‘We Stripped And Shouted, ‘Indian Army, Rape Me!’ It Was The Right Thing To Do’ :IMA NGAMBI

Standard

‘We Stripped And Shouted, ‘Indian Army, Rape Me!’ It Was The Right Thing To Do’
In a quiet, sleepy village, a beaming, portly woman stands in the doorway with four kids and a small grandson. Looking at her without any background information, it would be hard to imagine this gentle, happy, beatific face as the face of Manipur’s most aggressive anti-State protests. But at the age of 62, Ima Ngambi is a Manipur legend, the woman who shouted the loudest in 2004 before stripping naked to protest the rape of 32-year-old Thangjam Manorama. Her story is important not only because she has stood up to a deeply oppressive and patriarchal politics. She did all of this while living on wages of 40 a day, with which she fed a family of six, singlehandedly brought up four children and managed to save the odd rupee to put into her fight against the State.

resting at her house in manipur.

Ima Ngambi resting at her house in manipur.

I HAD a very happy and comfortable childhood, growing up in a small village in the Bishnupur district of Manipur. I was the youngest of six brothers and sisters and was, therefore, the most pampered. I was a tomboy and a very naughty kid. My two brothers didn’t approve of my playing with boys in the area, especially when I beat them up if I felt they were wrong. But my mother was always on my side. My favourite memory of those days is of my father carrying me across the river on his back. I loved him dearly. After his death, things changed. My family could only afford to send me to school upto Class X. Even so, I have my parents to thank for laying a very strong foundation for me. My mother never went to school, but she was extremely far-sighted. She always worried about what would happen to her girls when they grew up, and so she did something that was very unusual for our culture and in the times she lived in: she left me some land, and the one-room house I live in now is built on that land.

In 1974, I found myself thinking about how women in my state were always weaker than men. And it made me join the women’s association. Around that time, I fell in love and got married. My husband was always a great companion and supporter of my work. But my mother-in-law didn’t approve. So I had to quit.

By the time we had our fourth child, things changed drastically. My husband poured all our savings into starting a petrol pump. But our dreams were broken by rivals, who appeared one day and beat my husband so badly that he was incapacitated. When he was in hospital, all I had was 40. It was a very difficult time. My husband lay at home in a numb state, and eventually died a decade later.

I couldn’t leave my small kids alone at home and look for work. Some friends suggested I peddle liquor for a living. I told them that I would rather starve. So I started work as a daily-wage labourer, clearing sand from the river bank. It was the same river that my father carried me across as a child. I remembered that and it gave me strength.

But the activist in me, long dormant, couldn’t stay suppressed forever. At that time, alcoholism was rampant in Manipur. Some Manipuri mothers wanted to set up an association to help addicts detox and wanted me to be its president. I somehow managed to take a few rupees out of my earnings and put that into my activism. The recovery programme for addicts gradually turned into the Meira Paibi movement, or the women with the flaming torches. I ended up being seen as its ringleader. I used to work from 4 to 7 am every day, and devote the nights to my activism. My kids used to leave the door open at night so I could let myself in. One night, soon after I’d been out on protest, the children heard a knock on the door and, thinking it was me, opened it to find the army asking for me.

Once, when I went to Imphal in 1996 or ’97, there was a brutal rape and a women’s rally was being held in protest. I also got involved in campaigns against the State when people started mysteriously disappearing due to the conflict in Manipur. The All Manipur Students Union was seen as a front for insurgent groups and was banned by the government. Some of their representatives were jailed and their office was burned down. I said that if these students weren’t released, I would fast. Thirty of us began a hunger strike. After two days we were arrested. This is the first time I went to jail. My youngest child was in Class II at that time. She used to come and lie down next to me, cry for an hour and then go back home. I used to tell her, “Don’t cry, be proud of me for doing something for society.” But my girl was too small to understand that. After she’d go, I would break down and cry. We were then told that the students were released and the others went off their fast and protest. But I knew there was still one student left in jail. I stayed back there for a month until that last student was released. That time, my family stepped in and looked after my kids.

When I was jailed for the first time, the government had already introduced the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which gave the army immunity and protection from punishment for the crimes they were committing. In one incident, the editor of a newspaper was arrested for speaking out against the government. I asked for his release, along with other Imas. Section 144 was imposed by the State and our protests were met with police brutality. One woman was bleeding profusely after being beaten by a policeman. So I picked up a piece of cycle rubber and gave in to the urge to hit that policeman back. They ran after me to take their revenge. The superintendent of police threatened me with his stick. He was waving it at me, but I caught it and we both fell to the ground. He ordered my arrest. The cops poked a stick between my eyes. I was back in jail, and this time as well, my brothers looked after my kids. And my kids went to the river to clear sand as daily wage labourers in my stead. They really struggled along with me.

This extreme protest in July 2004 caught the nation's eye, but was preceded by decades-long atrocities under the Armed Forces Act

This extreme protest in July 2004 caught the nation’s eye, but was preceded by decades-long atrocities under the Armed Forces Act

In the midst of all this, on 11 July 2004, a 32-year-old woman named Thangjam Manorama was picked up by members of the Assam Rifles in the middle of the night. They raped her and pumped bullets into her vagina. It was too much for us to take. I cried a lot that day. It could have been my daughter in Manorama’s place, I thought. And so, when I got a call from a women’s organisation to go to Imphal, I hired a cab. But the driver could not enter the city. I got out and walked. The police knew me, so I got past the blockades and entered the space where women were protesting against Manorama’s rape. I stripped naked along with other women protesting on the street outside the Kangla Fort where the Assam Rifles was stationed and shouted, “Indian Army, rape me! We are all Manorama’s mothers.” We felt this was the right thing to do.

Womenfolk in naked protesting against the brutal killing of Manorama at the gate of 17 Assam Rifles (Kangla Gate) in the capital town - Manorama was killed by the personnel of 17 AR personnel - 15 July 2004

Womenfolk in naked protesting against the brutal killing of Manorama at the gate of 17 Assam Rifles (Kangla Gate) in the capital town – Manorama was killed by the personnel of 17 AR personnel – 15 July 2004

The shame of Manorama’s rape ricocheted across the world. So the police were especially upset with me and were hunting for me. NDTV had come to interview me, along with the other women who had stripped. I went for the interview and was arrested at midnight along with my daughter. I was released after three months in jail. The fourth time I was arrested, I was part of an agitation against fake encounters in the state. While I was in prison, a policeman saluted me and said, “Ima, don’t be scared and don’t lose hope. We are there for you.” I cried when he said that.

Today, AFSPA is still in force and Irom Sharmila’s fast is nearly 12 years old. As a mother of Manipur, I am doing my best to fight for human rights. Times have changed since I was out on the street agitating, spending whatever loose change I had tied to my skirt. Today if we don’t pay social workers conveyance, they won’t turn up. Their commitment to politics isn’t the same. But I urge women to please continue the fight. And fight strategically. In the past few months, however, I have seen a stirring. Things are not going to be as they were. One fine day, with enough women rising, AFSPA will have to go.

Hunger striker Irom Sharmila Chanu receives a humanitarian award from the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital in Imphal, Manipur State, India, September 2010.

Hunger striker Irom Sharmila Chanu receives a humanitarian award from the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital in Imphal, Manipur State, India, September 2010.

CHIT FUNDS: EXPLAINED

Standard

The Saradha scam in West Bengal has created a storm and the murky multi-level marketing scheme of the group — helped and sustained by political leaders and other godfathers — is repeatedly and erroneously described as the ‘Chit Fund Scam’. This would be hilarious but for its ominous implications for the chits industry. Saradha had more than 160 entities /activities and not even one of them was registered under the chit fund category.

The mainstream media which thrives on abysmal ignorance in matters of finance repeatedly refers to Saradha as a chit and sometimes ‘cheat fund’ scam. It is obnoxious since the scam has nothing to do with chit fund activity. There are reports that some members of the Parliamentary Committee on finance headed by Yashwant Sinha – former Finance Minister — is discussing the possibility of abolishing all chit funds in the light of the Saradha scam when Saradha group did not have any activity linked to chit funds. This is like amputating the left leg when there is gangrene in the right leg.

1. Chit Funds are defined under Sec. 45 I(c) of the RBI Act. RBI Notification No.DNBC.39/DG(H)-77 dated June 20, 1977 categorises it as miscellaneous non-banking company (MNBC).

2. Since the subject is in the concurrent list (entry 7 of List III) of the Constitution, administration of the rules is with the respective State Governments. The company should be registered with the Registrar of chit fund of the State of their operation.

3. Chit fund company means a company managing, conducting or supervising, as foremen, agent or in any other capacity, chits as defined in Section 2 (b) of ‘The Chit Funds Act, 1982’.

4. Any company carrying out the operation of ‘Chit Fund’ should have the words ‘Chit’, ‘Chitty’ or ‘Kuri’ as part of their company name.

5. Chit fund companies are not allowed to accept deposits from the public, trade in stock, equity or other cash management.

6. Chit funds, as of now, are not allowed to carry on other businesses without the permission of the Registrar/State Governments.
Now given these characteristics and parameters, it is very clear that Saradha never was a chit company and nor did it intend to be one. There are many multi-layer marketing outfits which collect funds from gullible public and utilise the funds in the unorganised credit market or in real estate etc. In this case, the Group seems to have invested substantially in smaller print and visual media ventures also.

It would not be easier for such entities to operate without the cooperation of police and other political leaders/ Ministers. There was a similar case in Bangalore sometime before and in that case the receipts were given as ‘donations’ to temples. There is a huge appetite for use of funds and also a large number of gullible people’s interest in investing in such offers due to ignorance or greed or both.

On the contrary, there are many chits companies in southern part of India which are thriving for the last many decades some even over hundred years. Capitalising on the social networking and community participation, this institution has survived over several years, even after the influx of several other organised financial institutions and the increased complexity of financial markets. Under this model, money is circulated to the entire cross section of our society; be it housewives, salaried class, businessmen, Government servants, club members under different names namely: Kitties, bisies, kuries and Chit funds.

A chit scheme generally has a predetermined value and duration. Each scheme admits a particular number of members (generally equal to the duration of the scheme), who contribute a certain sum of money every month (or everyday) to the ‘pot’. The ‘pot’ is then auctioned out every month. The highest bidder (also known as the prized subscriber) wins the ‘pot’ for that month. The bid amount is also called the ‘discount’ and the prized subscriber wins the sum of money equal to the chit value less the discount and the fixed fee to the foreman. The discount money is then distributed among the rest of the members (or the non-prized subscribers) as ‘dividend’ and in the subsequent month, the required contribution is brought down by the amount of dividend.

The primary use of Chit Funds include:

• To address consumption needs such as, marriage, education, property purchase and so on.

• To pay off costlier loans from outside sources like loan from money lenders.

• To address working capital, business expansion or start-up capital needs of small businesses, besides providing bridge loans.

• For an emergency or simply as savings for future needs.

In the context of reduced availability of bank financing many small and tiny business people use chits for their credit requirements. It is important that in our knee-jerk reaction to scams we do not throw the baby out with the ‘balti’. As a first step, mainstream media [MSM] must stop calling Saradha type scams chit fund scam. It is a multi-level marketing scam assisted by political leaders. Some reports suggest that the Centre was very much aware of it but kept quiet as long as Mamata’s TMC — was supporting the UPA and took action once the support was withdrawn.

Be that as it may, it is important that genuine chits numbering thousands and facilitating consumption and investment requirements of a large number of middle-class people should not be strangulated in the name of ‘cleaning’ the sector.

Rain of Fire

Standard

This report documents Israel’s extensive use of white phosphorus munitions during its 22-day military operations in Gaza, from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, named Operation Cast Lead. Based on in-depth investigations in Gaza, the report concludes that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse and a hospital.

White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza – many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire – but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks.

The unlawful use of white phosphorus was neither incidental nor accidental. It was repeated over time and in different locations, with the IDF “air-bursting” the munition in populated areas up to the last days of its military operation. Even if intended as an obscurant rather than as a weapon, the IDF’s repeated firing of air-burst white phosphorus shells from 155mm artillery into densely populated areas was indiscriminate and indicates the commission of war crimes.

The dangers posed by white phosphorus to civilians were well-known to Israeli commanders, who have used the munition for many years. According to a medical report prepared during the hostilities by the ministry of health, “[w]hite phosphorus can cause serious injury and death when it comes into contact with the skin, is inhaled or is swallowed.” The report states that burns on less than 10 percent of the body can be fatal because of damage to the liver, kidneys and heart.

When it wanted an obscurant for its forces, the IDF had a readily available and non-lethal alternative to white phosphorus-smoke shells produced by an Israeli company. The IDF could have used those shells to the same effect and dramatically reduced the harm to civilians.

Using white phosphorus in densely populated areas as a weapon is even more problematic. Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Israeli forces fired ground-burst white phosphorous at hardened military targets, such as Palestinian fighters in bunkers, but it may have air-burst white phosphorous for its incendiary effect. Fired from artillery and air-burst to maximize the area of impact, white phosphorous munitions will not have the same lethal effect as high-explosive shells, but will be just as indiscriminate.

