arrested after crossing Gaza border.
• August 11, 2019 – Palestinian killed after shooting at Israeli soldiers at Gaza border fence.
• August 23, 2019 – Palestinian at Gaza border shot after attacking Israeli soldiers with grenades.
• August 30, 2019 – Four Palestinians armed with a grenade and knife caught crossing into Israel.

Ignores crucial evidence and context and applies incorrect legal standard – Bachelet’s statement continues to exclusively apply the domestic policing law enforcement standard, and fails to consider the authority to use force under the Laws of Armed Conflict. Thus, Bachelet claims that demonstrators did not pose “an imminent threat of death or risk of serious injury.” In applying this policing standard, Bachelet ignores evidence that Hamas has used the March of Return as a cover for militant activities intended to harm Israeli soldiers and civilians. Bachelet’s statement also disregards evidence of weapons found among rioters. Furthermore, it ignores that the clashes are occurring at a hostile border between two entities engaged in an armed conflict, and not in the middle of a city like Tel Aviv, Paris or New York where the governing authority has full control and a greater ability to implement preventive measures.
This is a fundamentally flawed approach. As Lt. Col. Geoffrey Korn explained at our March 2019 side event, “In an ongoing armed conflict, if I make a determination that you are a member of the enemy organized armed group, I am not required to wait for you to present an imminent threat to me. The fact that you are a member of that group in that conflict alone provides international legal authority to engage in hostility against you…The suggestion that as matter of law, because there is a law enforcement component to the security operations, it somehow nullifies the conduct of hostilities component is fundamentally flawed.”
Fails to consider risks to Israeli civilian population – Bachelet’s statement contains no discussion or analysis of the risks of death or injury to Israeli civilian communities in close proximity to the Gaza border resulting from the March of Return. This risk can come from infiltration of armed militants across the fence, explosives and shooting attacks, or even from incendiary devices flown over the border.
Bases conclusions on incomplete data – Bachelet claims that “Initial monitoring suggests that [13 Palestinians killed at fence from March 22 to August 2019] were killed in circumstances where there was no threat to life or serious injury, and thus the use of lethal force may have been excessive.” However, the statement provides no basis for this conclusion. Moreover, the extent of the threat can only be ascertained based on the many surrounding circumstances going on at the time, including visibility conditions, the victim’s activity in the moments leading up to being shot, crowd dynamics, proximity to Israeli communities, etc. However, Bachelet does not have access to all of this data, particularly since much of it is classified military data. Likewise, Bachelet’s expression of doubt about reported changes to Israel’s open-fire rules to fire primarily at the ankles, based solely on the number of injuries to the torso and head, fails to take into account the complexity of the situation. Certainly, this ignores the possibility that a rioter engaged in violence could have change position from standing to crouching or lying down just before being shot.
Ignores participation of children in militant activities at the border – Bachelet’s statement treats all children killed or injured at the Gaza border as if they are innocent victims, completely disregarding whether they were actually involved in terrorism at the fence. As Middle East analyst Joe Truzman demonstrated in his presentation at our UN side event on March 18, 2019, many of the children killed at the border were members of terrorist groups and engaged in militant activity at the fence. Since March 22, children have continued to participate in the militant activities and to be exploited by terrorist groups as human shields.

The post UN Watch's Rebuttal to High Commissioner's Gaza COI Update appeared first on UN Watch.

Testimony delivered before the UN Human Rights Council by Col. Richard Kemp
on behalf of United Nations Watch, Geneva, Switzerland, March 18, 2019.

Mr. President,
I was a British commander in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan and have extensive experience dealing with rioting crowds whipped up by armed terrorists.
I have observed the violent demonstrations on the Gaza border many times, from the front lines — unlike you Mr. Chairman, and your commission, who have never been there. These are organized efforts to break through the fence and slaughter Jewish civilians. Hamas also set out to induce the IDF to kill Gaza civilians, to instigate global condemnation of Israel.
The IDF took every-possible step to avoid Palestinian casualties. But using live ammunition as a last resort was the only way they could defend their own people.
The commission grotesquely perverts this reality.
I accuse this council of handing a deliberately biased mandate to the commission, intended to defame Israel.
I accuse this commission of misrepresenting Hamas’s actions, twisting organized violence into “peaceful protest.”
I accuse this commission of acting as an instrument of Hamas terrorism by falsely accusing Israel of crimes against humanity, by validating terror tactics and by inciting killing and violence.
I accuse this commission of betraying the Palestinian people by failing to condemn their Hamas oppressors — who as we meet today are firing on genuine peaceful protesters in Gaza.
I accuse this commission of wicked prejudice against the Jewish State and its army in a manner calculated to undermine its ability to defend itself.
Greater violence is planned by Hamas in a few days. Violence this council could restrain by condemning Hamas for its murderous actions and rejecting this outrageous report. I appeal to every member state to repudiate it. If you do not, you will have the blood of Palestinians and Israelis on your hands.

_______

Twitter version:

.@COLRICHARDKEMP, UN Watch: "Everything we just heard here is a complete distortion of the truth. The truth is that Hamas, a terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews everywhere, deliberately caused over 60 of its own people to get killed." pic.twitter.com/bW6aEBBLoK

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) March 29, 2019

YouTube version:

The post British commander silences the UN over Gaza protests inquiry appeared first on UN Watch.

By framing [the events] as predominantly civilian protests, the Commission of Inquiry distorts the reality of what it confronted.

By omitting exploitation by Hamas, what this report does is incentivizes tactics in the future. If we are really concerned about mitigating the harm to civilians, we should be condemning as much as possible.

Most military professionals will be more surprised not by what IDF did but what IDF didn’t do under the circumstances.

Col. Richard Kemp, National security expert, author, former commander, British Forces in Afghanistan

This report fails the Palestinian and Israeli people because it deliberately distorts and lies, [and is] prejudiced against the Jewish state.

In the report, not one single word is reflected in the report that I told them. I think I was probably the only independent military advisor that gave them evidence and they ignored every single word I said.

The United Nations has played directly into Hamas’ hand and the UNHRC is an instrument of Hamas terrorism. This organization that we all pay for is an instrument of Hamas terrorism, and by playing by their hands, they’re encouraging more terrorism.

Dr. Einat Wilf, co-author of the “The War of Return,” intellectual, former Member of Knesset

Marchers don’t march on Egyptian border. They don’t march in the name of independence. The marches are not called marches to end blockade or Palestinian state — they are the marches for return. To take Israel and make it an Arab state.

[The March of Return] needs to be understood clearly as a declaration of war—nothing less than that … [These are not] protests within a country, but a people marching on a border with another sovereign state with the expressed demand and declaration that that state should not exist and that they should take it over.

As long as they are committed to the idea that it’s more important to struggle “from the river to the sea” than a homeland in part of that territory, they will continue the war against the Jewish people to self-determination in part of the land. 

Joe Truzman, researcher, investigative journalist, editor of GroundBrief

When the March of Return started, I noticed gaps between what was happening on the ground at the border and what was shown in the media. Specifically, Palestinian border units who were active in infiltrations through the security fence, launching of incendiary and explosive-laden balloons into Israel.

At least five militants killed at the March of Return are mentioned in the COI report, without reference to their militant background.

The post Quotes from Expert Response to UN Gaza Commission of Inquiry appeared first on UN Watch.

1. COI investigation not “objective.” COI Chair Santiago Canton claimed the investigation was “objective,” and that it examined violations by all “duty bearers.” However, the COI report overwhelmingly criticizes Israel and ignores serious Hamas violations, including massive incitement to terrorism, the use of women and children as human shields, recruitment and training of child soldiers, and disguising Hamas fighters as civilians. The COI fails even to find Hamas responsible for the launching of incendiary kites, only criticizing Hamas for failing in its “due diligence obligations to prevent” the use of these incendiary devices. This shows that the investigation was not truly objective and did not seriously examine Hamas violations.

