Human Rights Watch finally condems Hamas...

But, there are still some questions about their report...

1. Why did it take HRW 6 months to issue a report that covers no new ground and largely repeats the International Crisis Group’s report of April 2009? In the interval, HRW issued two publications condemning Israel. NGO Monitor’s detailed analysis of HRW’s report on Israel’s use of drones can be found here.

2. Why does HRW perpetuate the “balance” between terrorist groups and their targets? (“Whether it is Hamas’ claims of the ‘right to resist occupation’ or Israel’s of the right ‘to combat terror’, the reasons for engaging in armed conflict do not permit a party to ignore its legal obligations in the way it conducts hostilities.”)

3. Why did HRW fail to condemn Hamas for extensive use of human shields? What is the basis for the claim that Hamas “did not…force civilians to remain in areas in close proximity to rocket launching sites”?

4. Why is Israel absurdly blamed for Hamas’ rocket fire from populated areas? According to HRW, Hamas “redeployed from more open and outlying regions – many of which were…controlled by Israeli ground forces…into densely populated urban areas”. In other words, Israel’s operation against the rocket fire is blamed for the Hamas violations of the laws of war. And numerous rocket attacks from these same urban areas – long before the IDF operation - is not mentioned.

5. Why is there no effort to uncover details of weapons smuggling into Gaza, and no mention of Iran? When HRW published speculative allegations on Israel’s use of drones and white phosphorous, they emphasized US military assistance.

6. Why does HRW continue to falsify the history in order to attack Israel? This report blames Israel for the end of the ceasefire -- “These attacks virtually stopped…but resumed after Israeli forces killed six Palestinian fighters…on November 4, 2008”. This version ignores the fact that Israel was responding to tunnels being completed and suggestions of another kidnapping attempt.