The IDF’s deliberate or reckless use of white phosphorus munitions is evidenced in five ways. First, to Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, the IDF never used its white phosphorus munitions in Gaza before, despite numerous incursions with personnel and armor. Second, the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus in populated areas until the last days of the operation reveals a pattern or policy of conduct rather than incidental or accidental usage. Third, the IDF was well aware of the effects white phosphorus has and the dangers it can pose to civilians. Fourth, if the IDF used white phosphorus as an obscurant, it failed to use available alternatives, namely smoke munitions, which would have held similar tactical advantages without endangering the civilian population. Fifth, in one of the cases documented in this report – the January 15 strike on the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) headquarters in Gaza City – the IDF kept firing white phosphorus despite repeated warnings from UN personnel about the danger to civilians. Under international humanitarian law, these circumstances demand the independent investigation of the use of white phosphorus and, if warranted, the prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes.

The IDF at first denied using white phosphorus in Gaza, and then said it was using all weapons in compliance with international law. It now says it is conducting an investigation, reportedly run by a colonel, into the use of white phosphorus. Given the IDF’s record on previous internal investigations, and the relatively low rank of the reported investigation leader, the inquiry’s objectivity remains in doubt.

White Phosphorus Use in Gaza

White phosphorus is a chemical substance dispersed in artillery shells, bombs, rockets, or mortars, used primarily to obscure military operations on the ground. When released upon ground contact or air-burst, it emits a dense white smoke that militaries use to screen the movement of troops. The smoke also interferes with infra-red optics and weapon-tracking systems, thus protecting military forces from guided weapons such as anti-tank guided missiles. Its use in open areas is permissible under international law, but air-bursting white phosphorus over populated areas is unlawful because it places civilians at unnecessary risk and its wide dispersal of burning wedges may amount to an indiscriminate attack.

White phosphorus can also be used as a weapon against hardened military targets, such as bunkers. However, it may not be used as an anti-personnel weapon when a weapon less likely to cause unnecessary suffering is available.

White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon and is not banned per se. But like all weapons its use is restricted by the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law: it must be used in a manner that adequately distinguishes between combatants and civilians, and it may never target the latter.

In Gaza, the IDF most frequently air-burst white phosphorus in 155mm artillery shells. Each air-burst spread 116 burning white phosphorus wedges in a radius extending up to 125 meters from the blast point, depending on conditions and the angle of attack.

White phosphorus ignites and burns on contact with oxygen, and continues burning at up to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (816 degrees Celsius) until nothing is left or the oxygen supply is cut. When white phosphorus comes into contact with skin it creates intense and persistent burns, sometimes to the bone. Infection is common and the body’s absorption of the chemical can cause serious damage to internal organs, as well as death.

In its Gaza operations, the IDF apparently used white phosphorus in three ways. First, on at least three occasions the IDF air-burst white phosphorus in densely populated areas. In the crowded Gaza City neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa, for example, Israeli forces on January 15 fired air-burst white phosphorus directly over homes and apartment buildings where civilians were living or taking shelter, killing at least four civilians from one family. On that day, white phosphorus shells struck the al-Quds Hospital and its administration building run by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, setting parts of the hospital on fire and forcing the evacuation of about 50 patients and 500 neighborhood residents who had taken refuge there.

Also on January 15, at least three white phosphorus shells struck the main UNRWA compound in the Rimal neighborhood of central Gaza City, wounding three and starting fires that gutted four buildings and destroyed more than US$3.7 million worth of medical supplies. According to UNRWA officials, they had been speaking with IDF officers throughout the morning as the shells landed progressively closer to the compound, asking them to halt fire. About 700 civilians were sheltering in the UN compound at the time.

At another well-marked UN facility – a school in Beit Lahiya sheltering roughly 1,600 displaced persons – the IDF air-burst at least three white phosphorus shells on January 17, the day before the cessation of major hostilities. One discharged shell landed in a classroom, killing two brothers who were sleeping and severely injuring their mother and a cousin. The attack wounded another 12 people and set a classroom on fire. As with all of its facilities in Gaza, the UN had provided the IDF with the GPS coordinates of the school prior to military operations.

In the attacks on the UNRWA compound and the UN Beit Lahiya school, Human Rights Watch’s investigation revealed no military justification for using white phosphorus as an obscurant because Israeli forces were not on the ground in those areas at the time of the attacks. When queried by Human Rights Watch by letter about these incidents, the IDF declined to respond, citing its ongoing investigation.

Second, the IDF used air-burst white phosphorus on the edges of populated areas, perhaps as an obscurant to mask the movement of its forces. In some of these cases, such as in Siyafa village near Beit Lahiya on January 4 and Khuza’a village east of Khan Yunis on January 10 and 13, substantial amounts of white phosphorus landed up to a few hundred meters inside residential areas, killing at least six civilian and wounding dozens. The use of white phosphorus in these residential areas violated the obligation to take all feasible measures during military operations to minimize civilian harm.

Third, the IDF apparently used air-burst white phosphorus in open areas along the 1948 armistice line separating Israel and Gaza, perhaps to screen troop movements and to burn shrubs and trees that might serve as cover for Palestinian armed groups, as well as to set off landmines and improvised explosive devices. Human Rights Watch was not able to investigate whether this use resulted in the destruction of civilian objects in excess of the expected military gain because security concerns prohibited travel to the area.

In all of these cases, if smoke-screening was the intended aim, then the IDF possessed alternatives to the highly incendiary white phosphorus; namely, 155mm smoke projectiles, which produce the equivalent visual screening properties without the incendiary and destructive effects. Smokescreens generated by smoke artillery can be deployed more easily over a wider area than white phosphorus with no risk of fires or burns to civilians. Israel Military Industries (IMI) manufactures such shells. While smoke shells do not block infra-red optics and weapon-tracking systems, the IDF consistently used white phosphorus during the day, obviating the need to block night vision, and Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Hamas fired anti-tank guided missiles. Even if Israeli soldiers or armor in need of cover had been on the ground in the areas where white phosphorus was used, air-bursting the munition creates a less effective smokescreen than ground-bursts because the smoke is more widely dispersed. Ground-burst white phosphorus, targeted properly, is less likely to harm civilians because the burning wedges stay more contained.

The consistent use of air-burst white phosphorus instead of smoke projectiles, especially where no Israeli forces were on the ground, strongly suggests that the IDF was not using the munition for its obscurant qualities, but rather for its incendiary effect. Indeed, Human Rights Watch is not aware of the IDF using its white phosphorus in Gaza before, despite numerous incursions with personnel and armor.

In order to explain the high number of civilian casualties from the fighting in Gaza, Israeli government and IDF officials have repeatedly blamed Hamas for using civilians as “human shields” and for fighting from civilian objects. In the cases documented in this report, Human Rights Watch found no evidence of Hamas using human shields in the vicinity at the time of the attacks. In some areas Palestinian fighters appear to have been present, such as in Khuza’a and the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City, but this does not justify the indiscriminate use of white phosphorus in a populated area.

Human Rights Watch has long criticized the IDF for firing 155mm high explosive shells into or near densely populated areas as indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war. Using the same artillery to fire air-burst white phosphorus munitions, which send burning phosphorus wedges 125 meters in all directions, is similarly unlawful when used in populated areas.

The total number of Palestinians killed and injured by white phosphorus is not known and will likely remain so. Hospitals in Gaza were unable to provide statistics on white phosphorus casualties because they lacked the diagnostic tools to determine the cause of burns. Medical records from the time are also poor because hospitals were overwhelmed by the numbers of injured and dead.

Still, the serious impact on civilians and civilian objects is clear. In the six cases documented in this report alone, which represent a selection of white phosphorus attacks in Gaza, white phosphorus shells, burning white phosphorus wedges, or the resulting fires killed 12 civilians, including three women and seven children, one of them a fifteen-month-old baby. Dozens were wounded by burns or smoke inhalation. Human Rights Watch encountered cases of civilians who were injured from stepping on white phosphorus remains up to 12 days after major hostilities had stopped.

Palestinian and foreign doctors who treated burn victims told Human Rights Watch about seeing intense and very deep burns. On some occasions the wounds began to burn again when cleaned, which is consistent with white phosphorus igniting on contact with oxygen. “For the first time I’m seeing strange kinds of burns, very deep to the bone,” one doctor at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City told Human Rights Watch. “And they cause a bacterial infection unlike anything else.”

Some seriously burned patients were evacuated to Egypt for treatment, especially if they needed skin grafts, because Gazan hospitals could not offer proper care. “We have a lot of burns, actually chemical burns,” a doctor in Cairo treating Gazans told Human Rights Watch. “Most are third degree burns, which look like chemical burns and not ordinary burns. There is no skin and sometimes even no muscle.”

During eleven days of research from January 21 to 31, 2009, Human Rights Watch researchers found 24 spent white phosphorus 155mm shells in civilian areas of Gaza, apparently in the places where they had fallen, including in homes and on streets in residential neighborhoods. The shells and the canisters they contained were colored a distinctive light green, which identifies them as having held white phosphorus.

Palestinian de-miners showed Human Rights Watch an additional 48 shells that they said they had removed from civilian areas, although the precise location where they found these shells is unclear. It is unlikely that the de-miners collected any of these shells from open areas near the Gaza-Israel armistice line due to the security concerns of entering those areas; Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire on anyone who gets within a few hundred meters of Israeli territory.

Human Rights Watch also found canister liners and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on streets, roofs, private courtyards, and the UN school in Beit Lahiya. Many of them reignited when kicked or prodded, thereby exposing the white phosphorus to oxygen. When lit and smoking, they emitted a strong odor similar to garlic, which is typical of white phosphorus.

All of the white phosphorus shells that Human Rights Watch found came from the same lot manufactured in the United States in 1989 by Thiokol Aerospace, which was running the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant at the time. In addition, on January 4, 2009, Reuters photographed IDF artillery units handling projectiles whose markings indicate that they were produced in the United States at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in September 1991.

Israel’s willingness to investigate its use of white phosphorus is welcome, but history suggests that the likelihood of an objective examination is slim. Previous IDF investigations have failed to look objectively at alleged laws of war violations by Israeli soldiers and commanders. In the case of Operation Cast Lead, military investigators have already suggested that soldiers and commanders did no wrong, even before the investigations are complete.

“Commanders during the fighting shouldn’t be losing sleep because of the investigations,” said Col. Liron Liebman, who became head of the IDF’s international law department after the major fighting ended in January. “It’s impossible not to make mistakes in such a crowded environment, under pressure.”[1] Colonel Liebman added that war crimes charges brought against Israeli soldiers and commanders are “legal terrorism.”

The United States government, which supplied Israel with its white phosphorus munitions, should also conduct an investigation to determine whether Israel used it in violation of international humanitarian law.

Methodology

During major military operations, from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, Israel banned access to Gaza for all media and human rights monitors. Access via Rafah in Egypt was also blocked. Unable to enter Gaza, Human Rights Watch researchers spent time on the Israeli side of the 1948 armistice line with northern Gaza. On January 9, 10 and 15, they watched IDF artillery repeatedly fire air-burst white phosphorus above civilian areas, including what appeared to be Gaza City and Jabalya. Israeli forces fired these shells from a 155mm artillery battery east of Highway 232 in Israel. The distinctive burst, sending burning wedges down, was consistent with media photographs taken since the start of the ground invasion on January 3. Barred by Israel from entry into Gaza, the researchers were unable to determine precisely where the white phosphorus landed and what effect it had on the civilian population.

Human Rights Watch researchers entered Gaza via the Rafah border crossing with Egypt on January 21, three days after major military operations had ceased, and spent the next 10 days investigating many of the sites where white phosphorus had been used, and the resultant harm to civilians and civilian objects. During this time, Human Rights Watch researchers conducted 29 interviews with the victims and witnesses of white phosphorus use, as well as with ambulance drivers and doctors who treated people with burns. Interviews with doctors who treated burn patients, as well as with another witness of a white phosphorus attack, were conducted in Cairo, Egypt on February 9 and 10.

On February 1, 2009 Human Rights Watch submitted a list of detailed questions about white phosphorus to the IDF, provided as an appendix to this report. On February 15 the IDF replied by letter, also an appendix, that it could not provide answers within the requested time-frame of two weeks. “The IDF has established an investigative team in the Southern Command to look into issues which you have raised, and our reply will be made on the basis of their findings,” the letter said.

Recommendations:-
To the Government of Israel

Immediately appoint an independent commission of inquiry to investigate all credible allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces in Gaza between December 27 and January 18, including the use of white phosphorus. The investigation’s findings should be made public and should include recommendations for disciplinary measures or criminal prosecutions, as appropriate.
Order the IDF to cease any use of white phosphorus munitions in populated areas, in Gaza and elsewhere.
Ratify the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III), of the Convention on Conventional Weapons.
Provide victim assistance and compensation for deaths, injuries, and property damage and destruction caused by the IDF’s unlawful use of white phosphorus in populated areas of Gaza.
Allow entry into Gaza for medical experts and specialized medical supplies and equipment needed to treat persons injured by white phosphorus.
Facilitate the evacuation out of Gaza of white phosphorus victims for whom proper treatment is not available there. Help provide treatment for these people in Israel or elsewhere.
To the United Nations

Examine the use of white phosphorus by the IDF as part of UN investigations into the conduct of hostilities in Gaza by the Human Rights Council and the Secretary General-appointed Board of Inquiry, as well as any future inquiries.
Make public the results of all UN investigations into the conduct of the armed conflict in Gaza and southern Israel.
The UN Security Council or Secretary-General should appoint an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza and southern Israel by the IDF and Hamas forces between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009, including the use of white phosphorus. The commission should establish key facts and recommend mechanisms to hold violators accountable and provide compensation to victims.
To the United States

Investigate whether Israel used U.S.-manufactured white phosphorus in Gaza in violation of international humanitarian law or any arms transfer agreements or policies.
Cease all transfers of white phosphorus munitions to Israel until the above investigation is complete.