2. COI investigation concerned only with “human life” of Palestinians, not Israelis. COI Chair Canton emphasized a few times that the COI was most concerned with protecting “human life.” However, the report considered only threats to Palestinian life, omitting any discussion or consideration of the threats to Israeli life, meters from the border fence. Furthermore, it incorrectly judged the threat to Israelis based on the after-the-fact effects of the border violence on Israelis, rather than looking prospectively at the potential for harm. For example, the report noted “No Israeli civilian deaths or injuries were reported during or resulting from the demonstrations…”; and “some [incendiary kites and balloons launched from Gaza] landed in empty educational institutions and private homes.” It appears the COI required Israelis to be killed or injured in order for it to conclude that Israelis were in danger.

3. COI findings based on incomplete data. COI member Sara Hossain claimed the COI’s research was based on “verified data.” In response to a question on this topic, COI Chair Canton responded that data was verified by checking it with witnesses and participants. However, verifying the accuracy of video footage with Palestinian witnesses provides only half the story. It does not take into account the Israeli side at all (e., what were the consideration for that particular use of live fire). Since the COI did not have cooperation from the Israeli government, its conclusions concerning specific cases can have been based only on partial and incomplete data. We note that submissions from Israeli NGOs cannot substitute for data exclusively in the hands of the IDF. This deficiency should have been prominently noted in the report. Furthermore, even if all the video footage reviewed by the COI is deemed authentic, the COI’s analysis must take into consideration the many surrounding circumstances going on at that particular time and place which might not appear in the video (e.g., visibility conditions due to heavy smoke from tire burning, the victim’s activity in the minutes leading up to being shot, crowd dynamics, proximity to Israeli communities, etc.).

4. COI ignored evidence of weapons among so-called peaceful protesters. COI Chair Canton stated: “We found two or three instances of armed individuals, but we didn’t find all along the investigation we conducted, we didn’t find cases of violence, and arms, and people with arms.” Likewise, COI member Hossain stated: “We didn’t find the use of arms along the protests anywhere except in those two incidents that we mentioned.” Given the extensive amount of publicly available open source data on weapons among the protesters, including preparation of explosives, IEDs at the fence, weapons found on rioters who crossed the fence, etc. (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here) this statement shows that the Commissioners either did not conduct a thorough investigation of the events, or deliberately misrepresent the evidence.

5. COI interpreted its mandate narrowly to avoid addressing instances of militant activity at the fence. While the COI purported to investigate “every killing” (Hossain’s words) regardless of when or where it occurred, indicating a desire to hold Israel accountable to the maximum extent, in all other respects it viewed its mandate narrowly as limited to activity occurring only on protest days at the five officially designated protest sites. This, notwithstanding that incidents, including border infiltrations and cross-border attacks, occurred throughout the period at other sites along the border fence, and at other days and times. Thus, the report deliberately omits relevant material concerning militant activity along the border fence. COI Member Hossain even acknowledge this deficiency: “We acknowledge that hostilities did continue during this time and there were many other incidents, but we actually haven’t looked at those in the context of this investigation.”

6. COI members evade questions about consultations with military experts. The COI members responded evasively as to what, if any, military experts they consulted. COI Chair Canton stated that the COI consulted with “the most relevant legal experts on international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the world,” but indicated that no Israeli military expert provided testimony. At the same time, COI Member Hossain stated that they did consult with “Israeli military experts.” The COI should identify the military experts with whom it consulted.

7. COI misrepresents IDF investigations. The COI criticized Israel’s internal review procedures on the basis that to date Israel has opened only five criminal investigations. The COI did not mention that these five criminal investigations concern eleven fatalities, and made it sound like the IDF has investigated only five deaths. COI member Hossain said: “according to our findings there are far more than five people who have been killed, and very many who have been injured… as far as we know there are no investigations by any authority in Israel into those incidents.” This is directly contradicted by the IDF website, that its internal fact-finding mechanism investigates each and every death with a priority for incidents involving children, medical personnel and journalists. Criminal investigations are opened only in cases where the Military Advocate General (MAG) has decided there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct. Most of the cases are still under review. In this regard, COI Chair Santiago Canton provided no support for his statement that “Israel is well within reasonable time to conduct thorough investigations on all the cases we presented in the report.” Indeed, the COI’s own investigation is incomplete and inconclusive as it ignored relevant data, such as involvement of victims in militant activity along the border fence, and did not have access to crucial classified IDF data. In criticizing IDF investigations, the COI also ignored challenges faced by the IDF in fact-gathering, including its inability to access the scene, and lack of cooperation from Palestinian witnesses and health care providers.

8. COI absolves Hamas of responsibility for harm to so-called protesters. COI Chair Canton absolved Hamas of all responsibility for the safety of Gazans along the border fence because “to put the responsibility on the de facto authority” would violate the assembly rights of Palestinians who should be able to decide for themselves “whether they want to participate in those demonstrations.” According to Canton, Hamas’s only responsibility is to provide Gazans with information about what is happening at the fence, so that their decision on whether to participate will be sufficiently “informed.” This approach completely ignores the fact that the border fence separates two hostile entities engaged in an ongoing armed conflict, and that anyone approaching the fence places themselves in grave danger. While the right to “peaceful assembly” is enshrined in international human rights law, restrictions on this right are permitted for “national security, or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” (ICCPR Art. 21). Certainly, Hamas would not have violated anyone’s rights to assembly, if it had insisted demonstrators must maintain a safe distance from the fence. Instead, Hamas actively lifted the access restrictions that had been put in place for the safety of Gazans to allow the “march of return” to take place at the fence itself, knowing, expecting, and wanting the IDF to respond forcefully so that it could achieve a media victory. By absolving Hamas of responsibility here, the COI legitimizes Hamas’s illegal tactics, and its cynical exploitation of Palestinian civilians.

The post Response to UN's Gaza inquiry press conference appeared first on UN Watch.

• “We will tear down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies.” Hamas Gaza leader Yehya Sinwar (April 6, 2018).
• “Palestine and Jerusalem belong to us…We will break the walls of the blockade, remove the occupation entity and return to all of Palestine.” Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (April 9, 2018).
• “We would rather die as martyrs than die out of oppression and humiliation…We are ready to die, and tens of thousands will die with us.” Hamas Gaza leader Yehya Sinwar (May 9, 2018).
• “Death to Israel,” and “We shall never recognize Israel.” Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (May 11, 2018).
• The purpose of Monday’s demonstration is “to draw the map of return in blood.” Hamas Gaza Deputy Chief Khalil al-Hayya (May 14, 2018).

