'Precisely Wrong' is the latest in the series of tendentious HRW
'investigations' which condemn Israel without credible evidence, and seek to
criminalize the legitimate use of defensive weapons.

Release Date: 29 June 2009
NGO Monitor: Drones Latest Weapon in HRW Campaign Against Israel

(Jerusalem) - Ahead of tomorrow's Human Rights Watch (HRW) publication on
IDF use of drones during the Gaza conflict, NGO Monitor noted the evidence
showing that HRW's research lacks credibility and uses numerous unverifiable
claims. This is consistent with an established pattern of dubious HRW
allegations against Israel. HRW even held a fundraiser in Saudi Arabia last
month touting its disproportionate focus on Israel. While Israel has long
been singled out for criticism, HRW has failed to adequately investigate
human rights abuses by Hamas during the conflict and employs double
standards when scrutinizing other conflict zones, such as Sri Lanka.

HRW's report, titled 'Precisely Wrong', makes unverifiable claims, including
comments on the deaths of 12 civilians caused by a drone-launched missile.
HRW claims there was 'no known military activity in the area at the time'.
This is impossible to verify and reflects the reliance on unidentifiable
'witnesses' and 'researchers'. Similarly, in a March 2009 article on the
IDF's use of drones, HRW authors Marc Garlasco and Darryl Li cited an
'eyewitness' interview with 13-year old Mohammed Allaw, who, according to
Palestinian NGO Al Mezan, was killed weeks earlier.

This latest HRW 'investigation' documents a mere 6 incidents, resulting in
29 civilian deaths. HRW claims that Israel is consequently 'obligated.to
investigate serious violations of the laws of war'. This demand,
particularly based on such a limited study which ignores the complexities of
asymmetric warfare, reveals an immoral, obsessive and disproportionate
attitude towards Israel.

The report claims that 42 drone attacks killed 87 Gaza civilians according
to 'Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups'. Yet casualty statistics
provided by groups such as Palestinian Center for Human Rights are
notoriously inaccurate and often include combatants under civilian claims.
(Israeli NGOs did not have access to Gaza during the conflict).

'Precisely Wrong' is the latest in the series of tendentious HRW
'investigations' which condemn Israel without credible evidence, and seek to
criminalize the legitimate use of defensive weapons. HRW's earlier report
alleging that Israel illegally used white phosphorous during the Gaza
conflict was similarly based on Palestinian 'eyewitnesses'. This followed
Marc Garlasco's highly publicized pseudo-investigation of the 2006 "Gaza
beach incident". Although first relying on 'Palestinian researchers',
having viewed IDF evidence, Garlasco reportedly admitted that 'we do not
believe the Israelis were targeting civilians'.

HRW's activity on Gaza mirrors its campaigning during the 2006 Lebanon War,
which also focused almost entirely on condemning Israel. In one central
case, HRW falsely claimed massive casualties from an Israeli attack at Qana,
and this was repeated in media headlines. This eventually led to a 48 hour
halt in Israeli operations, allowing Hezbollah to re-arm, and prolonging the
war. The claims were later revised.

'Precisely Wrong' is HRW's second major report denouncing Israel following
the Gaza conflict, and comes in parallel to a flood of reports from the
ICRC, Amnesty International, and other NGOs, timed to benefit from media
coverage of the Goldstone inquiry. (Goldstone resigned from the HRW board,
following NGO Monitor's exposure of the conflict of interest.)

In sharp contrast, HRW fails to condemn or report the well-documented use of
human shields by Hamas. This Hamas strategy contributed to what HRW
cynically refers to as Israel's failure to take 'all feasible precautions'
in protecting civilians against drone attacks. In sharp contrast, HRW
unequivocally criticized the Tamil Tigers' use of human shields during the
recent conflict in Sri Lanka.

NGO Monitor's Executive Director, Prof Gerald Steinberg said, "Human Rights
Watch continues its anti-Israel obsession, based on unverifiable evidence
and blatant double standards. Drones are clearly a legitimate part of the
defense against terror, yet they have become the latest subject in a much
wider campaign to delegitimize Israel. This report actually highlights HRW's
lack of expertise and basic understanding of the complexities of human
rights issues in combat situations.

The fact that officials recently sought funds from the Saudi regime despite
its serial human rights abuses underlines the fact that Human Rights Watch
has lost any moral pretense."