What is White Phosphorus?

White phosphorus is a chemical substance that ignites and burns on contact with oxygen, generating a dense white smoke that lasts about seven minutes, with a distinctive garlic-like odor.

Militaries use white phosphorus munitions primarily as an “obscurant” to provide visual cover for ground operations, masking the movement of troops and armor. It can also be used as an incendiary weapon to burn or “smoke out” enemy personnel or to set fire to military targets. White phosphorus can be dispersed by artillery shells, bombs, rockets, or grenades.

White phosphorus is not banned by international treaty, as is mustard gas and anti-personnel landmines. It is not considered a chemical weapon, but an incendiary munition – one that causes fires.

When set to burst in mid-air, the 116 white phosphorus-coated felt wedges in a typical 155mm artillery shell can fall over an area up to 250 meters in diameter. In total, one air-burst shell releases 12.74 pounds (5.78kg) of burning white phosphorus.

When white phosphorus comes into contact with people or objects, it creates an intense and persistent burn, emitting heat and absorbing liquid. It is soluble in organic material and fat, but not in water, which neutralizes it by cutting off the oxygen supply.

In addition to causing intense burns, white phosphorus can also penetrate the body and poison internal organs. According to a report prepared during the recent fighting by the office of IDF chief medical officer, “kidney failure and infections are characteristic long-term outcomes.” The report concludes that “a wound caused by explosive ordnance containing phosphorus is potentially extremely destructive to tissue.”[2]

A report by the Israeli Ministry of Health is equally stark in its assessment of white phosphorus’s medical risks. Entitled “Exposure to White Phosphorus,” the report states that “[w]hite phosphorus can cause serious injury and death when it comes into contact with the skin, is inhaled or is swallowed.” It continues: “[b]ecause it is very soluble in fat, it quickly penetrates the skin from the surface or from an embedded fragment. Most of the tissue damage is cause by the heat accompanying the continuing oxidation of the phosphorus, and from the product of the oxidation – phosphoric acid.” The report also mentions the “systemic poisoning” that can result:

In addition to its “usual” burn effects, white phosphorus is poisonous, and has serious consequences that intensify the effects of the injury. Many laboratory studies have shown that burns covering a relatively small area of the body – 12-15% in laboratory animals and less than 10% in humans – may be fatal because of their effects on the liver, heart and kidneys. Additional effects include serious hypocalcemia and delayed healing of wounds and burns.[3]
Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has used white phosphorus in the past, notably in the wars in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006.[4] The IDF uses indirect-fire systems to launch white phosphorus munitions, meaning that the firing unit does not see the target, but relies on spotters to provide targeting information. To fire white phosphorus in Gaza, the IDF used 155mm artillery shells and 120mm mortar shells; Human Rights Watch researchers found the remnants of both in Gaza, many of them in residential areas. The use of air-burst white phosphorus delivered by 155mm artillery shells in populated civilian areas caused the casualties and damage that is the focus of this report.

Each 155mm shell contains a light green canister marked “WP CANISTER” that holds four metal liners. The liners hold the 116 felt wedges soaked in phosphorus. When air-burst, the canisters explode in mid-air, ejecting the felt wedges from the shell casing and scattering them over a wide area, leaving the empty shell casing to land separately. When exposed to oxygen, the wedges ignite. Human Rights Watch researchers found shell casings, unexploded white phosphorus canisters, canister liners, and felt wedges from inside the canisters in multiple sites in the Gaza Strip. Researchers saw felt wedges igniting when agitated or exposed to oxygen up to two weeks after they had landed.

All of the white phosphorus shells Human Rights Watch found in Gaza are from the same lot, manufactured in the United States and marked: THS89D112-003 155MM M825E1. THS89D is the manufacturer identification code denoting that the shells and contents were produced in April 1989 by Thiokol Aerospace, which operated the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant at the time; 112-003 are the interfix and sequence numbers, which denote that several lots of the same ammunition were being produced simultaneously; 155mm stands for the caliber of the artillery shell. M825E1 is the US military designation for an older remanufactured M825 white phosphorus shell that has been brought up to the current M825A1 standard.[5]

Additionally, Reuters news agency photographed an IDF artillery unit in Israel near Gaza handling M825A1 projectiles on January 4, 2009 with the lot number PB-91J011-002A, indicating that these shells were produced in the United States at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in September 1991.

One alternative to using white phosphorus as an obscurant is 155mm smoke projectiles, which also produces equivalent visual screening properties without incendiary and destructive effects.[6] Moreover, smokescreens generated by smoke artillery can be deployed more easily over a wider area than white phosphorus. The IDF possesses smoke artillery; Israel Military Industries (IMI) manufactures the M116A1 155MM shell.[7]

In some cases documented in this report, the evidence suggests that the IDF air-burst white phosphorus for its incendiary effect, perhaps to detonate Hamas arms caches or improvised explosive devices.

Human Rights Watch interviewed one IDF soldier who participated in Operation Cast Lead as a medic on reserve duty and had served in Gaza for more than two years prior to disengagement in 2005. He spent the last eight days of the operation in Gaza, he said, based near Zeitoun, southeast of Gaza City.

Regarding white phosphorus, the soldier, who requested anonymity, said that he saw the IDF air-burst it at an angle of about 30 degrees from 155mm artillery above houses that they suspected of being booby-trapped, based on intelligence.

“I don’t know why the angle was low, but it was used to burn a house,” he said. “We were told it was an empty house. We knew it was mined. It blew up [after being hit with the white phosphorus] and there were several explosions [perhaps of weapons stored there].[8]

He continued: “I also saw conscripts using white phosphorus in Zeitoun. It was used there too at low angles. There was no specific briefing about it. But as part of our medical training we did go through the scenario of how to deal with it.”

The use of air-burst white phosphorus to destroy houses suspected of having weapons or booby-traps is highly questionable when the IDF possess more effective precision weapons designed to minimize collateral damage, such as the GBU-39, a 250-pound (113 kg) guided bomb.

Hamas’s Alleged Use of White Phosphorus

On January 14, Israeli police claimed that Hamas had fired a single mortar shell with white phosphorus from Gaza into Israel. Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the shell had landed in a field near Sderot that morning, causing no injuries or damage.[9] Haaretz newspaper reported that it hit an open field in the Eshkol area in the western Negev.[10]

A Human Rights Watch researcher went to Sderot the next day to investigate, but local authorities said they were unaware of the attack. One Sderot resident said he had heard about a mortar shell, possibly with white phosphorus, landing in a field outside of town, but he did not know where. When asked for details, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told Human Rights Watch that “all I have is what’s in the press release.”[11]

White Phosphorus Attacks in Populated Areas

Human Rights Watch investigated six cases in Gaza where the IDF used white phosphorus munitions in populated areas. Two of these were in villages near Gaza’s armistice line with Israel: in Siyafa, in the north, and Khuza’a, in the south. As the IDF escalated its ground campaign, it fired white phosphorus shells into even more densely populated urban areas, including in the Rimal and Tel al-Hawa neighborhoods of Gaza City, as well as central Beit Lahiya.

Attacks on Urban Areas

Tel al-Hawa Neighborhood, Gaza City

The Tel al-Hawa neighborhood in southeastern Gaza City is a relatively affluent residential area with wide streets and multi-story apartment buildings inhabited mostly by professionals and their families-what one resident called “a secular stronghold.” IDF air strikes hit select sites in the area, such as a ministry of interior administrative building and a facility used by the customs department of the ministry of finance, since early in the operation. Ground fighting commenced when IDF troops began to enter the neighborhood from the south for limited periods around January 11, reportedly facing heavy mortar and gunfire from Palestinian armed groups.[12]

The fighting intensified around midnight on January 14-15, when Israeli forces advanced into Tel al-Hawa with troops and tanks, their furthest push towards the city’s center to date. According to residents and media reports, they took up positions in parts of the neighborhood, with tanks positioned on Industrial Street, after more armed encounters with Hamas. Around 7 a.m. on January 15, the IDF began to fire high-explosive and white phosphorus artillery shells in the area. According to three local residents, interviewed separately, the shelling lasted for approximately three hours, and during that time white phosphorus killed four civilians, all members of the same family who were traveling in a car. The shelling resumed early the next morning, at approximately 1:15 a.m., and lasted until at least 10 p.m. that day.

Human Rights Watch visited the area on January 22 to examine where white phosphorus had been used. On the roof of a residential apartment building, researchers saw a hole where a shell had struck and penetrated the building. On that roof, and in an open area across the street, lay eight pieces of phosphorus-soaked felt, which residents had covered with sand to stop the burning. When uncovered and kicked, the pieces reignited and released a pungent smoke. When asked, residents showed two spent light green 155mm white phosphorus artillery shells in the apartment of Fathi Sabbah, 46, a journalist for Al-Hayat newspaper. Both came from the same lot, produced in 1989 by Thiokol Aerospace at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant. A third shell with the same marking was located one block away in an open lot, as was a light green canister from a white phosphorus shell marked in red lettering “WP CANISTER,” and dozens of pieces of felt.

Residents of the neighborhood told Human Rights Watch what occurred when the shells exploded on January 15. According to Fathi Sabbah, multiple explosions around 7 a.m. startled his family as they slept in their second-floor apartment. About three hours later, a shell exploded over their building, he said, followed by fire and smoke. He explained:

I woke up at 7 a.m. to the sound of heavy bombing in the area. The shells were falling around once a minute. I was watching and I saw white smoke and flames all over the sandy road, for a distance of 200 meters. When we saw the shelling was heavy we asked the residents of the building to go downstairs, women in the basement and men on the second floor. At around 10 a.m. a shell hit this building. After ten minutes the owners of the apartments on the top floors went up to inspect. Two apartment owners on the south side said shells had hit their apartments. After an hour we smelled something. We went up later and found that a bedroom on the fifth floor was on fire. We called the fire department and the ICRC. They said the IDF was not allowing them to come.[13]
At that point, Sabbah said, neighbors came to the building to ask for help: a family was trapped in a car that had caught fire in the most recent shelling. Another neighborhood resident interviewed separately, 55-year-old Muhammad al-Sharif, a paint factory owner, told Human Rights Watch what he knew about the burning car:

My daughter told me there was a car on fire with people in it. I looked out and saw a young man who had lost control of himself trying to push his way into the burning car. When I got to the car he had fallen down and he was on fire. The shelling was ongoing and I dragged him to an alley and tried to talk to him, but he couldn’t talk. One of his eyes had burned away and he was horribly injured.[14]
According to al-Sharif, he and the man were stuck in the alley for 90 minutes as the shelling continued, and because they feared Israeli snipers in the area. Once the shelling subsided, he and two young men carried the wounded man to a neighbor’s car and then drove him to al-Shifa hospital. At 2:30 p.m. al-Sharif returned to the car and found that it had partially melted and the gas tank had exploded.

Around that time, Fathi Sabbah also arrived at the car, where he met a neighbor and an ambulance that had come to take the dead bodies away for burial. In the smoking wreckage, he said, they found only a few bones of the four occupants. A piece of a skull and some teeth lay next to the vehicle, al-Sharif said.

Those killed were:

‘Uday al-Haddad, 55, branch manager for Palestine Bank

Ihsan, 44, (‘Uday’s wife)

Hatim, 24, accounting student at Islamic University (‘Uday and Ihsan’s son)

Ala`a, 14, pupil (‘Uday and Ihsan’s daughter)

The wounded man who tried to push his way back into the burning car was another of ‘Uday and Ihsan’s sons, Mohammad al-Haddad, 25. Human Rights Watch spoke to al-Haddad in the burn unit at al-Shifa Hospital on January 27, and he corroborated the facts as presented by Sabbah and al-Sharif.

According to Mohammad al-Haddad, the IDF started shelling Tel al-Hawa at 7 a.m. on January 15. He and his family waited in their home on Islamic University Street until 11 a.m., he said, when Israel announced it would begin a temporary unilateral ceasefire. At that point, they got into their gray 1996 Volkswagen Golf. He explained what happened next:

We drove about 100 meters to the intersection at the end of our street, when we were hit. The power of the explosion threw me from the car. I lost consciousness, but then I went back to the car, and that’s where Mr. al-Sharif said he found me. After that I woke up in the hospital.[15]
In addition to losing his left eye, al-Haddad suffered third-degree burns to his legs, hands and forehead, and a broken jaw. The only other surviving member of his immediate family, his younger brother Salam, 18, had left the family’s house at 10 a.m., before the ceasefire began.