6. Report unquestioningly accepts Palestinian narrative on “return” and ignores rights of Jewish people to self-determination in Israel
The Commission buys into the Palestinian narrative of the so-called “right of return,” completely diminishing the fact that the idea of “return” is a direct threat to the existence of the State of Israel, and to the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their national homeland. While UN resolutions refer to this “right of return,” such resolutions in no way suggest that this right can only be realized through actual return to territories in Israel, or that it takes precedence over other rights, like Israel’s right to peace and security.
For example, while UN security Council Resolution 242 affirms the necessity for “achieving a just settlement to the refugee problem,” the term “just settlement” clearly includes the possibility of financial compensation. Furthermore, Resolution 242 also affirms that “just and lasting peace” includes acknowledging Israel’s “sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence,” and its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries,” rights which the Palestinians have not been willing to recognize. The very premise of the “march of return” to cause a massive breach of Israel’s border with Gaza and invade Israeli territory is an outright violation of Resolution 242, completely ignored by the Commission.
Likewise, General Assembly Resolution 194 does not offer a blanket “right of return,” but accepts the idea as one option for those wishing “to live at peace with their neighbors,” along with other options including compensation and resettlement. A protest that has the goal to break through a border security fence into “the lands that are ours,” but which are actually sovereign Israeli territory shows the opposite of a desire to live peacefully with Israel.
Moreover, the Oslo Accords classified the issue of refugees as a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations between the parties, not through an international media campaign to delegitimize Israel.
7. Report ignores crucial factual context affecting legal analysis
The COI justifies its application of the law enforcement paradigm under international human rights law by deeming the protests “civilian in nature” with “clearly stated political aims.” (Para. 32). However, this conclusion ignores crucial evidence provided to the COI in our submission that the “march of return” was used as a cover for militant activities intended to harm Israeli soldiers and civilians. Among many other things, the evidence provided includes:

• Statements by Hamas leaders inciting rioters to murder Israelis and rallying the crowds to violence (e.g., “We would rather die as martyrs than die out of oppression and humiliation…We are ready to die, and tens of thousands will die with us.” Hamas Gaza leader Yehya Sinwar (May 9, 2018)).
• Statement by Hamas Co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahhar admitting the protests are not “peaceful resistance.”
• A Hamas press release admitting that the marches are being conducted by “the organizations of jihad fighters,” and that they are managed and supervised by “combat organizations.”
• The establishment of special military-style units at the border, each responsible for a different type of tactic against Israel.
• Instructions posted on the March of Return Facebook page for the May 14 riots, directing rioters to bring weapons (knife, dagger, or handgun), and attempt a mass breach of the border.
• Numerous examples of militant activities at the border fence, including shooting attacks, planting IEDs at the fence, cutting the fence, and throwing Molotov cocktails into Israel (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here).
• Statements by rioters of their intent to breach the fence, invade Israeli communities and kill or kidnap Israelis (e.g., one Facebook user posted “Kibbutz Kerem Shalom, east of Rafah, is only 300 meters from the border. It has turkey pens, a football field and a pool, [although] it houses only 15 families. Pounce on them with knives.”)

The COI’s conclusion also ignores the stated aims of the organizers themselves to “break through the fence” and establish a city in “the lands that are ours.” The act of sabotaging a hostile border fence which separates between two entities engaged in an armed conflict itself is a conduct of hostilities, not a “political aim.”
Indeed, the COI completely ignores the location of these so-called protests – at a hostile border between two entities engaged in an armed conflict, with the stated intent to breach that border and cause harm on the other side. Instead, the COI treats these events as if they were civil protests in the heart of a city like Tel Aviv, Paris, or New York, over which the governing authority has full control. In such cases, the governing authority has a greater ability to implement and enforce preventive measures, such as road blocks, to keep people away from danger zones, or security checks to check for weapons. That is not the case in Gaza, where only Hamas controls the Gaza side of the border where protesters gather, and only Hamas has the ability to keep protesters a safe distance away from the fence, but instead has deliberately encouraged protesters to approach the fence, knowing the danger. In these circumstances the means and methods available to Israel to keep people away from harm are much more limited than if the events were occurring in territory fully under Israel’s control.
8. Report deliberately misleads by describing border events as “festive” and omitting evidence of militant activities
The COI misleadingly describes the March 30 2018 disturbances as “initially festive,” and states that it “did not find that demonstrators were armed.” (Paras. 41-42). While the COI acknowledges stone-throwing and tire burning—activities it strangely claims are not violent, the COI omits all evidence of militant activities at the border fence. For example, the COI report makes no mention of a Hamas shooting attack on IDF soldiers that day, an attempt by militants to sabotage the fence and infiltrate Israeli territory, the laying of explosives at the fence in advance of March 30 to prepare for the “protests,” as well as on the protest day itself (see e.g., here and here). Moreover, as noted above, there are numerous other examples of militant and terrorist activities carried out under cover of the protests which the COI completely ignores insisting it had no evidence of demonstrators being armed. Some of these were detailed in our submission (starting at page 10).
9. Accuracy of COI’s death and injury statistics is questionable
The COI’s statistics for injuries and deaths of Gazans resulting from Israel’s use of live ammunition come from sources inside Gaza, mostly from the Hamas run health ministry, and are difficult to independently verify. We note that in some cases, reports claimed protesters were killed by Israeli fire when actually they were killed by their own fire or explosives (see e.g. here). The accuracy of the COI’s statistics is further called into question by the fact that it claims only 29 of the fatalities (out of 183 purportedly killed by Israeli fire) were members of Palestinian armed groups. This is directly contradicted by Hamas’s own admission that 50 out of the 62 people killed on May 14 were Hamas members, and that more than 50% of those killed since the start of the riots were Hamas members (see May 14, 2018 statement of Hamas politburo member Salah Bardawil). Moreover, according to data published by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (updated through January 14, 2019), 150 of the fatalities were affiliated with terrorist groups, including 58 who were specifically affiliated with the military wings of these terrorist groups. The COI provides no support for its conclusion that only 29 fatalities were members of Palestinian armed groups.
10. COI repeatedly implies Israel’s response is disproportionate based on comparison of casualty counts
Throughout the report, the COI implies that Israel’s military response was disproportionate. It repeatedly references the large numbers of Palestinian casualties (based on Hamas health ministry statistics), while noting the lack of Israeli casualties. In the one instance the COI found a possible “direct participation in hostilities,” on May 14, 2018, it describes it as one person from the Gaza side firing a rifle towards Israel, and Israel responding with 40 minutes of tank and gunfire, killing 21. (Para. 57). We are not familiar with the specific facts of this incident. However, it must be emphasized that in the Laws of Armed Conflict, proportionality is a prospective consideration by military commanders based on available real time data (not in the possession of the COI) that looks to whether the expected civilian casualties would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military gain. The end result (i.e., number of casualties on each side) is not what determines whether a particular attack complied with the rules of proportionality.
The COI lacks the ability to decide whether Israeli actions complied with proportionality rules because it does not have access to the relevant data, which is classified, and lacks the requisite military expertise. In addition, the COI fails to acknowledge that the lack of Israeli casualties is not the result of Hamas compliance with its legal obligations or a Hamas attempt to avoid harming Israelis, but is due to Israel’s efforts to protect its citizens, including by preventing armed terrorists infiltrating Israel from Gaza. The COI misleadingly characterizes the events in such a way as to suggest to the reader that the militants at the border were innocent and that Israel acted disproportionately.
11. Report finds that IDF snipers intentionally shot children, health workers, journalists, and disabled people, knowing them to be such
This statement is completely unfounded. The Israeli army is greatly respected for its high moral standards, and has robust internal complaint and review procedures. It is often described as the most moral and ethical army in the world. On its website, the IDF explains that it does not intentionally target any of these protected groups, describes generally its procedures for avoiding such harm, and notes that journalists and medical personnel placed themselves in danger by operating close to the security fence, often behind a heavy smokescreen deliberately created by burning tires. The COI ignores these facts, as well as Hamas’s intentional use of protected groups, including children, as human shields (see below).
Moreover, as we noted in our submission, a number of minors actively engaged in militant activities at the fence and were affiliated with terrorist groups. (See examples here, here, and here). One of the children in these examples, Yasser Abu Naja, is described in the report in completely innocent terms without any reference to his Hamas affiliation or participation in militant acts.
It is telling that the COI accuses Israel of intentionally harming disabled people, including two people with hearing disabilities. It is not clear how Israel would be expected to visibly identify people with hearing disabilities as disabled. This further demonstrates the baselessness of the COI’s conclusions.
12. Report ignores Hamas use of children as human shields
At the same time it accuses Israel of intentionally targeting children, the COI completely ignores Hamas’s cynical use of children as human shields—a violation of both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This practice has been extensively documented in the context of the march of return, including in information submitted by us to the COI. For example:

• One Hamas terrorist caught by Israel explained how Hamas deliberately encourages women and children to approach the fence: “They [Hamas] tell women to go forward. They say to a woman: Go ahead, you’re a woman and the army doesn’t shoot women. They tell small children: Go ahead, the army doesn’t shoot small children. They tell a child to go ahead and he goes. It’s a small child. They trick him.”
• Another Hamas operative arrested by the IDF said that Hamas militants dressed in civilian clothes encourage children to cross the fence and attempt to steal IDF equipment.
• Hamas Gaza leader Yehya Sinwar admitted this practice in an interview with Al-Jazeera: “When we decided to embark on these marches, we decided to turn that which is most dear to us – the bodies of our women and children – into a dam blocking the collapse in Arab reality.”
• Video footage of Hamas militants using a young boy as cover for their activities, and actively involving children in border violence.