-------- ENDS ------------
Editors Notes:
Please click here to view the NGO Monitor review of HRW's 2008 activities
NGO Monitor was founded to promote transparency, critical analysis and
debate on the political role of human rights organizations. For more
information, see our website at
www.ngo-monitor.org
For further information, comment or interviews contact Dan Kosky
+972 (0) 546-305-504
NGO Monitor - 1, Ben Maimon Blvd. - Jerusalem 92262 - Israel - T:
+972-2-566-1020
F: +972-77-511-7030
E: dan.kosky@ngo-monitor.org
Appendix: Responses to HRW's press release in advance of 'Precisely Wrong'"
1) ".... killed civilians who were not taking part in hostilities and were
far from any fighting. ... In three of the cases, drones fired missiles at
children playing on rooftops in residential neighborhoods, far from any
ground fighting at the time".
Gaza is tiny, the entire area was used by Hamas for launching attacks, as
well as preparing and storing weapons. Schools, playing fields, mosques, and
other structures were used for launching deadly attacks against Israeli
civilians.
2) "details six incidents resulting in 29 civilian deaths, among them eight
children".
6 incidents, 29 allegedly civilian deaths -- shows the obsessive and
disproportionate targeting of Israel. The context of deadly asymmetric
warfare has been erased, as has the extensive use by Hamas of human shields.
3) "Israeli forces failed to take all feasible precautions to verify that
these targets were combatants, as required by the laws of war, or that they
failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians. ...Human Rights
Watch found no evidence that Palestinian fighters were present in the
immediate area of the attack at the time".
HRW has no basis for judging "all feasible precautions" and for alleged
failure to "distinguish between combatants and civilians in such
circumstances". This is purely subjective, and ignores the inability to
define "Palestinian fighters" consistently, as well as the extensive use of
human shields.
4) "Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups have reported a total of 42
drone attacks that killed civilians, 87 in all, ..."
NGOs such as Palestinian Center for Human Rights are notoriously inaccurate
and generally include combatants under civilian claims. Israeli NGOs had no
access to Gaza during the combat.
5) " 'Precisely Wrong' is based on field research in Gaza, where Human
Rights Watch researchers interviewed victims and witnesses, examined attack
sites, collected missile debris for testing, and reviewed medical records".
The sources are unverifiable, as shown in HRW's numerous and often
contradictory reports on the 2006 Lebanon War, the notorious Gaza Beach
incident, and similar cases.
6) "On December 27, 2008, ... a drone-launched missile hit a group of
university students as they waited for a bus on a crowded residential street
in central Gaza City, killing 12 civilians. ... no known military activity
in the area at the time".
Again, these claims are unverifiable.

7) "the Israeli military struck a truck that it said was transporting Grad
rockets, killing nine civilians. The military released video footage the
attack to support its case, but the video raises serious doubts that the
target constituted a military objective - doubts that should have guided the
drone operator to hold fire. The alleged rockets, the
military later admitted, proved to be oxygen canisters".
An understandable mistake under the circumstances, as acknowledged by the
IDF
8) "The Israeli government is obligated under international law to
investigate serious violations of the laws of war. ... Individuals who have
committed serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent - that
is, intentionally or recklessly - are responsible for war crimes".
Such claims lose any moral or legal validity when they are applied uniquely
to Israel and in an obsessive and disproportionate manner. HRW's silence on
use of human shields by Hamas is a failure of moral judgement.

9) "A fact-finding team from the United Nations Human Rights Council headed
by the respected international jurist Richard Goldstone is currently
investigating alleged violations of the laws of war by both Israel and
Hamas. Israel has said it will not cooperate with the investigation
because the Human Rights Council is biased against Israel. Hamas has
said it will cooperate".
Goldstone's mandate is completely biased, as is Goldstone and other members
of the commission who condemned Israel during the combat, based on NGO
(including HRW) and media reports. Goldstone was a member of HRW's board of
directors until recently, and only resigned after this conflict of interest
was noted by NGO Monitor.
10) "Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Palestinian fighters were
present in the immediate area of the attack at the time."
HRW made similar claims in Lebanon -- ignoring the overwhelming documentary
evidence to the contrary as in this case -- and had to retract this claim on
a high percentage of cases. See HRW Monograph for more detail