Dr. Nafiz Abu Sha’baan, head of the burn and plastic surgery unit at al-Shifa Hospital, treated Mohammad al-Haddad upon arrival. Dr. Abu Sha`baan said that he had not treated any white phosphorus wounds prior to Operation Cast Lead and that the hospital did not classify injuries as caused by white phosphorus due to a lack of diagnostic tools to make that assessment. However, Dr. Abu Sha’baan told Human Rights Watch that Mohammad’s injuries appeared consistent with wounds caused by white phosphorus. “We think it’s from white phosphorus because the burns are very deep,” he said. “We already excised burnt tissue and now his wounds are getting worse. When we saw him the first time the wounds were more superficial than they are now. We’ve got to operate again tomorrow to excise more tissue.”[16]

On January 28, Human Rights Watch inspected the remains of the al-Haddad family’s vehicle, which still lay on the street where it had been struck. The car’s metal frame and interior were thoroughly burned, the wheels had melted off, and the metal around them was deformed. The rear of the car had been blown open, apparently by the force of the exploding gas tank.

The IDF shelling of Tel al-Hawa with white phosphorus continued early the next morning, January 16, although civilian casualties are not known. “Pieces of something hit the kitchen window and burned through the glass, starting fires,” the journalist Fathi Sabbah said he saw around 1:15 a.m. “We threw water on them but they would not stop burning so we pushed them out the window.” White smoke billowed in, he said, filling the apartment and choking the family: “We did not know what to do. We were afraid the area was under attack and so we took refuge in the center of the building, at the elevator, thinking it was the safest place because it was away from the windows.” Eleven members of the family stood choking as smoke poured up the central staircase that wound its way around the elevator. “We feared to leave the building even though there was no fighting so I called the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] on my radio but they couldn’t come as ambulances were barred from the area by the IDF,” he said. According to Sabbah, the fire burned for several minutes and then dissipated. “When I went to the roof it was covered with burning embers, as were the streets.” he said.

Al-Quds Hospital, Tel al-Hawa Neighborhood, Gaza City

The January 15 shelling of Tel al-Hawa also struck the compound of the al-Quds Hospital, run by the Palestine Red Crescent Society. The hospital was treating about 50 patients at the time, and sheltering roughly 500 local residents who had gone there to seek shelter from the fighting.

The administration building and top two floors of the main hospital building were gutted by fire caused by air-burst white phosphorus munitions. The hospital is clearly marked and there does not appear to have been fighting in that immediate area at the time, although the IDF was present in Tel al-Hawa.

The IDF had been shelling in the area throughout the morning of January 15, and at 9 a.m. the administration building started smoking. “I saw pieces of flaming shrapnel falling,” Muhammad Abu Musabbih, 28, the Director of Disaster Management Services for the hospital, told Human Rights Watch. He said:

Flaming pieces fell one and a half meters from the oxygen station; many fragments fell around the compound. More flaming fragments fell near the electricity generator where we store 20,000 liters of fuel. We used water and sand to put the fires out. We feared that if the fire spread to the oxygen and fuel it would lead to an explosion.[17]
Medical personnel began to fight the fire in the administration building along with members of the hospital’s emergency medical team, using bucket brigades to relay water and sand. They found that fire extinguishers made the fire worse, so they tried to create a firebreak by cutting in two a second-story walkway that linked the administration building and the hospital. Shortly thereafter, another white phosphorus shell hit the hospital itself and the roof burst into flame. The hospital staff abandoned the administration building and focused on the hospital. Several tank shells also hit the hospital, including one that struck the pharmacy on the second floor at around 9:30 a.m., but the fire was the staff’s most pressing concern. Two hours later, the civil defense and firefighters arrived and began to fight the fires spreading from the roof of the hospital to the floors below.

“As firefighters contained one area and moved to another the wind would reignite the fire and they had to rush back to places they had already finished,” Abu Musabbih said. “It was not until 6 a.m. the next day that the fire was completely extinguished.” He added that the fire destroyed two ambulances and a medical storage area about 200 meters from the hospital’s main building.[18]

With the hospital on fire, doctors decided to evacuate the building. According to Abu Musabbih and Dr. Jamal al-Safadi, 36, an orthopedic surgeon, the hospital called the ICRC to coordinate an initial evacuation of the approximately 500 residents from the neighborhood who had taken refuge in the hospital from the fighting.[19] That group could move more quickly than the hospital’s roughly 50 patients, hospital staff thought, and it would take time to prepare the wounded. At around 3 p.m., two ICRC vehicles arrived to lead a convoy of civilians, who relocated to a nearby UNRWA school. The ICRC told the hospital that it was not possible to coordinate another move with the IDF until the next day.

Dr. al-Safadi told Human Rights Watch that, at the time, the hospital was treating 40 injured adults, seven newborns in incubators, and four patients in intensive care. While the local residents were evacuated from the hospital, hospital staff relocated approximately 30 patients to the hospital operating rooms, which they considered safer.

Between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m., according to Abu Musabbih and Dr. al-Safadi, another shell believed to be white phosphorus exploded near the hospital, causing more flaming fragments to land on the roof. As fire broke out again, the hospital director Dr. Khalid Jouda and director of emergency services, Dr. Bashar Murad, decided everyone must be evacuated.

One of those evacuated from the hospital was Tariq al-Baradei, 24, an information technology student at the Islamic University, who said he was in the hospital getting treatment for multiple fractures and shrapnel wounds he had sustained from an air strike on his home in Tel al-Hawa on January 4. The same strike killed his 12-year-old brother, Omar, he said.

During the evacuation of al-Quds Hospital, al-Baradei said he lay on a gurney in an ambulance. He described the drive to al-Shifa hospital:

I got into an ambulance with an 8-year-old girl who was bleeding from the head. I looked out the window and saw a group of injured people walking on the street; there were so many. I could not recognize the streets of Gaza. I saw it burning but I didn’t believe it could be the hospital building.[20]
According to Dr. Safadi, the girl died after transit to al-Shifa hospital.

Human Rights Watch surveyed the damage at al-Quds hospital and found physical evidence consistent with personal accounts of a white phosphorus attack. The top two floors of the hospital’s main building were gutted by fire, and a third was severely damaged. Extra patient rooms on the fourth floor, not occupied during the attack, were charred on the ceilings and walls. The fifth floor children’s playroom was totally destroyed, with charcoal beams littering the jungle-gym and small merry-go-round. The sixth floor gymnasium was also burned and was open to the sky when Human Rights Watch examined the site.

About 100 meters down the street to the south, separated by a low building, stands the hospital’s six-story administration office. This entire building was gutted by fire and all that remained were the walls. On the exterior, windows had black smoke stains extending upwards.

Human Rights Watch examined two light green 155mm white-phosphorus shell casings in the office of the hospital director. Hospital officials said one of the shells had been removed from the top floor of the hospital’s main building and another had fallen adjacent to the hospital. The tops of the shells had blown off, removing the markings, but the shells were clearly the same as the other white phosphorus shells that Human Rights Watch found throughout Gaza, with their signature light green paint.

UNRWA Headquarters Compound, Gaza City

The UNRWA compound covers roughly four hectares at the edge of Gaza’s wealthiest neighborhood, Rimal, enclosed by concrete walls at least three meters high. The compound contains the headquarters for all of UNRWA’s operations throughout the Middle East and its field office for Gaza operations, including logistical facilities such as warehouses and garages.

Around 7:30 a.m. on January 15, IDF artillery shells started landing near the compound, despite calls to IDF officers from UNRWA staff, asking the IDF to stop. At approximately 10 a.m., six shells landed in the compound, at least three of which contained white phosphorus, as well as shrapnel from at least one high explosive artillery round. Three people were wounded and the white phosphorus caused extensive fires. About 700 civilians were sheltering in the compound at the time.[21]

According to an UNRWA statement, “Shells of white phosphorus – a highly incendiary material – set ablaze the [vehicle] workshop and two vast warehouses containing humanitarian food and medical supplies.”[22] The densely packed sacks of flour continued to burn for 12 days, until January 27.

Human Rights Watch visited the UNRWA compound on January 28 and saw four buildings-two large warehouses, a vehicle bay, and a workshop-that were destroyed by fire. UNRWA staff said that rebuilding and re-supplying the warehouses would cost US$10 million, including US$3.7 million for medical supplies that were burned.[23] The fire also destroyed blankets, mattresses, hygiene kits, tinned meat and bags of wheat flour. Three vehicles were completely burned and 15 were damaged.

According to UNRWA, the attack wounded one UN worker and two civilians who had sought shelter in the compound.[24]

According to Israel, the IDF opened fire at the UNRWA headquarters only after Hamas had attacked its soldiers from within the compound. “We do not want such incidents to take place and I am sorry for it but I don’t know if you know, but Hamas fired from the UNRWA site,” Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, who was visiting Israel at the time of the attack. “This is a sad incident and I apologize for it.”[25]

UNRWA’s Gaza director John Ging adamantly denied that any Palestinian fighters had entered the compound, let alone fired from it at IDF soldiers.[26] UN officials said they made dozens of increasingly frantic phone calls with IDF officers as the shells got closer, asking them to stop, and the IDF did not warn UNRWA about Hamas activity in or near the compound. “They should tell us if there are militants operating in our compound or in our area,” Ging said. “The fact that they don’t, we take that as indicative of the fact that there wasn’t.”[27]

Muhammad Abu Shamla, 46, arrived for his job as an UNRWA security guard at 7:30 that morning. He told Human Rights Watch that he heard explosions from artillery from shortly thereafter until 9 a.m.:

At first I didn’t know where the shells were falling but the walls were shaking. After about 30 minutes we moved [to another building] because we thought it would be safer there. Then a colleague told us there was fire inside the compound threatening fuel trucks. We went out to help. The smell was terrible, like garbage. There was fire in the garage. We started moving the cars that hadn’t caught fire. There were clouds of black smoke everywhere. I saw one shell in the ground that hadn’t exploded. I didn’t sleep at all that night; I kept running around to fight the fire. The fires were still raging on and off when I left the compound the next morning at 9 a.m.[28]
UNRWA Gaza Field Administration Officer Scott Anderson told Human Rights Watch that he was in the compound when the shelling started:

I don’t know when exactly the first shell hit us, but the shells were getting close by 8 a.m., and I called the IDF coordination unit at Erez to try to get them to stop it. The pattern of shelling was that it started over the Gaza Training College, in the western part of the UNRWA compound, and then the shelling moved to the west and walked its way over the whole compound. It was hitting the compound itself for around an hour.[29]
Anderson, a retired US Army officer, speculated that the IDF was “walking” the artillery fire across the area – firing shells along an arc at evenly spaced intervals. He showed Human Rights Watch researchers three spent artillery shell casings, all of them light green to indicate white phosphorus, which he said had landed in the compound, as well as six impact holes inside the compound, apparently where the spent shells had landed.[30] Human Rights Watch recorded four of the six impacts: one through a warehouse roof; one through a metal wall and fence; one in a manhole in the parking lot; and one in the corner of the parking lot.

According to Anderson, the shell that hit the parking lot manhole failed to explode, leaving the canister with white phosphorus still inside. A UN de-mining team later removed the shell from the area, he said.

Human Rights Watch also viewed photographs of the spent artillery shells and unexploded ordnance that the UN reportedly recovered at the UNRWA compound after it had been struck. The light green 155mm shells were correctly marked for white phosphorus. According to the photos, white phosphorus wedges also landed inside the compound, as had shrapnel from at least one high explosive artillery shell.

Anderson had no doubt that white phosphorus had hit the compound. “It looked like phosphorus, it smelled like phosphorus, and it burned like phosphorus,” he said.

According to Anderson, the main concern just after the attack was that the compound’s 100,000-liter diesel fuel depot[31] and six fuel tanker trucks, two of them full at the time, might catch on fire:

Two of the fuel tankers were parked right next to the wall of one of the warehouses that caught fire. I saw a burning fragment land under one of the trucks, and I and a colleague ran out with fire extinguishers, thinking we could put it out, but we couldn’t. So we had to bat it away from under the truck with sticks. We figured we’d be dead anyway if the truck went up. Then there was another shell, I saw that one myself, right overhead, and the shell landed just at the end of the parking lot. After that we evacuated everyone, and we drove the fuel trucks around 800 meters down the road to an empty lot that had already been shelled. The people here only had light injuries, we were lucky.
Human Rights Watch saw a small crater, which Anderson said was made by a spent artillery shell, roughly 10 meters from where the fuel tanker trucks had been parked.

According to Claire Mitchell, UNRWA field legal officer, five senior UNRWA staff made dozens of phone calls to the IDF during the attack, and she compiled a log of UNRWA’s communications with the IDF at the time.

“Scott [Anderson] started calling at around 8 a.m. to Major Aviad Silberman at Erez [crossing],” she said. “Aidan O’Leary making calls regularly from shortly before 9 a.m. to Uri Singer and [retired Brigadier-] General [Baruch] Spiegel [head of the IDF’s Humanitarian Coordination Cell] in Tel Aviv.”[32]

Anderson confirmed the multiple phone calls to the IDF. “I was calling the IDF guys at Erez all the time,” he said. “They said they were trying to stop the shelling. It looks like there was nothing they could do.” He added, “I know that in the US Army it would not take that long to get the artillery fire to stop.”