13. Report justifies its conclusions against Israel with extremely narrow reading of the law that fails to take into account critical context
The report applies an extremely narrow view of the legal standard and deliberately minimizes the potential harm to Israelis in order to support its charge that Israel employed potentially lethal force where there was no “imminent threat” to life. The correct standard considers imminent threats to life or bodily integrity to oneself or others.
Although potentially lethal force is permitted to protect against imminent threats to oneself or others, the report considered only the threats to the responding IDF forces, described as being protected with “substantial defenses” (Para. 94; 96), while ignoring the threat to Israeli residential communities located meters from the fence. Given the openly stated goal of Hamas for protesters to infiltrate Israel and attack Israelis, and the militant activity along the border to sabotage the fence, this threat was (and still is) very real.
Furthermore, by defining imminence as “a matter of seconds not hours” (citing only to non-binding UN documents) (Para. 34), the COI suggests that Israel is obligated to wait for the armed terrorists to cross the fence, infiltrate an Israeli community, and actually threaten someone with a knife or a gun before it can respond with live fire. The likely result of a policy like this would be the death of innocent Israelis (See examples of Israelis killed by terrorists who infiltrated their communities here, here and here). Certainly, this is not the case. Israel has a right under international law to defend its citizens.
Applying such a narrow standard in this case, highlights the COI’s lack of military expertise and its failure to put the situation in the proper factual context. The COI failed to take into account that the timing of use of potentially lethal force to quell a life-threatening riot could significantly differ from the timing of use of such force in other law enforcement scenarios, such as to arrest a mass murderer.
Furthermore, as noted above, the COI incorrectly views the events as a typical civil protest in the heart of a city like Tel Aviv, New York, or Paris and ignores the fact that it is occurring on the opposite side of a hostile border that separates two parties to an ongoing armed conflict. Thus, as if it has put on blinders, the COI narrowly looks only at what is happening at a specific moment at the fence, without taking into consideration all of the surrounding facts and circumstances impacting on the level of danger at any given moment. Among other things, the COI fails to take into consideration the goal of the protest to invade Israel and attack Israelis, the presence of armed Hamas militants among the crowd ready to take advantage of any breach to commit terrorist attacks, the crowd dynamics which increase the threat from a potential breach, or the short distance from the fence to Israeli civilian communities.
14. No basis for COI conclusion that Israel targeted individuals based on memberships in armed groups
The COI states “targeting individuals purely on the basis of their membership of an armed group and not at the conduct at the time was impermissible.” Putting aside the disagreement about whether persons may be targeted solely based on their membership in armed groups, the COI provides no support for its conclusion that the IDF targeted individuals based on armed group affiliation. The facts that Hamas admitted that more than half of the deaths were Hamas members and that the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center found that 150 of the fatalities were affiliated with terrorist groups do not establish anything about the IDF’s intent or real time tactical considerations (data not in the possession of the COI). If anything, these facts support the conclusion that the individuals targeted by Israel were not innocent, peaceful protesters, but were targeted because they were engaged in militant activity at the border fence, i.e., that the targeting was based on conduct and not on terrorist group affiliation.
15. Report fails to acknowledge UN report finding Gaza blockade is legal
Without providing any citations, the Commission states “The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross have both found that the [Gaza] blockade constitutes collective punishment.” (Para. 16). Neither of these sources is binding on Israel. Furthermore, the Commission ignores the UN’s 2011 report on the Mavi Marmara incident by an independent panel of inquiry headed by Geoffrey Palmer, a former Prime Minister of New Zealand, which expressly found that Israel’s Gaza blockade is legal under international law: “Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.” (See ¶ 82). Some of the Panel’s specific findings concerning the Gaza Blockade include:

• The conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza is an international armed conflict for the purposes of the law of blockade. (See ¶ 73).
• Israel had intercepted ships smuggling weapons into Gaza, and it faced a real security threat from thousands of Gaza rocket and mortar attacks targeting civilians, the purpose of which was (and remains) “to do damage to the population of Israel.” (See ¶ 72).
• The blockade was declared and notified, and it is implemented in an impartial manner. (See ¶¶ 75-76).
• The blockade was imposed pursuant to a valid military objective. It is not collective punishment against the people of Gaza for having elected Hamas, as Israel’s earliest maritime interceptions to prevent weapons smuggling to Gaza predated the Hamas take-over, and the blockade itself was instituted more than one year after the take-over. (See ¶ 77).
• The blockade is not disproportionate, as Gaza’s port is too small to handle large shipments of goods, which are instead transferred to Gaza through land crossings. Thus, the impact of the blockade on the delivery of supplies to Gaza is “slight in the overall humanitarian situation.” (See ¶ 78).

Significantly, the Palmer Report reviewed the reports of the detailed national investigations into the Mavi Marmara incident conducted by both Turkey and Israel (Turkel Commission Report). On the issue of the legality of Israel’s blockade, the Palmer Report agreed with Israel’s legal analysis. See Turkel Commission Report ¶ 112 for a summary of Israel’s conclusions.
16. Report blames Israel for lack of two-state solution, while it gives the Palestinian a free pass
The report places all responsibility for the current impasse in peace negotiations on Israel (Para. 20-21), giving a free pass to the Palestinians. In fact, the Palestinians have rejected every peace plan ever offered to them since before the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Most recently, the Palestinians rejected former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 peace plan. Placing the blame for lack of peace exclusively on Israel rewards Palestinian rejectionism and Hamas terrorism, undermines Israel’s right to self-defense, and makes a negotiated two-state solution much more difficult to achieve.
Equally outrageous, the report states that the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem reduces “hopes for a two-State solution further.” There is no basis for this claim, as President Trump made clear the decision was nothing more than a recognition of the reality that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and its seat of government. Furthermore, in his remarks announcing the decision, President Trump reaffirmed U.S. support for the two-state solution:
“This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement.  We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians.  We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders.  Those questions are up to the parties involved…The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides.”
CLICK HERE FOR OUR COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S  FEBRUARY 28 PRESS CONFERENCE RELEASING THE REPORT
 

The post Breaking: UN Watch rejects findings of report by UN Commission of Inquiry on Gaza violence appeared first on UN Watch.

The post UN Resolution on Gaza Emboldens Hamas appeared first on UN Watch.

YouTube link

Good afternoon. There are many terrible things happening in the world today. Many things that demand our urgent attention.
As we speak, protests are taking place in Nicaragua. Over 146 peaceful Nicaraguans have been killed by their own government in the past two months. But we are not talking about Nicaragua today.
The people of Iran have been protesting their government for months. Thousands of peaceful Iranian protestors have been arrested. Over 25 are dead. But we’re not talking about Iran either.
The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is going on right now in Yemen. Millions are at risk for starvation. In Burma, almost a million innocent people have been driven from their homes in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. But we’re not talking about Yemen or Burma.
Instead, today the General Assembly is devoting its valuable time to the situation in Gaza. Gaza is an important international matter. But what makes it different and more urgent than conflicts in Nicaragua, Iran, Yemen, Burma, or many other desperate places? Because we haven’t gathered here to discuss any of those urgent issues. The United States would welcome that.
What makes Gaza different for some is that attacking Israel is their favorite political sport. That’s why we’re here today.
The nature of this resolution clearly demonstrates that politics is driving the day. It is totally one-sided. It makes not one mention of Hamas, who routinely initiates violence in Gaza. Such one-sided resolutions at the UN do nothing to advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Everyone recognizes that. But advancing peace is not the goal of this resolution.
I suspect even my Turkish friends know the passage of this resolution won’t change anything, but that it looks good for the people back home to think they’re doing something. That is pure politics. In fact, this resolution makes peace less possible.
It feeds a narrative to the desperate people of Gaza that their leaders are not responsible for their predicament. It stokes hatred. It sacrifices honesty, accuracy, compromise, and reconciliation in favor of the advancement of a narrow political agenda.
If we were being honest, we would acknowledge that there are no perfect actors on either side of this conflict. But it does no one any good to pretend that all blame lies on one side. I wish everyone supporting this one sided resolution would put as much energy into encouraging President Abbas to come to the negotiating table, as you do to falsely imply to your people back home that you’re doing something.
Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005. Hamas has been the de facto government in Gaza since 2007. This strip of land along the Mediterranean coast has enormous potential. And yet, after 11 years of Hamas rule, Gaza has electricity for only a few hours a day. It has enormous unemployment and poverty. It is a haven for terrorist activity. At what point will the UN actually hold accountable those who are in charge of Gaza and running it into the ground?
Instead, this resolution holds Hamas completely unaccountable for most of the recent unrest. It blames everything on Israel. But the facts tell a different story. It is Hamas and its allies that have fired over a hundred rockets into Israel in the past month, hoping to cause death to as many civilians and as much destruction as possible. It is Hamas that has used Palestinian civilians as human shields at the boundary fence, seeking to incite violence and overrun the border. It is Hamas that refuses to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority to unite in the pursuit of peace. It is Hamas that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel within any borders. And yet the resolution before us not only fails to blame Hamas for these actions, it fails to even mention Hamas. This is the dangerous, counter-productive decision the General Assembly is about to take.
But there is still a chance for this body to try and right this wrong. We still have the opportunity to salvage something honest from this discussion. The United States is offering an amendment that provides a small step in the direction of balance. Our amendment rightly condemns Hamas’s indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli civilian communities. It accurately condemns the diversion of aid and resources from civilian needs into military infrastructure, including terror tunnels used to attack Israeli citizens. It justly expresses our grave concerns about damage done to border crossings that are hindering the delivery of desperately needed food and fuel to the people of Gaza.
This is a modest amendment that reflects the minimum truth of what is going on in Gaza. It is the least that any self-respecting international organization or nation can do for the cause of peace.
To those who are unsure about how to vote, I ask, what part of our amendment is objectionable? Is it objectionable to condemn Hamas for firing the rockets at civilians? Is it objectionable to condemn the diversion of resources from civilians to military uses? Or is it objectionable to express concern about the destruction of border crossings that deliver life-saving supplies?
Today’s choice for the General Assembly is simple. It is the choice between using our time here to advance peace and security, or using it to stoke hatred and conflict. This vote will tell us much about which countries are serious about accuracy and reconciliation and which countries are bound by their political agendas. For the sake of peace, and for the sake of this institution, I urge my colleagues to support the United States’ amendment. Thank you.

The post Nikki Haley rips pro-Hamas U.N. resolution on Gaza appeared first on UN Watch.

Examining Statements by Top UN Human Rights Officials on Gaza Violence

In response to Israel’s acts of self-defense on the Gaza border to prevent armed Hamas terrorists from storming the fence and heeding the calls of Hamas leaders to massacre Israelis—in their own words, to “tear out their hearts from their bodies,” and “draw the map of return in blood”—UN human rights officials rushed to condemn only Israel for “excessive” and “disproportionate” force against supposedly “unarmed demonstrators,” while completely ignoring Hamas’s role in and responsibility for the violence.
On May 18, 2018, the UN Human Rights Council held a special session on the violence, and adopted a one-sided resolution condemning only Israel, and failing to even mention Hamas.[1] The resolution presumed Israel guilty of violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and war crimes, and created an international Commission of Inquiry into Israel’s actions.
Regrettably, statements by High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Hussein and Special Rapporteur on Palestine Michael Lynk were replete with incorrect and misleading accounts of fact and law. Below is a review of the most glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the following statements:

• May 18, 2018 statement of High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Hussein.[2]
• May 18, 2018 statement of Special Rapporteur for Palestine Michael Lynk.[3]
• May 15, 2018 statement of Special Rapporteurn for Palestine Michael Lynk.[4]

We found six primary concerns with these statements.

1. Gaza demonstrators were “unarmed” and “non-violent”

UN Statements

Lynk (May 15) and Zeid (May 18) both referred to the rioters as “unarmed demonstrators.” Lynk also said (May 18): “The Gazan demonstrations have been almost entirely unarmed and non-violent.”

Analysis

These statements misleadingly suggest that the events occurring at the Gaza border fence were entirely peaceful protests. However, that is far from reality. While the majority of the participants in the so-called demonstrations were unarmed civilians, many of them were armed members of Hamas’s military wing whose job was to rally the “protesters” to breach the fence and enter Israel to carry out terror attacks.
The riots were marked by violence, including throwing Molotov cocktails, catapulting flaming kites into Israeli territory intended to set fields on fire and cause harm, stone-throwing, attempting to cut through the border fence and infiltrate Israel, and firing at Israeli soldiers.[5]
The flaming kites caused several fires on the Israeli side, damaging agricultural fields and infrastructure. On April 27, the rioters succeeded in breaching the fence for a short time.[6] A number of Palestinians arrested after breaching border fence with Israel were armed.
Additionally, in the first two weeks of May, rioters incited by Hamas burned down the Kerem Shalom border crossing, the main crossing for humanitarian aid causing extensive damage and severely impeding the inflow of humanitarian goods and other resources necessary for Gaza’s infrastructure.[7]
Just before the May 14 protests, Hamas leaders posted to social media maps of the quickest routes to Israeli towns and villages.[8] The maps were widely shared on social media by Gazans intent on invading those communities.[9]
Moreover, Hamas officials incited the murder of Israelis and rallied the crowds to violence. Below are some examples of Hamas statements and actions:

• April 6, 2018, Hamas Gaza leader Yehya Sinwar shouts: “We will tear down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies.” [10]
• April 9, 2018, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh says: “Palestine and Jerusalem belong to us…We will break the walls of the blockade, remove the occupation entity and return to all of Palestine.”[11]
• April 20, 2018, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh says: “Our people will outnumber the occupation and force it from our land.”[12]
• April 27, 2018, Hamas Wire-Cutters unit who cut through border fence shout “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad has begun to return,” and one of the members warned “this enemy is destined for perdition,” and Israeli settlers should “leave immediately, before it is too late…”[13]
• May 9, 2018, Hamas Gaza leader Yehya Sinwar rallies the crowd: “We would rather die as martyrs than die out of oppression and humiliation…We are ready to die, and tens of thousands will die with us.”[14]
• May 11, 2018, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh rallies the crowd with chants of “Death to Israel,” and vows “We shall never recognize Israel.”[15]
• May 14, 2018, Deputy Chief of Hamas in Gaza, Khalil al-Hayya, explains that the purpose of Monday’s demonstration is “to draw the map of return in blood.”[16]

Even Hamas’s co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahhar admitted to Al-Jazeera on May 13, 2018 that calling the border protests “peaceful resistance” is “deceiving the public.”[17]

2. Quoting Palestinian Casualty Statistics Without Any Independent Verification

UN Statements

Lynk (May 15): the demonstrations “left 58 Palestinians dead…”
Zeid (May 18): “43 demonstrators were killed by Israeli forces,” and “Israeli forces also killed a further 17 Palestinians outside the context of the five demonstration hotspots.”