UNRWA Gaza director John Ging said that he too had spoken with the IDF at the time of the attack.[33] He and other UNRWA staff said they had given the IDF the GPS coordinates of all UN installations in Gaza before Operation Cast Lead began. Speaking at a press conference on January 15, Ging said that after the first shells hit the compound, UNRWA alerted the IDF of the exact location of its fuel trucks. He insisted that “there were no militants in the compound; there was no firing from the compound.”[34]

According to the IDF’s chief spokesman, Brig. Gen. Avi Beneyahu, the IDF has started an investigation. “If it becomes clear that we returned shots at the source of fire, we will say so, and if it turns out we operated by mistake, we will not hesitate to confess,” he said.[35]

Beit Lahiya UNRWA School

Around 6 a.m. on Saturday, January 17, the IDF starting firing at least three artillery shells, which Human Rights Watch determined to be white phosphorus, over and in the immediate vicinity of a UN-run elementary school in Beit Lahiya. At the time, the school was housing roughly 1,600 people, who had sought refuge there from neighboring areas. Human Rights Watch found no indication that IDF units or Palestinian armed groups were operating in the area at the time.

The attack killed two young brothers when an already-detonated white phosphorus shell landed in a classroom on the top floor of the school; the shell also severely injured their mother and a cousin. The shelling also spread burning white phosphorus wedges all over the school and surrounding area, wounding 12 other people, setting fire to a classroom where displaced persons were sheltering, and damaging a nearby market.[36] Human Rights Watch visited the site on January 23, six days after the attack, and saw white phosphorus wedges still burning when children dug them out of the sand.

According to two witnesses, around 3 a.m. the IDF began firing shells that appear to have been white phosphorus some 600 meters north of the school. Nimr al-Maqusi, 50, an unemployed civil servant who lives across the street from the school, said he saw the shells explode above northern Beit Layiha every few minutes. “Wherever the pieces of the shells landed, fires would suddenly ignite,” he recalled, reckoning that the shells were coming from the southeast.[37] Yusuf Daoud, 45, an unemployed electrician who lives on the same street, also across from the school, was watching the same explosions. Interviewed separately, he told Human Rights Watch: “None of us at home were sleeping. We were all afraid of the shelling that was coming in.”[38]

Around 6 a.m., for unknown reasons, Israeli forces started shelling the Beit Lahiya UN school. According to three witnesses – the two men who live across the street from the school and another man who was inside the school at the time – no IDF forces were in the area at the time. All of the witnesses said they saw at least three shells explode above the school.

‘Ali al-Shamali, 46, who works as an attendant at the school and is also a volunteer with the local committee for displaced persons, said he saw a shell crash through the school roof and land in a classroom on the top floor. “Less than ten minutes later, another phosphorus[39] shell hit the school, and we rushed upstairs,” he said. “Then another three or four white phosphorus shells hit, and one hit the market next to the school.”[40]

The shell that hit the classroom immediately killed two young brothers and severely wounded their mother, al-Shamali said. The Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, based in Gaza City, identified the two children as Bilal al-Ashqar, 5, and Muhammad al-Ashqar, 4.[41] According to a relative of the victims, Azhar al-Ashqar, the boys’ mother, Nujud, 28, was wounded in the head and right hand, which was later amputated at the hospital. The boys’ cousin Mona, 18, was wounded in the leg and had it later amputated.[42]

Dozens of burning wedges landed in the courtyard and a classroom on the second floor caught on fire, all of the witnesses said. On January 23, Human Rights Watch saw the scorched classroom with burned clothes and other personal items inside.

The attack continued as ambulances and a fire engine arrived at the scene, the witnesses said, while the displaced persons who had been staying in the school escaped to the streets and nearby homes. Yusuf Daoud said he watched as more shells exploded over the school, causing pieces of debris and flaming fragments to land on his balcony. “The smoke was white with some yellow, and the odor was awful,” he said. “It seems to affect little children and older people, especially.”

According to Nimr al-Maqusi, some shells landed in the school while others landed in the street nearby. “The scene was beyond description,” he recalled. “The people in the school were running around in a panic. They had left their homes and sought shelter in the school but now this shelter, too, was not immune. Some of the people were on fire and parts of their bodies were melting away.”

A fourth witness, Ra’fat Shamiyya, 34, arrived at the scene approximately 50 minutes after the shelling began to help evacuate the wounded. “I got there and there were pieces of phosphorus around in the courtyard,” he said. “There was one shell that hit the bathroom area after I arrived.”[43] He shared with Human Rights Watch the videos that he said he had recorded of the incident on his mobile phone, beginning at 6:55 a.m. The videos show dozens of burning wedges around the school compound, producing heavy smoke, as well as the second-floor classroom on fire. The sound of a powerful crack is audible, apparently from a spent shell hitting the school. According to al-Shamali, the last round in the attack hit the bathrooms of the school.

Many of the air-burst shells also sent flaming wedges onto the market next to the school, the witnesses said. The market was badly damaged when Human Rights Watch visited the site on January 23.

Al-Shamali told Human Rights Watch that no Palestinian fighters were present in the school. “No one holding any weapon is allowed into the school. Even in regular circumstances, civilian cars are not allowed inside the compound,” he said. “I know about the school. That’s my job. No shooting was coming from the school.”

As with all the UNRWA sites that came under Israeli attack, the UN had transmitted the GPS coordinates of the Beit Lahiya school to the IDF before the military operation began.

“The Israeli army knew exactly our GPS coordinates and they would have known that hundreds of people had taken shelter there,” said UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness. “When you have a direct hit into the third floor of a UN school, there has to be an investigation to see if a war crime has been committed.”[44]

To Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, the IDF did not conduct ground operations in the vicinity of the school at any time during Operation Cast Lead. Human Rights Watch’s investigations in the area did not uncover any physical evidence to suggest a confrontation with Palestinian armed groups, such as bullet holes, bullet casings or tank tracks.

Attacks on Outlying Communities

Siyafa Village, Beit Lahiya

Israeli forces had bombed the open areas in Gaza’s north since the military operation began on December 27, but they had not struck any of the residential areas north of Beit Lahiya, including the village of Siyafa, just north of Atatra. Residents there, who mostly work the nearby fields, say they stayed in their homes, not fearing much for their safety because of the absence of Palestinian armed groups. Some of them had regular contact with Israelis, with whom they traded strawberries and other goods.

Siyafa village became more dangerous on January 3, when the IDF intensified its shelling and aerial bombing in the north, in apparent preparation for the ground offensive that was to begin that night. According to a local resident and chairman of the Agricultural Cooperative for Farmers of Strawberries, Vegetables and Flowers, Mahmoud Khalael, “they were sending a message to evacuate.”[45] According to other residents, the IDF dropped leaflets from the air warning civilians to leave the area, but residents did not leave because, they said, there were no fighters in the area and they thought they would be safe.[46]

According to Khaleal, at around 10 pm that night he got a telephone call from an Israeli officer named Balad, whom he knew from business-related coordination with the IDF. Balad told him to warn the residents of the area to evacuate, especially the al-Ghoul family and Bedouins in the area.[47] IDF tanks began to approach shortly thereafter, Khaleal said, under air cover. Around 1:30 a.m. on January 4, he said, the IDF fired three missiles at the northern end of his house. Human Rights Watch researchers who inspected the house on January 23 saw extensive damage to its northern end that was consistent with a missile strike, although how many missiles was unclear. According to Khaleal, the Israeli officer Balad called him again around 7 a.m., telling everyone not to leave the area, but rather to stay in their homes.

The shelling and bombing in the open areas around Siyafa continued throughout the day, and also further south as IDF forces approached the village of Atatra about 500 meters away, which they eventually occupied. Residents of Siyafa told Human Rights Watch that they sheltered in their homes, hoping the attacks would stop, and that they neither saw nor heard any Palestinian fighters in the area.[48] Among them were 14 members of the Abu Halima family, who gathered in the home of Sa`dallah and Sabah Abu Halima, mostly in the central hallway.

The house, visited by Human Rights Watch on January 23, was the second structure in from open fields, from which one has sweeping views of Beit Lahiya and the Jabalya refugee camp. Visible tank tracks and dug-up berns indicated that IDF tanks had positioned themselves in the nearby field between 100 and 120 meters from the Abu Halima house after the family left the area on January 4.

In separate interviews, three members of the family told Human Rights Watch what happened that afternoon, around 4 pm, when an artillery shell containing white phosphorus directly hit their house, killing five members of the family and wounding five. The testimony is consistent with accounts given to journalists and the Israel-based human rights group B’Tselem.

Ahmad Abu Halima, the 22-year-old son of Sa`dallah and Sabah Abu Halima, who was inside the house at the time of the attack, told Human Rights Watch what he saw:

I was talking with my father when the shell landed. It hit directly on my father and cut his head off. The explosion was large and the smell unbearable. It caused a big fire. The pieces [from the shell] were burning and we could not put them out… We ran outside, the four of us who were unharmed. My brother’s wife and daughter, Ghada and Farah, came down with no clothes [because they were burned off]. My brothers Yusif and Ali too. Yusif was burned on his face and Ali on his back[49]
Ahmed’s brother Omar Abu Halima, 18 years old, was next door at his uncle’s house when the shell struck:

I heard the sound of an explosion. We ran into the street and saw that it had hit our house. We ran upstairs and when we arrived I found my father and four others dead. We took them out and then dealt with the four wounded.
The stairs were very smoky. We went inside and it smelled very strange. We had never experienced that before. It was difficult to go forward. First I saw my mother with burns coming out of the house. We found her at the entrance. She told us to go in and get my injured brothers. But when we got inside we saw nothing because of the smoke and dust, and we couldn’t breathe. We found my brother’s wife, Ghada, she was burning in flames, and also her daughter Farah, also burning. There were also my brothers Yusif and Ali. All of them were burning badly; their clothes were melting. They were all burned but Abd al-Rahim and my father had their heads cut from their bodies too. We took the wounded in two tractors, with my mother in the first one. We tried to call an ambulance but they said they couldn’t come.[50]
Those killed in the attack are:

Sa’dallah Abu Halima, 45, father (husband of Sabah)

‘Abdel Rahim, 14, son

Zeid, 11, son Hamza, 10, son

Shahid, 15 months, daughter.

Those wounded are:

Sabah Abu Halima, 44, mother (wife of Sa’dallah)

Yusif, 16, son

‘Ali, 5, son

Ghada, 21, wife of son Mohammad

Farah, 2, daughter of Ghada and Mohammad

On January 23, Human Rights Watch investigated the Abu Halima house. In the ceiling above the hallway where the family said it had been sheltering, researchers saw a hole approximately one meter in diameter, apparently caused by the shell. The hallway beneath was badly charred and the remaining furniture burnt. The rooms around the hallway had black burns on the walls and the plastic light switches and electrical outlets had melted. The wood around the doors and windows of the house was charred. On the wall in one bedroom, someone had written in lipstick, in Arabic with some misspellings: “From the Israel Defense Forces, we are sorry.”[51] Residents do not know if IDF forces entered the houses of the neighborhood because they all fled, but the tank positions about 100 meters to the east of the Abu Halima house indicate that the forces were nearby.

Amid the debris of the family’s possessions, Human Rights Watch found two 155mm artillery shell fragments, painted the light green color that militaries use to identify white phosphorus shells, as well as the base plate from the shell. Two canisters of the sort used to hold white phosphorus in artillery shells were found outside the house. Another white phosphorus shell and canister were found about 20 meters to the west of the house, and a third shell was about 50 meters from the house in the same direction. Human Rights Watch does not know if any of the shells struck at precisely those spots or whether they had been moved.

The following day, Human Rights Watch visited Sabah Abu Halima, the mother, who was being treated for serious burns at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Sabah Abu Halima had her feet and right arm bandaged. She was visibly in shock and Human Rights Watch did not seek to interview her. “They’re taking my children,” she kept repeating. Earlier, however, she had spoken with the media about what happened to her family. “The children were screaming, ‘Fire! Fire!’ and there was smoke everywhere and a horrible, suffocating smell,” she told the New York Times. “My 14-year-old cried out, ‘I’m going to die. I want to pray.’ I saw my daughter-in-law melt away.”[52]

Human Rights Watch spoke with Dr. ‘Alaa ‘Ali from the al-Shifa Hospital burn unit, where Sabah Abu Halima was getting care. He said that she had been admitted on January 4 at 5:05 p.m., and he showed hospital entry records confirming that date and time. “Sabah had very deep burns that reached the bone, and in some places even burned the bone,” he said.[53]

Seventeen days later, at the military hospital in Cairo, Human Rights Watch interviewed another member of the family, Mohamed Abu Halima, 24 years old, who was accompanying his badly burned wife Ghada and daughter Farah. His account of what happened on January 4 was consistent with the accounts of his brothers. “The attack on my house was all of a sudden, they hit the neighbor and then us,” he said. “We’re farmers and there were no fighters around.”[54]

According to Mohammad Abu Halima, his wife Ghada was burned on 40 percent of her body and his daughter on 45 percent. Doctors at the hospital did not allow Human Rights Watch to see Ghada or Farah because they were still getting treatment in the intensive care unit but photographs of the two patients taken at the hospital revealed extensive burns on Ghada’s back and on Farah’s chest and legs. According to Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, which is following this case, Sabah Abu Halima was also transferred to Egypt for medical care in mid-February, because al-Shifa Hospital could not properly care for her wounds.[55]

In testimony given to B’Tselem on January 8 from al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, Ghada Abu Halima gave details of the attack that were consistent with what her relatives later told Human Rights Watch. She also said that the first ambulance taking her and Farah to the Rafah border crossing with Egypt had come under fire by the IDF. “The driver was slightly wounded in the face and he drove back to the hospital,” she said.[56]

The shelling of the Abu Halima family with white phosphorus was not the end of the family’s ordeal. According to Omar, Ahmad and Mohammad Abu Halima, as well as three other witnesses from the area interviewed separately, Israeli forces fired on the family as they tried to evacuate the wounded and dead to the hospital on tractors and in a car, killing two cousins, Mohammad and Mattar.