Analysis

Saying how many “Palestinians” or “demonstrators” were killed wrongly implies that all those killed were peaceful, non-violent protesters. This is an outright lie. Hamas’s own political bureau member Salah al-Bardawil, admitted on May 16, 2018 that 50 of those killed in the previous day’s clashes had been Hamas operatives, and called them “martyrs.”[18]
Furthermore, as NGO Monitor explained in a recent op-ed, the accuracy of the statistics from the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza concerning deaths and injuries is highly questionable since the source of the information is Hamas which “has a vested interest in inflating the numbers.”[19]
Veteran Middle East reporter Matti Friedman also wrote an op-ed, published by the New York Times, detailing how Hamas deliberately obfuscates the casualty numbers by censoring data to ensure that Hamas fighters are counted as civilian casualties.[20] There does not appear to have been any attempt by UN human rights officials to independently verify the Hamas Health Ministry data for the March of Return casualty numbers.
Additionally, Hamas increased the casualty number by encouraging the rioters to burn the Kerem Shalom border crossing, the main crossing for humanitarian aid into Gaza, and by refusing truckloads of Israeli medical aid.[21]

3. “Lethal force” is permitted only in cases of “imminent threat” of death or serious injury

UN Statements

Lynk (May 15): “I must reiterate that international human rights law sets strict prohibitions on the use of force by law enforcement officials. Lethal force against demonstrators is prohibited unless strictly unavoidable in the case of an imminent threat to life or threat of serious injury.”
Zeid (May 18): “I again remind all concerned that lethal force may only be used in cases of extreme necessity, as a last resort, in response to an imminent threat of death or risk of serious injury.”

Analysis 

Both Lynk and Zeid apply an incorrect legal standard to Israel’s use of force against Hamas’s violent terror attacks. Rather than applying International Humanitarian Law, which are the laws of war, to Israel’s use of force against Palestinian terrorists attempting to breach the border fence and harm Israelis, they apply a human rights law enforcement paradigm.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the applicable legal framework for evaluating Israel’s conduct
Israel’s conflict with Hamas is an “armed conflict” under international law, which has been ongoing since well before Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in 2007 and has never concluded. Violent attacks on the border fence between Israel and Gaza, and attempts to breach that fence and invade Israeli territory are part of that armed conflict.
Thus, the defensive use of force by Israel against rioters at the Gaza border is governed by IHL, and not by a human rights law enforcement paradigm. Basic principles of IHL permit the use of deadly force in hostilities, remove protections from civilians directly engaged in hostilities, and accept the possibility of civilian casualties.
Israel is not required to suffer casualties before it can defend itself
First and foremost, international law recognizes that Israel has a right to self-defense, i.e., to protect its citizens from Hamas terrorists intent on breaching its border and committing massacres. This right is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.[22] The right of self-defense applies equally when an attack is committed by a non-State actor, as explained by Judges Higgins and Burgenthal in the ICJ’s Wall case.[23] Moreover, the right to self-defense is also a matter of customary international law, based on the Caroline case (1837).[24]
This right to self-defense does not demand that Israel sit back and wait to be attacked before it fights back, but is triggered by imminent threats. As a High-Level Panel of experts appointed by former Secretary-General Kofi Anan explained in 2004, “long established international law” permits a threatened State to “take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate.”[25] This view is widely accepted among international law experts.[26] Hamas terrorists seeking to break through the border to carry out terror attacks against Israelis living nearby is an imminent threat.
Under IHL, Palestinians who take direct part in hostilities lose protected civilian status
In addition, Palestinian rioters directly participating in hostilities are not entitled to the protection afforded to civilians. Article 51(3) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1949) permits attacks on civilians “for such time as they take direct part in hostilities.”[27] According to the ICRC commentary, this means “acts of war which by their nature or purpose are likely to cause actual harm to the personnel and equipment of the enemy armed forces.”[28] Therefore, engaging in violent acts intended to breach Israel’s border fence with Gaza and/or cause harm on the Israeli side of the fence would cause rioters to lose protected civilian status.
Proportionality not about how many killed on each side, but assesses expected civilian casualties in relation to anticipated military gain
Significantly, the concept of proportionality in IHL is not a question of comparing the body count—number of Israelis vs. number of Palestinians killed or injured. Rather, it is a prospective consideration based on the military commander’s assessment of whether the expected civilian casualties will be excessive in relation to the anticipated military gain. In fact, IHL accepts the possibility of civilian casualties. See, e.g., Article 57of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1949).[29] The correct legal analysis would look at whether the Israeli commander who decided to employ live ammunition in a particular scenario determined that the expected civilian casualties would not be excessive in relation the anticipated military gain, presumably preventing the breach of the border fence. It is a case by case analysis that can only be properly undertaken based on facts and data in the control of the Israeli army.
Even law enforcement paradigm permits use of force to quell a riot
Furthermore, even if the human rights law enforcement paradigm were applicable to these Hamas attacks, it does not limit the use of deadly force only to cases of imminent threat to life or deadly injury, but recognizes quelling a riot as a legitimate reason to use force. This is clear from the negotiations over Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[30], which provides:
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
The U.S. and UK argued over whether this Article should list a specific set of exceptions where a killing would not be considered arbitrary. The UK had proposed three exceptions, including quelling a riot. The U.S. vehemently objected to creating such a list because, inter alia, it was impossible to create a comprehensive list that would cover all possible exceptions. Thus, the parties agreed that quelling a riot would serve a legitimate basis for use of deadly force.[31] Furthermore, this is exception is explicitly stated in Article 2(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950)[32], which states:
Deprivation of live shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defense of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Even the International Committee for the Red Cross, author of the Geneva Conventions, accepts that in the law enforcement context, quelling a riot is a legitimate basis for use of force.[33]

4. The contrast in casualty numbers proves Israel’s response was disproportionate

UN Statements

Zeid (May 18): “The stark contrast in casualties on both sides is also suggestive of a wholly disproportionate response…”

Analysis

This is a completely incorrect statement of the law. As explained above proportionality in IHL is not a comparison of the numbers, but a question of whether the military commander made the assessment that the expected civilian casualties would not be excessive in relation the anticipated military gain in that situation. According to Zeid, Israel must allow its soldiers and citizens to be attacked and killed before it can fight back in self-defense. That is not the law.

5. Palestinian violence at the border fence did not pose a deadly threat justifying Israel’s use of lethal force

UN Statements

Lynk (May 15): “There appears to be no persuasive evidence that the use of flammable kites, throwing of stones or Molotov cocktails, or other actions reportedly taken by a small number of the demonstrators presented a deadly threat that justified the force used by the Israeli military.”
Lynk (May 18): “[] an attempt to approach the fence, to damage the fence, or even to cross the fence, by an unarmed individual faced with heavily armed soldiers, does not constitute a threat to life or serious injury that would justify the use of lethal force. Similarly, stones, or even Molotov cocktails, thrown at significant distances towards well-protected and heavily armed security forces behind defensive positions, would not rise to the level of threat necessary to justify use of lethal force.”
Zeid (May 18): “Although some of the demonstrators threw Molotov cocktails, used sling-shots to throw stones, flew burning kites into Israel, and attempted to use wire-cutters against the two fences between Gaza and Israel, these actions alone do not appear to constitute the imminent threat to life or deadly injury which could justify the use of lethal force.”