Khuza’a Village

Situated to the east of Khan Yunis, approximately 500 meters from the Israel-Gaza armistice line, the village of Khuza’a is one of the closest Palestinian residential areas to Israel, in sight of IDF watchtowers. Open fields separate it from the armistice line.

In a series of ground incursions between January 11 and 13, Israeli forces engaged Palestinian fighters, apparently killing three of them. At the same time, local officials said, 16 civilians died and dozens more were wounded, many by smoke inhalation from the extensive use of white phosphorus.[57] On two separate occasions the IDF heavily used air-burst white phosphorus, artillery fired, killing one woman and injuring dozens of others, including one boy who burned his foot on a buried white phosphorus wedge 12 days after the attack.

Residents and local human rights activists told Human Rights Watch that Palestinian fighters were active in the area, and an Islamic Jihad commander told the media that about one dozen fighters had directly engaged the IDF in Khuza’a.[58] But these engagements appear to have been minimal, with the fighters mostly retreating whenever Israeli forces advanced. Even with the presence of these fighters, the IDF’s extensive use of air-burst white phosphorus in a populated area was unlawful due to the munition’s indiscriminate effects. In addition, if the purpose of the white phosphorus was to mask approaching troops, it is unclear why the IDF air-burst the white phosphorus over the neighborhood instead of ground-bursting it, which causes a denser smoke.

The IDF’s assault on Khuza’a began around 9:30 pm on January 10, with an intense artillery barrage in the area, including white phosphorus shells bursting over the al-Najjar district, inhabited primarily by a family of that name.[59] According to three residents, interviewed separately, white phosphorus shells exploded above private homes, showering the area with burning wedges. Some homes in the area caught on fire, and neighbors helped each other to extinguish the flames.

Local resident Iman al-Najjar, 30, told Human Rights Watch how white phosphorus shells struck around her house:

That night, starting around 9:30, they began to fire phosphorus randomly. Almost all the houses here got their share… We thought it was fog but it was smoke. It was hard to breath. We tried to put out the fire. The whole neighborhood came out… Two phosphorus pieces landed in my house and it was on fire. People were choking, so we went to the neighbor’s house.[60]
A few hundred meters from Iman al-Najjar’s house, a shell burst through the roof of a house, killing Hanan al-Najjar, 47, and injuring her four children inside. Based on Human Rights Watch’s inspection of shell remnants found in the house, it was a white phosphorus shell.[61]

Hanan’s husband, Majid al-Najjar, was in an adjacent house when white phosphorus wedges began falling in the area, setting some structures on fire. He left the house where he was staying to help an elderly couple escape the flames, he said, and at that point he saw an artillery shell strike his house:

First the phosphorus pieces landed. We evacuated the old couple and then the shell hit the house… I saw and I heard the sound of the shell so I went back. I saw the children and men coming out, some of them were injured. My little girl Aya got burned and her right arm was broken. My son Ahmad burned his right foot. My other son Moaz scratched his wrist and head – he is 12 years old.[62]
When Majid al-Najjar went inside his house he saw that a shell had struck his wife Hanan directly in the chest. He showed Human Rights Watch a photo of Hanan that he had taken on his mobile phone, in which her chest had been cut open. Human Rights Watch also saw his injured daughter Aya, who had a cast on her right arm.

“We took them to Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis,” Majid al-Najjar said. “The ambulance came after one hour. We were 10 people in the ambulance, and my dead wife too.”

Human Rights Watch examined the house on January 24 and saw the hole in the roof where the shell had entered. Although Hanan al-Najjar was apparently directly hit by the empty shell, evidence of white phosphorus lay all around. Burn marks apparently from white phosphorus wedges stained some outside walls and the ground around the house. On the roof lay a white phosphorus canister and the remains of unburned wedges, which ignited when kicked.

The day after the attack, January 11, IDF forces moved into the al-Najjar district of Khuza’a for the first time. From approximately 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. they stayed on the edge of the village, residents and local human rights activists said, and several homes were bulldozed. The IDF returned around 3 a.m. on January 12 and destroyed some more homes, but withdrew again around noon.

The next assault took place around midnight on January 13, with heavy shelling, including the extensive use of air-burst white phosphorus. Ismail Khadr, a 50-year-old farmer, described what happened during the attack. “When the phosphorus landed we were on an island of smoke,” he said. “Fires were everywhere and reached waist high. The pieces were like foam. Some of my farm was burned.”[63] Khadr showed Human Rights Watch a small onion field next to his home, where he had buried some white phosphorus wedges to stop them from burning. When exposed to air, they reignited and produced a garlic-smelling smoke.

In the residential area around Majid al-Najjar’s house, Human Rights Watch found extensive and irrefutable evidence of white phosphorus use, although it was not clear if the wedges had landed on January 10 or 13. Shell remains marked THS89D112-003 155MM M825E1lay inside a burned multi-story home with a hole in the ceiling next to a mosque. In another burned home, lay a white phosphorus canister and the base of a white phosphorus shell. A white phosphorus shell marked THS89D112-003 155MM M825E1 was found between two homes, one of which was completely burned. Lastly, the house of Abdul Hadi Qudeh, 88 years old, had a hole in the roof where a shell had apparently entered. A white phosphorus canister lay inside and felt wedges were on the roof. Three canister liners were outside, as well as more white phosphorus felt wedges.

The widespread use of white phosphorus in the area caused many injuries from smoke inhalation, residents and local human rights activists said. This was confirmed by Dr. Yusuf Abu Rish, the director of Nasser Hospital in nearby Khan Yunis, where many of the wounded were taken. He told Human Rights Watch that the hospital received more than 150 patients on January 13, and most of them were suffering from smoke inhalation. “Even the ambulance bringing the victims was full of a foul odor,” he said. “Many of the victims suffered from a shortness of breath, hysteria and muscle spasms.”[64] Twelve patients arrived at the hospital dead that day, Dr. Abu Rish said, but that was from all attacks in the Khan Yunis area and not just from white phosphorus.

Human Rights Watch reviewed the hospital’s records and found that on January 13 doctors there had treated 13 persons for what the hospital called chemical burns. Two of these patients required transfer to Egypt for treatment. Dr. Abu Rish also showed Human Rights Watch seven samples of white phosphorus in glass jars, which he said a resident of Khuza’a had collected on January 13.

PAGE 4 PAGE 6
Page 5 of 9
[12] Sakher Abu El Oun, “Israel Says Gaza War Nearing End as Fighting Rages,” Agence France-Presse, January 11, 2009, Adel Zaanoun, “Gaza City Pounded by Air Strikes, Tank Fire: Witness,” Agence France-Presse, January 12, 2009, and Richard Boudreaux and Rushdi abu Alouf, “Israeli Offensive Presses into Gaza City,” Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2009.

[13] Human Rights Watch interview with Fathi Sabbah, Gaza City, January 26, 2009.

[14] Human Rights Watch interview with Muhammad al-Sharif, Gaza City, January 27, 2009.

[15] Human Rights Watch interview with Muhammad al-Haddad, January 27, 2009.

[16] Human Rights Watch interview with Dr. Nafiz Abu Sha`baan, Shifa Hospital, Gaza City, January 29, 2009.

[17] Human Rights Watch interview with Muhammad Abu Musabbih, Gaza City, January 27, 2009.

[18] According to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS), Israeli military operations in Gaza destroyed three PRCS ambulances and damaged another 16. Human Rights Watch did not investigate the circumstances of each incident. Palestinian Red Crescent Society, http://www.palestinercs.org/news_details.aspx?nid=158, accessed March 6, 2009.

[19] Human Rights Watch interview with Dr. Jamal al-Safadi, Gaza City, January 27, 2009.

[20] Human Rights Watch interview with Tariq al-Baradei, Gaza City, January 27, 2009.

[21]”Attacks Against the UN in Gaza Must Be Investigated,” UNRWA statement, January 24, 2009, http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/stories/2009/attacks_un_in_gaza_jan09.html, accessed January 26, 2009.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Human Rights Watch interview with Scott Anderson, UNRWA headquarters, Gaza City, January 28, 2009.

[24] “Secretary-General Outraged at Shelling of UN Building in Gaza,” United Nations Secretary-General’s Statements, January 15, 2009, http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/statements/SecGen/2009/headquarters_15jan09.html, accessed March 6, 2009.

[25] Barak Ravid, “Olmert to Ban: Gunmen Fired at IDF Troops from UN Gaza Compound,” Haaretz, January 15, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055761.html, accessed February 24, 2009.

[26] Ibrahim Barzak and Christopher Torchia, “Israeli Shells Hit UN Headquarters in Gaza Strip; Airstrike Kills top Hamas Figure,” Associated Press, January 15, 2009.

[27] Isabel Kershner and Taghreed el-Khodary, “Israel Shells U.N. Site in Gaza, Drawing Fresh Condemnation,” New York Times, January 16, 2009.

[28] Human Rights Watch interview with Muhammad Abu Shamla, UNRWA headquarters, Gaza City, January 28, 2009.

[29] Human Rights Watch interview with Scott Anderson. On December 27, the first day of Israel’s air offensive, an Israeli drone-fired missile struck a group of students outside the Gaza Training College in central Gaza City, across the street from the UNRWA headquarters, killing at least eight. See “Israel/Gaza: Civilians Must Not Be Targets,” Human Rights Watch news release, December 30, 2008, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelgaza-civilians-must-not-be-targets.

[30] The markings, partially unreadable, on the three shells viewed by Human Rights Watch in the UNRWA compound were: PB91KO1B-035; 155 H/…OJ M…825A1/PB 91…011 0…5A; and …H018-02….

[31] The amount of fuel in the depot at the time of the attack is not known.

[32] Human Rights Watch interview with Claire Mitchell, UNRWA headquarters, Gaza City, January 28, 2009.

[33] Ibrahim Barzak and Christopher Torchia, “Israeli Shells Hit UN Headquarters in Gaza Strip; Airstrike Kills top Hamas Figure,” Associated Press, January 15, 2009.

[34] Press conference with UN Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes and UNRWA Director of Operations in Gaza John Ging, January 15, 2009, http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/detail/10679.html, accessed February 24, 2009.

[35] Tovah Lazaroff and Yaakov Katz, “UNRWA to Keep Up Aid Flow Despite IDF Fire,” Jerusalem Post, January 16, 2009.

[36] “Field Update on Gaza from the Humanitarian Coordinator, 17-18 January 2009,” UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, January 18, 2009, http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_18_english.pdf, accessed March 2, 2009.

[37] Human Rights Watch interview with Nimr al-Maqusi, Beit Lahiya, January 27, 2009.

[38] Human Rights Watch interview with Yusuf Daoud, Beit Lahiya, January 27, 2009.

[39] Interviewees consistently referred to “phosphorus” munitions but said they were unfamiliar with the weapon at the time of the attack; they learned that it was white phosphorus from the media and other sources afterwards.

[40] Human Rights Watch interview with ‘Ali Shamali, Beit Lahiya, January 27, 2009.

[41] “IOF Attacks 3rd UNRWA Shelter; Kills more Civilian Refugees, Including Children,” Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights press release, January 17, 2009, http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=956, accessed January 27, 2009.

[42] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Azhar al-Ashqar, March 21, 2009.

[43] Human Rights Watch interview with Ra’fat Shamiyya, Beit Lahiya, January 27, 2009. Videos on file with Human Rights Watch.

[44] “Israel Shells UN School in Gaza,” Al-Jazeera.net (English edition), January 17, 2009, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091177657498163.html, accessed February 3, 2009.

[45] Human Rights Watch interview with Mahmoud Khalael, Siyafa, January 23, 2009.

[46] To view and listen to the various warnings issued by the IDF, see the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/IDF_warns_Gaza_population_7-Jan-2009.htm, accessed March 6, 2009.

[47] Six hours prior to the reported phone call, an F-16 air strike a few kilometers from Mahmoud Khaleal’s house killed two members of the al-Ghoul family: Akram al-Ghoul, 48, and Mahmoud Salah Ahman al-Ghoul, 17, the father and cousin of Human Rights Watch’s research consultant in Gaza. “Israel: Investigate Former Judge’s Killing in Gaza,” Human Rights Watch news release, January 9, 2009, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/09/israel-investigate-former-judge-s-killing-gaza.