Analysis

Outrageously ignoring the many open and public facts about the Hamas incitement, calls for blood and martyrdom, declarations that Palestine must be liberated, rallying to breach the border fence and attack Israelis, Lynk and Zeid make the incredible assertion that the violence at the border fence did not pose a deadly threat.
Putting aside their incorrect legal analysis, which as explained above, wrongly restricts Israel’s use of force to cases of an imminent deadly threat, as a factual matter, the threat of the border fence being breached had (and has) the potential to be extremely deadly. Likewise, flaming kites, Molotov cocktails and other weapons also are potentially deadly. The flaming kites alone have caused extensive damage. Firefighters have spent hours combating the fires which have burned over 1,000 dunams of agricultural land and damaged the farming infrastructure.[34] In the last months, over 300 such kites were thrown across the border setting off 100 fires.[35] These fires certainly pose a lethal threat.
Here’s what the rioters themselves had to say on social media about their intentions:

• “[The Israeli town of] Sderot is only 700 meters east of [the Palestinian town of] Beit Hanoun in nothern Gaza. The headquarters of the Israeli army is there, and houses about 800 pigs. [The town] can be reached in two minutes on motorcycles or in five-eight minutes at a brisk run,” and urging “Murder, slaughter, burn and never show them any mercy.”[36]
• “Kibbutz Kerem Shalom, east of Rafah, is only 300 meters from the border. It has turkey pens, a football field and a pool, [although] it houses only 15 famlies. Pounce on them with knives.”[37]
• “To anyone who succeeds in entering occupied soil: There is a fat fish waiting for us very close by: the settlement is Be’eri, located 4-4.5 kilometers from eastern Gaza… It is considered to be one of the richest settlements, and houses 900 settlers.”[38]
• “People and residents of Gaza! With Allah’s help, afternoon prayers will be held in the Gaza border settlements of Nativ Ha-Asara, Erez, Sderot, Nir Am [and] Mefalsim…During your sacred advance tomorrow, I direct you not to kill children, women or very elderly people…”[39]
• “Oh Jew, you do not belong here… [you have] no state here, only fear and terror.”[40]
• “We, the rebel youth of the Gaza Strip, east of the Jebalia refugee camp, convey a message to the settlers along the border of the Gaza Strip: Leave immediately, before it is too late! The Palestinian revolution will not cease until victory or martyrdom!”[41]

6. By blaming only Israel and ignoring Hamas actions, UN officials encourage Hamas terrorism and IHL violations which place both Israelis and Palestinians at risk

UN Statements

Notably missing from the statements of Lynk and Zeid was any condemnation of Hamas for its blatant violations of IHL, and incitement to violence and mass murder; acknowledgement of Hamas’s responsibility for the terrible plight of Gazans due to its continued support for terrorism, calls for the destruction of Israel, and refusal to reconcile with Fatah (NOTE: Lynk mentioned Hamas responsibility in passing in his May 18 statement to the HRC but focused all of his remarks on condemning Israel); and any call for accountability from Hamas.

Analysis

Hamas violates IHL by targeting Israeli civilians for attack
Hamas’s IHL violations include threatening and targeting Israeli civilians for attacks. Article 51(2) of the First Additional Protocol, which provides: “The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.”[42] Hamas’s stated goal for the riots of breaching the border fence and attacking nearby Israeli towns—in the words of Hamas Gaza leader Yehya Sinwar “to tear down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies”— is thus prohibited. Actual attacks on civilians such as those perpetrated with flaming kite bombs are likewise prohibited.
Hamas violates IHL by using Palestinian civilians as humans shields
Hamas further violates the First Additional Protocol by using Palestinian civilians, including women and children as human shields. Article 51(7) of the First Additional Protocol states: “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.”[43]
Hamas leader Yehya Sinwar admitted that Hamas deliberately sacrificed women and children in the conflict. In a May 16 interview with Al-Jazeera, he said: “When we decided to embark on these marches, we decided to turn that which is most dear to us – the bodies of our women and children – into a dam blocking the collapse in Arab reality.”[44]
On May 14, 2018, the New York Times reported that Hamas was rallying protesters to approach the fence, shouting “Get closer! Get closer!” to the fence, and “We don’t want just one or two people to get closer, we want a big group.”[45] A Hamas rioter captured by Israel also confirmed this, saying: “They [Hamas] tell women to go forward. They say to a woman: Go ahead, you’re a woman and the army doesn’t shoot women. They tell small children: Go ahead, the army doesn’t shoot small children. They tell a child to go ahead and he goes. It’s a small child. They trick him.”[46]
Hamas further incentivized rioters to violence, including women and children, by announcing that it would pay $3,000 to the families of anyone killed and $200-$500 to those injured, depending on the injury.[47]
Hamas violates IHL by disguising its fighters as civilians
Another Hamas violation of IHL is the crime of perfidy, which includes feigning civilian or non-combatant status. As explained by the ICRC commentary to Article 37 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1949): “A combatant who takes part in an attack, or in a military operation preparatory to an attack, can use camouflage and make himself virtually invisible against a natural or man-made background, but he may not feign a civilian status and hide amongst a crowd. This is the crux of the rule.” (emphasis added).[48]
Hamas violates this principle by keeping its operatives in civilian dress and hiding in the crowd.[49] The fact that Hamas admitted 50 out of the 62 killed on May 14-15 were its own operatives, after the media and UN officials rushed to accuse Israel of disproportionate attacks on Palestinian civilians supposedly involved in peaceful protest, illustrates how Hamas has perfected this cynical tactic to its advantage.
Thus, at a minimum, Hamas is guilty of double war crimes—attacking Israeli civilians and threatening them with murder, and cynically placing its own civilian population at risk by using them as human shields for Hamas fighters who, themselves, are disguised as civilians.
====================
[1] Violations of international law in the context of large-scale civilian protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Human Rights Council Twenty-Eighth special session U.N. Doc. A/HRC/Res/S-28/1 (May 18, 2018).
[2] Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the deteriorating human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (May 18, 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23100&LangID=E.
[3] Statement by Special Rapporteur for Palestine Michael Lynk, 28^th Special Session of Human Rights Council, UN Web TV (May 18, 2018), https://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/treaty-bodies/www.un.org/news/watch/1st-meeting-28th-special-session-of-human-rights-council/5786571192001/?term=&sort=date.
[4] UN human rights expert condemns horrific violence in Gaza, Office of the High Commissioner (May 15, 2018),  https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23087&LangID=E.
[5] Jonathan D. Halevi, ‘Great Return March’ Incorporates Hamas Warfare Tactics, Algemeiner (May 2, 2018), https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/05/02/great-return-march-incorporates-hamas-warfare-tactics/; Fares Akram and Karin Laub, Israeli soldiers kill 4 Palestinians in 4^th Gaza border protest, Chicago Tribune (April 20, 2018), https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-gaza-israel-protests-20180420-story.html; Violence subsides on Gaza-Israel border after 15 killed in clashes, New York Post (March 31, 2018), https://nypost.com/2018/03/31/violence-subsides-on-israel-gaza-border-after-deadly-clash/.
[6] Fares Akram/AP, 3 Palestinians Killed, Dozens Wounded in Latest Violence at Israeli Border Fence, Time (April 27, 2018), https://time.com/5257965/palestinians-killed-israeli-border-fence/; Noga Tarnopolsky, Palestinian protesters breach Israel-Gaza border fence; 3 killed, hundreds injured in clashes, LA Times (April 27, 2018), https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-gaza-friday-protests-20180427-story.html.
[7] Aron Heller and Fares Akram, Israel bombs Gaza tunnel, closes key crossing after attack, Washington Post (May 12, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-closing-gaza-cargo-crossing-after-weekly-protests/2018/05/12/526bf448-55e8-11e8-a6d4-ca1d035642ce_story.html?utm_term=.8beaab8da7ce.; Judah Ari Gross, Israel reopens Gaza crossing, but Palestinians turn back some trucks, Times of Israel (May 15, 2018), https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-reopens-gaza-crossing-but-palestinians-turn-back-some-trucks/.
[8]Bethan McKernan, Israel drops leaflets on Gaza warning Palestinians to stay away from border fence ahead of US embassy move protests, Independent (May 14, 2018), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/srael-gaza-us-embassy-protests-opening-jerusalem-border-fence-leaflets-a8350511.html.
[9] The ‘Great Return March’ Campaign: An INtiative Sponsored by Hamas, Whose Goal Was to Breach the Border Fence, Penetrate Israeli Territory, Special Dispatch No. 7476, MEMRI (May 18, 2018), https://www.memri.org/reports/great-return-march-campaign-initiative-sponsored-hamas-whose-goal-was-breach-border-fence
[10] Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A), Twitter (May 15, 2018, 1:09 AM), https://twitter.com/Ostrov_A/status/996301534718844928.
[11] Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas vows Gaza protests to last until Palestinians ‘return to all of Palestine’, Times of Israel (April 9, 2018), https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-vows-gaza-protests-to-continue-until-they-return-to-all-of-palestine/.
[12]Fares Akram and Karin Laub, Israeli soldiers kill 4 Palestinians in 4^th Gaza border protest, Chicago Tribune (April 20, 2018), https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-gaza-israel-protests-20180420-story.html.
[13] https://www.memri.org/tv/fence-cutters-unit-gaza-proclaims-victory-or-martyrom
[14] David Halbfinger and Iyad Abuheweila, As Gaza Teeters on Precipice, a Hamas Leader Speaks Out, New York Times (May 10, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/world/middleeast/gaza-protests-yehya-sinwar.html.
[15] https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-political-bureau-head-haniyeh-we-shall-never-recognize-israel.
[16] David M. Halbfinger, Isabel Kershner and Declan Walsh, Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza Border as U.S. Embassy Opens in Jerusalem, New York Times (May 14, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/middleeast/gaza-protests-palestinians-us-embassy.html.
[17] Amid Antisemitic and “Death to Israel” Chants, Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh Vows: We Shall Never Recognize Israel – Scenes from Gaza “Return March,” Clip #6570, MEMRI (May 11, 2018), https://www.memri.org/tv/senior-hamas-official-mahmoud-zahhar-on-gaza-protests-this-is-not-peaceful-resistance.
[18] Hamas Political Bureau Member Salah al-Bardawil: 50 of the Martyrs Killed in Gaza Were From Hamas, 12 Regular People, MEMRI (May 16, 2018), https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-politburo-member-bardawil-fifty-martyrs-were-hamas-members.
[19] Naftali Balanson, The Return of the Gaza Numbers Game, Jerusalem Post (May 21, 2018), https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-return-of-the-Gaza-numbers-game-557996.
[20] Matti Friedman, Falling for Hamas’s Split-Screen Fallacy, New York Times (May 16, 2018).
[21] Judah Ari Gross, As Gaza hospitals suffer shortages, Hamas refuses Israeli medical aid, Times of Israel (May 16, 2018), https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-gaza-hospitals-suffer-shortages-hamas-said-to-refuse-israeli-medical-aid/.
[22] Article 51, UN Charter, https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/.
[23] Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, at 207, ¶ 33, https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-02-EN.pdf; Declaration of Judge Buergenthal, at 240, ¶¶ 5-6, https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-05-EN.pdf,  in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 136, ¶ 139 (July 9),
[24] See note of US Secretary of State Daniel Webster dated 24 Apr. 1841, in Caroline Case, 29 British and Foreign State Papers (1841) 1137–1138, available at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/br- 1842d.asp (last accessed May 27, 2018).
[25] A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, (2004) UN Doc A/59/565, at para. 188, https://undocs.org/A/59/565.
[26] David Kretzmer, The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum, 24 EJIL 1, 235-282, 248 (2013).
[27] Article 51(3) of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
[28] Commentary of 1987 to Article 51(3), Protection of the Civilian Population, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=5E5142B6BA102B45C12563CD00434741.
[29] Article 57 of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
[30]Article 6, International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (1966), https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.
[31] Summary Record of the Hundred and Thirty-Ninth Meeting, Commission on Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.139 (March 30, 1950), available at https://hr-travaux.law.virginia.edu/document/iccpr/ecn4sr139/nid-1706 (Last accessed May 27, 2018).
[32] Article 2(2), European Convention on Human Rights (1950),  https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.
[33] Expert Meeting, The Use of Force in Armed Conflicts: Interplay Between Conduct of Hostilities and Law Enforcement Paradigms, ICRC Report (November 2013), 8, https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4171.pdf.
[34] Yaniv Kubovich, Burning Kites From Gaza Start Fires in Israeli Fields, Haaretz (May 9, 2018), https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-burning-kites-from-gaza-start-fires-in-israeli-fields-1.6072206; Almog Ben Zikri, Israel Urges Farmers Near Gaza Border to Harvest Wheat Early Due to Threat of Burning Kites, Haaretz (May 23, 2018), https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-urges-farmers-near-gaza-border-to-harvest-wheat-early-1.6112153; Activists Use “Firebomb Kites” To Set Fire To Israeli Fields And Houses: Hundreds of Kites Will Be Flown Toward The Enemies – Scenes From Gaza “March of Return,” Clip #6532, MEMRI (April 18-April 20, 2018), https://www.memri.org/tv/gaza-activists-use-firebomb-kites-set-fire-to-israeli-fields.
[35] 4 Gazans cross fence into Israel; 300 burning kites sent over border in a month, Times of Israel (May 26, 2018), https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-opens-fire-at-4-who-crossed-the-fence-in-southern-gaza/.
[36] The ‘Great Return March’ Campaign: An INtiative Sponsored by Hamas, Whose Goal Was to Breach the Border Fence, Penetrate Israeli Territory, Special Dispatch No. 7476, MEMRI (May 18, 2018), https://www.memri.org/reports/great-return-march-campaign-initiative-sponsored-hamas-whose-goal-was-breach-border-fence.
[37] Id.
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Id.
[41] Id.
[42] Article 51(2) of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
[43] Article 51(7) of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
[44]Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar: Our People Took Off Their Military Uniforms and Joined the Marches; They Have Imposed Their Agenda Upon The Whole World; We Decided To Turn The Bodies of Our Women and Children Into A Dam Blocking Arab Collapse, Special Dispatch No. 7477, MEMRI (May 18, 2018), https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-leader-gaza-yahya-sinwar-our-people-took-their-military-uniforms-and-joined-marches.
[45] David M. Halbfinger, Isabel Kershner and Declan Walsh, Israel Kills Dozens at Gaza Border as U.S. Embassy Opens in Jerusalem, New York Times (May 14, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/middleeast/gaza-protests-palestinians-us-embassy.html.
[46] Elior Levy and Yoav Zitun, Hamas rioter: group ‘tricks’ women, children to enter line of fire, Ynet (May 17, 2018), https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5263044,00.html.
[47] Khaled Rahman, Palestinians stockpile thousands of tires to burn on Gaza border on Friday as Hamas anounces it will pay $3,000 to the family of anyone killed in the protests, Mail Online (april 5, 2018), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5581731/Palestinians-burn-thousands-tires-Gaza-border.html.
[48] Commentary of 1987 to Article 37, Prohibition of Perfidy, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=762AA9AB1FB871F4C12563CD00432BFA.
[49]Tom Rogan, How Hamas Works to force Israel’s hand at the Gaza border, Washington Examiner (May 14, 2018), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/how-hamas-works-to-force-israels-hand-at-the-gaza-border; Col. Richard Kemp, Smoke & Mirrors, Six Weeks of Violence on the Gaza Border, High Level Military Group (May 2018, https://high-level-military-group.org/pdf/hlmg-smoke-mirrors-six-weeks-violence-gaza-border.pdf.

The post Were Top UN Human Rights Officials Right on Gaza Violence? appeared first on UN Watch.