[48] A media investigation into Atatra south of Siyafa revealed that Hamas fights did engage the IDF there, wounding at least four Israeli soldiers. (Ethan Bronner and Sabrina Tavernise, “In Shattered Gaza Town, Roots of Seething Split,” New York Times, February 3, 2009.)

[49] Human Rights Watch interview with Ahmad Abu Halima, Siyafa, January 23, 2009.

[50] Human Rights Watch interview with Omar Abu Halima, Siyafa, January 23, 2009.

[51] The writing on the wall said: “min jaysh difa’ isra’il nahnu asifun.” The writing was there at least as early as January 20, when it was viewed by a reporter from the Associated Press (Alfred de Montesquiou, “Gaza Family Returns Home After Phosphorus Blast,” Associated Press, January 20, 2009.)

[52] Ethan Bronner, “Outcry Erupts Over Reports That Israel Used Phosphorus Arms on Gazans,” New York Times, January 21, 2009.

[53] Human Rights Watch interview with Dr. ‘Alaa ‘Ali, Shifa Hospital, Gaza City, January 24, 2009.

[54] Human Rights Watch interview with Mohamed Abu Halima, Cairo, Egypt, February 10, 2009.

[55] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Ran Yaron, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, February 24, 2009.

[56] “Testimony: Members of Abu Halima family killed and burned in army’s bombing of their house, 3 January 2009,” testimony of Ghada Riad Rajab Abu Halima taken by B’Tselem on January 8, 2009,http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/20090104_Abu_Halima_home_set_on_fire_by_shelling.asp, accessed February 24, 2009.

[57] Ashraf Khalil, “In Gaza Town, A Bitter Aftermath,” Los Angeles Times, February 15, 2009.

[58] Ibid.

[59] On January 10, an IDF spokesperson, Capt. Guy Spiegelman, denied that the IDF conducted operations “in the area of Khuzaa” on that day, and said “there is no use of white phosphorus.” (Adel Zaaanoun, “Three Palestinians killed, dozens hurt in Gaza,” Agence France-Presse, January 10, 2009.)

[60] Human Rights Watch interview with Iman al-Najjar, Khuza’a, January 24, 2009.

[61] Human Rights Watch also found an artillery-fired illumination round outside the home. That shell bore the markings TZ 1-81 155MM 485A2 ILLUMINATION ROUND, THS89D112-003 155MM M825E1.

[62] Human Rights Watch interview with Majid al-Najjar, Khuza’a, January 24, 2009.

[63] Human Rights Watch researchers also found an illumination round just outside the house, marked ILLUM T2 1/84 155 M485A2.

[64] Human Rights Watch interview with Dr. Yusif Abu Rish, Nasser Hospital, Khan Yunis, January 24, 2009.

Israel: Strengthen White Phosphorus Phase-Out

Standard

(Jerusalem) – Israel should strengthen an announced reduction of its military use of white phosphorus munitions by banning all use of “air-burst” white phosphorus munitions in populated areas without exception. Human Rights Watch has also urged all countries to make white phosphorus illegal when used as an incendiary weapon.

On May 13, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court heard a petition by Israeli human rights and other civil society groups seeking a ban on the Israel Defense Forces’ use of certain white phosphorus munitions in populated areas. At the hearing, the Israeli state attorney proposed “a prohibition on the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas for the time being, with two limited exceptions that were presented before the judges” in a separate ex parte hearing. For undisclosed security reasons, the petitioners and their lawyers were not allowed to review the proposed exceptions.

“It’s good the Israeli military has decided at last to reduce its use of white phosphorus munitions, which are indiscriminate when air-burst in urban areas,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “But such munitions are deadly and Israel should not delay a ban on their unlawful use or hedge it with vague time limits and secret exceptions.”

Israel proposed to the court that the Israeli military would change its practices on white phosphorus voluntarily and not because current practices violate international humanitarian law, or the laws of war.

On May 2, the Israeli military stated it would “significantly reduce its usage of smoke shells containing white phosphorus during the conduct of hostilities in urban areas.” But the military said that until it developed alternative munitions, its use of white phosphorus to screen Israeli troops during hostilities “may be expected in future military operations as the need arises.”

White phosphorus generates a dense white smoke and ignites on contact with oxygen. It is considered an incendiary rather than a chemical munition, and is not banned by international treaty. However, the use in populated areas of “air-burst” white phosphorus munitions, which spread burning wedges of the toxic substance over large areas, violates the laws of war prohibition against attacks that cannot discriminate between civilians and combatants, Human Rights Watch said.

During fighting in the Gaza Strip in 2008-2009, Israeli forces repeatedly used air-burst white phosphorus munitions from 155 mm artillery over populated areas. Each air-burst shell spread 116 burning white phosphorus wedges in a radius extending up to 125 meters from the blast point, depending on conditions and the angle of attack.In the six cases that Human Rights Watch investigated, Israeli white phosphorous attacks killed twelve civilians, including three women and seven children. Dozens more were injured, with burns or smoke inhalation. The white phosphorous attacks damaged civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse, and a hospital, Human Rights Watch said.

In two cases, Human Rights Watch’s investigation revealed no military justification for the Israeli military’s use of white phosphorus as an obscurant because Israeli forces were not on the ground in those areas at the time of the attacks. In other cases, Israeli forces used air-burst white phosphorus on the edges of populated areas, perhaps as an obscurant to mask the movement of its forces, but substantial amounts of white phosphorus landed up to a few hundred meters inside residential areas.

This pattern and apparent policy of indiscriminate white phosphorus attacks, which Human Rights Watch documented in a 2009 report “Rain of Fire,” is unlawful and evidence of war crimes. The Israeli military acknowledged using white phosphorus after initially denying it, but cleared its forces of any laws of war violations on the basis of severely flawed investigations.

In 2011, 117 Israeli individuals, human rights groups and other civil society groups petitioned the Supreme Court to require Israel’s military “to prohibit the use… in populated areas” of munitions that air-burst white phosphorus. The filing said that these weapons cause “indiscriminate and uncontrollable” harm to civilians and that less harmful alternative munitions were available.

Israel contended in response to the petition that the military’s use of white phosphorus in urban areas did not violate the law of armed conflict. Israel’s position, as asserted by the military’s May 2 statement, is that, “The international law governing armed conflict does not contain a customary law prohibition on the use of white phosphorus for screening purposes, whether employed in an urban area or otherwise,” and that the Israeli military’s use of “smoke shells containing white phosphorus for screening purposes” is “conducted according to the requirements of international law.”

The statement failed to acknowledge that air-bursting heavy artillery shells containing white phosphorus over densely populated areas causes indiscriminate harm to civilians and civilian objects, Human Rights Watch said.

The military spokesperson’s office said on May 2 that Israel was developing “a new type of smoke shells that do not contain white phosphorus” for screening Israeli troop movements. Until the alternative was available, it said, “the use and stockpiling of the current smoke shells will continue as deemed necessary.” The New York Times reported on April 26 that the military “planned to remove shells containing phosphorus from active use within about a year.” The military’s May 2 statement said, however, that “there is currently no expected date for the completion of this process.”

In the May 13 hearing, the petitioners, led by the Israeli peace group Yesh Gvul, repeated an earlier request that the court accept into evidence a 2012 report by United Kingdom-based groups, Forensic Architecture and Situ Studios. The report concluded on the basis of computer modeling that air-bursting M825 white phosphorus munitions spread white phosphorus wedges over an elliptical area as large as 28,400 square meters, and that in urban areas the munitions put the “civilian population in these areas at great risk of death or injury, and the civilian objects and environment at an equal risk of destruction, damage, or contamination by a flammable and toxic substance. This risk cannot be managed nor controlled by the armed forces that deploy these munitions.”

The Israeli military initially denied using white phosphorus in Gaza during what it called “Operation Cast Lead.” A military spokesman told CNN on January 7, 2009, that “white phosphorus is absolutely not being used.” The military chief of staff at that time, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, gave the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, a similar assurance six days later. The military later changed its position and admitted that it had used white phosphorus during the operation but asserted that its use had complied with international law.

The military opened a “command investigation,” conducted by a colonel on the basis of interviews with only Israeli forces, into allegations of unlawful white phosphorus use “from a general perspective” but did not look at specific incidents. Another command investigation examined Israel’s shelling of a United Nations compound in January 2009 with both high-explosive and white phosphorus munitions. The military disciplined two senior officers who “authorized the firing of explosive shells” in the incident, but did not discipline anyone for the use of white phosphorus munitions. The Israeli military did not conduct any criminal investigations or issue any indictments.

During the 2008-2009 fighting in Gaza, the Israeli military’s unlawful use of white phosphorus was neither incidental nor accidental, Human Rights Watch found. It was repeated over time and in various locations, with the military “air-bursting” the munition in populated areas up to the last days of its military operation.

A medical report prepared during the Gaza hostilities by the Israeli Health Ministry said that, “[w]hite phosphorus can cause serious injury and death when it comes into contact with the skin, is inhaled or is swallowed,” and that burns on less than 10 percent of the body can cause fatal organ damage.

In addition to creating smoke screens, the Israeli military also used white phosphorus munitions to mark or illuminate targets at night. On April 25, the website of the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv reported that an unnamed senior officer who “commands one of the main units of the ground forces that have used white phosphorus munitions in the past” said that Israeli troops had night-vision equipment, making it unnecessary to use white phosphorus to mark targets at night.

The Israeli military used white phosphorus in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, but as far as Human Rights Watch has been able to determine, the 2008-2009 conflict was the first and only time it used white phosphorus munitions in Gaza. During investigations in Gaza in 2009, Human Rights Watch identified dozens of spent M825A1 white phosphorus artillery shells, which had been produced in the US.

Israel’s investigations into war crimes allegations after the 2008-2009 hostilities in Gaza failed to meet international standards, Human Rights Watch said. The military criminally prosecuted only four soldiers and officers, of whom one was sentenced to seven-and-a-half months in prison and another to 45 days in prison. The Hamas leadership in Gaza failed to conduct any investigations into war crimes by its forces.

White phosphorus munitions are generally designed to serve as smokescreens and to illuminate targets, but their humanitarian effects are harmful, regardless of their intended purpose. Human Rights Watch has been working to strengthen Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weaponsby urging states parties to prohibit the use of all incendiary weapons in civilian areas while working towards a complete ban.

Israel has joined the Convention on Conventional Weapons, but has not ratified the protocol on incendiary weapons.

“Banning the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon would prevent future suffering from this terrible weapon, but only prosecutions will bring justice to the victims of its past unlawful use,” Whitson said.

African Women’s Reproductive Rights

Standard

Victoria J. married in 2009 at age 14, and became pregnant shortly after. “I started labour in the morning on a Friday …. The nurse kept checking and saying I would deliver safely. On Monday she said I was weak.

“The doctor decided to operate on me. (During the) operation they found the baby was dead. The doctor said the baby had died due to the long labour. After that, I found out that urine was coming out all the time,” she said.

Women and girls like Victoria in Kenya, South Africa and South Sudan also spoke to us about pregnancy and childbirth. Sadly, too many of their stories were not about the joy of having a child, but about abuse, neglect and pain.

In interviews and reporting across Africa, Human Rights Watch heard from girls who knew too little about sexuality and family planning when they were forced into marriage and pregnancy.

We spoke to girls who were married and conceived when their bodies were not mature enough to go safely through pregnancy and delivery. Women and girls also told of health centres that were poorly staffed and ill-equipped to handle obstetric complications.

They described not having enough money for transportation to government health facilities or to pay the high cost of giving birth there. Women described the shortage of ambulances to transport them when they needed specialised care, abuse and negligence by health workers, and the absence of a complaints process to notify the facilities of mistreatment and other problems.

Sadly, we spoke with the families of those women and girls who did not survive pregnancy and could not tell their own stories.

Significant global and regional progress has been made to reduce the number of preventable maternal deaths: data released in 2012 by the United Nations shows that the number of women worldwide dying of pregnancy and childbirth-related complications has almost halved in the last 20 years.

The report, “Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2010”, shows that sub-Saharan Africa saw a 41 percent reduction in maternal death. Despite these promising results — in a region that bears a disproportionate burden of maternal mortality — the progress is still too slow and uneven.

The 10-worst countries to be a mother in, according to Plan International’s “State of the world’s mothers report”, are all in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to the unacceptably high numbers of women who die, African women also suffer disproportionately from childbirth injuries.

One of the most devastating is the obstetric fistula that Victoria suffered from, which leads to constant leakage of urine and stool. Fistula can be prevented or treated and hardly exists in the developed world.

As the African Union (AU) celebrates 50 years of existence on May 25, it should put a spotlight on the human rights of African women and girls.

The AU adopted the Maputo Protocol in 2003. Of the 54 AU member countries, 36 have ratified it. The protocol is unique in that it focuses on issues that affect women in Africa the most and covers topics that are not included in international treaties, including CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women), the women’s rights convention.

It is in the area of reproductive rights that the protocol is most ground-breaking. Article 14 calls on governments to provide adequate, affordable and accessible health services and to establish and strengthen existing health and nutritional services for women during pregnancy and while they are breast-feeding.

Importantly, it calls on governments to protect the reproductive rights of women by authorising medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, and where there is a risk to the health or life of the mother or the foetus.

There are many other commitments and declarations, at least on paper, promoting maternal health in Africa. In 2008, the AU passed a resolution on maternal mortality in Africa, well before the U.N. Human Rights Council did so, that recognised that preventable maternal mortality is a violation of women’s right to life, health and dignity. It included recommendations to improve health financing and accountability.

The AU’s campaign on Accelerated Reduction of Maternal Mortality in Africa features the theme “Africa Cares: No Woman Should Die While Giving Life,” to mobilise political commitment and resources to help reduce maternal deaths.

The campaign includes a focus on improving monitoring of health systems. Since its launch in 2009, 37 countries have joined the campaign and signed on to its pledge.

While these commitments are important, it is time African governments be held accountable for failing to meet them.

To date, accountability has not been one of the AU’s strong points — but that can change. While the AU recognises that member states have not done enough to reduce maternal deaths, there is no effective monitoring and reporting mechanism at the regional level on what countries are doing to fulfil their promises, and where they are lacking. Establishing such a mechanism could enable countries to identify failings and needs, and to learn from each other’s best practices.

It is time for the governments and leaders of Africa to honour their commitments to women. It is time for Africa and the AU to ensure that no woman should die while giving life.

Eric Weinstein may have found the answer to physics’ biggest problems

Standard

Two years ago, a mathematician and physicist whom I’ve known for more than 20 years arranged to meet me in a bar in New York. What he was about to show me, he explained, were ideas that he’d been working on for the past two decades. As he took me through the equations he had been formulating I began to see emerging before my eyes potential answers for many of the major problems in physics. It was an extremely exciting, daring proposal, but also mathematically so natural that one could not but feel that it smelled right.

He has spent the past two years taking me through the ins and outs of his theory and that initial feeling that I was looking at “the answer” has not waned. On Thursday in Oxford he will begin to outline his ideas to the rest of the mathematics and physics community. If he is right, his name will be an easy one to remember: Eric Weinstein.

One of the things that particularly appeals to me about the theory is that symmetry, my own field of research, is a key ingredient. Of course the idea that the fundamental particles of nature are intimately connected to questions of symmetry is not new. But despite the great successes of the Standard Model there remain some very strange questions that have intrigued physicists for some years.

The particles described by the Standard Model – the stuff of nature that is revealed in accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider – fall into three “generations”. In the first generation we see the electron, the electron neutrino, six quarks and their anti-particles, making 16 in total. But then rather bizarrely in the second generation we have another version of these particles which look exactly the same but are heavier than the first generation.

The heavier version of the electron is called the muon. The physicist Isadore Rabi famously quipped on hearing about the muon: “who ordered that?” It didn’t seem to make sense that you should have a heavier version of all the particles in the first generation. What was the logic in that? To compound things, there is a third generation heavier again than the second whose electron partner is called the tau particle.

One of the challenges facing fundamental physics has been to provide a natural explanation for these three generations. Weinstein’s theory does this by revealing the presence of a new geometric structure involving a much larger symmetry at work, inside which the symmetry of the Standard Model sits. What is so compelling about the geometry involving this larger symmetry group is that it explains why you get two copies of something with 16 particles but also that the third generation is something of an imposter. At high energies it will actually behave differently to the other two.

Not only that, it also predicts a slew of new particles that we can start looking for in our colliders. The particles in the Standard Model have a property called spin. The particles we see in the three generations we’ve seen to date all have spin 1/2. But Weinstein’s symmetry is predicting that we will see new particles with spin 3/2 exhibiting familiar responses to the nongravitational forces together with a slew of new exotic particles with familiar spin but unfamiliar responses to the forces of the standard model.

The mark of a good theory is that it makes unexpected predictions that can be put to the test. If the predictions are incorrect you throw out the theory. Supersymmetry, for example – one of the current proposals for how to go beyond the physics of the Standard Model – is beginning to look shaky because we aren’t seeing what the theory predicts we should see. It is interesting that, if Weinstein is correct, you would be hard-pushed to stumble on this stuff in the huge slew of data being generated by the LHC. You’d never find this from going from data to theory. Theory is needed to tell you where to look.

The geometry around the symmetry group that Weinstein is proposing also gives us an explanation of another of the big mysteries of physics: what dark matter is and why we can’t see it. Our current theory of gravity predicts that there is a lot more matter in the universe than the stuff we can see. This hidden matter has been dubbed dark matter because none of the other forces of nature seem to interact with it.

When the symmetry in Weinstein’s model breaks into pieces there is one half that gets separated in the mathematics from the piece we interact with. The particles corresponding to this bit of the symmetry-breaking might account for a piece that has an impact on gravity but mathematically can’t interact with the other fields, such as electromagnetism, making it “dark”.

The beautiful thing for me is that Weinstein’s symmetry group doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. It very naturally emerges from his primary goal, which is to reconcile Einstein’s Field Equations with the Yang-Mills equations and the Dirac equation. The Field Equations control the curvature of space-time and represent our theory of gravity, whereas the Yang-Mills and Dirac equations represent our theory of particle interactions on a quantum level.

Both theories have been incredibly successful in describing the physical world, but they are not compatible with each other. The prevailing attempts to unify the two have been to try to “quantise geometry” – in other words move the geometry of Einstein into the quantum world. Weinstein’s ideas run counter to this trend and are more in line with Einstein’s belief in the power of mathematical geometry. Einstein talked about his belief that the universe was made of marble not wood. Weinstein’s proposal, which he calls Geometric Unity, realises Einstein’s dream.

Although a fan of Einstein, Weinstein’s theory is also the first major challenge to the validity of Einstein’s Field Equations. It requires some courage to challenge Einstein, but Weinstein’s theory reveals that just as Newton’s equations were an approximation to nature so too are Einstein’s. One of the intriguing things to emerge from the mathematics that Weinstein weaves while combining these theories is a solution to one of the other enduring mysteries of physics: dark energy and the cosmological constant.

When Einstein produced his Field Equations it was believed that the universe was stationary – neither expanding nor contracting. To make his equations work he arbitrarily had to stick in an extra term called the cosmological constant to ensure the universe stood still. When it was later discovered that in fact the universe was expanding he removed the term and dubbed it “the biggest blunder of my life”.

But more recently we have discovered that not only is the universe expanding, that expansion is accelerating, being pushed by some unknown source we have dubbed dark energy. One proposal for the source of this push involves reintroducing the cosmological constant into Einstein’s Field Equations. But this cosmological constant has always seemed very arbitrary and a retrospective fix.

Weinstein’s new perspective gives rise to equations that provide a coherent mathematical justification for why this extra term should be there. And contrary to what people have thought, it is not constant. Rather, it varies with the curvature of the universe. We are in a relatively flat piece of the universe, which explains why the cosmological constant is so small.

Another term that was added retrospectively to the Standard Model is the Higgs field. Without the Higgs mechanism, certain particles in the model would be massless. So this extra term is added to fix the fact that we know that particles like the W and Z particles that control the weak force do have mass. Again, one of the beautiful insights to emerge from Weinstein’s unification programme is a mass term that doesn’t need to be added artificially. It emerges naturally from the theory.

There have already been feelings within the physics community that the Higgs boson we are seeing in the LHC might not be quite what we think it is. Weinstein’s perspective might help us articulate what it is we are actually seeing.

It has been a privilege to be one of the first to see the ideas that Weinstein is proposing. This is such a major project spanning huge stretches of mathematics and physics that it will take some time to realise the full implications of the ideas. And just as Einstein’s general theory of relativity took some years to stabilise there are likely to be modifications to the theory before it is complete. But for me what is so appealing about Weinstein’s ideas is the naturalness of the story, the way things aren’t arbitrarily inserted to make the theory fit the data but instead emerge as a necessary part of the mathematics.

Weinstein begins the paper in which he explains his proposal with a quote from Einstein: “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” Weinstein’s theory answers this in spades. Very little in the universe is arbitrary. The mathematics explains why it should work the way it does. If this isn’t a description of how our universe works then frankly I’d prefer to move to the universe where it does!

Bangladesh’s workplace catastrophes

Standard

Last year, I spoke with a 40-year-old woman working in a Bangladesh leather tannery in the Hazaribagh neighborhood of Dhaka. The Hazaribagh tanneries, which export hundreds of millions of dollars in leather for luxury clothes, shoes and boots around the world, spew noxious pollutants into surrounding communities. They can also make their workers very ill.

Much tannery work involves measuring and mixing chemicals, adding chemicals to hides in drums, or hauling hides saturated in chemicals out of pits. Fungal infections, scabies, hives, and contact dermatitis are common. Others suffer from respiratory illnesses and chest pains.

Asked what she thought of the possibility that Hazaribagh’s tanneries might eventually move out of the city, the woman told me, “It would be very good…They could start garment factories. This would be cleaner work with a better salary.”

Last week, a deadly fire tore through a garment factory in Dhaka, killing eight workers. This followed thecollapse of the Rana Plaza building on more than 1,000 workers, which made it the deadliest ever catastrophe in the history of the garment industry. Last November, a garment factory fire killed more than 100 people. So the tannery worker’s assessment sounds like a sick joke. But the truth is it was a realistic assessment of the deplorable health and safety conditions in Bangladesh.

Indeed, the current spotlight on the tragic mass casualties in Rana Plaza obscures a bigger reality: hundreds of Bangladeshi workers die every year with hardly anyone noticing.

Tannery workers die in ones and twos, often in electrocutions and boiler explosions. I spoke to tannery workers who had broken arms, or who had lost fingers or hands following serious accidents in machines. Many workers said their tannery did not supply any protective equipment. I met girls and boys, some as young as 11, in some tanneries. They work 12 or even 14 hours a day. Despite a law against children doing dangerous work, they told us that they handle skins in pits full of chemicals and water, cut hides with razor blades, or work with dangerous machinery without training or supervision. Studies of occupational cancers among tannery workers in other countries show that Hazaribagh’s employees are right to be terrified of long-term exposure to chemicals.

Tanneries and garment factories are not the only deadly industries in Bangladesh. Non-profit groups monitoring workplace safety say that in an average year, more than a hundred workers will be killed by electrocutions, falling from heights, or crushed by machinery while working in building construction. Despite introducing new regulations to govern the ship-breaking industry in 2011, 15 workers died in accidents in Chittagong yards in 2012. Similar numbers die in rice mills each year. These are only the deaths in accidents – no-one tracks deaths by occupational diseases.

The Bangladeshi government, retailers and consumers have an urgent responsibility to search for reforms in the rubble of Rana Plaza. They should start with a serious inspection regime. The number of workplace inspectors is woefully inadequate: in June 2012, the Inspection Department had just 18 inspectors to monitor an estimated 100,000 factories in and around Dhaka. But it’s not simply a case of more inspectors – they can hardly do their work if they continue to be cozy with industry. A deputy chief inspector with the Inspection Department told me: “We always try to maintain good relations with management. Usually we give advance notice [of an inspection]. Sometimes we send a letter, sometimes we phone if the number is available.” Although the law allows for imprisonment for those responsible for violating workplace health and safety provisions, when violations are found the common penalty is a fine of around $13. Other senior officials have told us they believe the lack of worker protections and hostility to unions stem from some parliamentarians’ financial stakes in garment factories.

Strong and independent labor groups in Bangladesh operate in a pervasively hostile environment. The torture and murder of labor rights activist Aminul Islam a year ago remains unsolved. Over a dozen labor rights leaders currently face criminal charges on a variety of spurious grounds. This matters. Organized labor would have had much more support in standing up to pressure from a factory owner to go back into a building whose walls had cracked.

Foreign companies that source from Bangladesh have a responsibility to ensure that the rights of workers throughout their supply chains are respected. Bangladesh’s tragedies have laid bare the fundamental shortcomings of the “social audits” many retailers use to monitor conditions at the factories that produce their goods. At the least, retailers who rely on these audits need to do more to ensure that they are rigorous, transparent and truly independent. Too often, none of those things are true.

 Text

The Real Cost Of CIA Cash

Standard

When the New York Times reported recently that the CIA routinely provides cash payments to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, many were surprised. I wasn’t among them. The Karzai scandal cycle has developed a certain amount of redundancy: his odd outbursts, his family’s endless corruption, the vacillating positions on peace negotiations and about faces on the Taliban one day and the United States the next—it has lost the power to shock. CIA payments are not even at the front of this parade of infamies.

The CIA has a long history of using cash to buy allegiance in Afghanistan. A retired CIA officer once told me unabashedly over lunch at the Cosmos Club in Washington of payments in the late 1990s to the anti-Taliban leader Ahmed Shah Massoud. As Human Rights Watch’s Afghanistan researcher ten years ago, I saw firsthand how the CIA paved the way with cash during the military campaign against the Taliban in late 2001. While investigating abuses by a warlord named Ismail Khan in western Afghanistan, I learned the CIA had provided him with enough cash and weapons that he was soon in control of this part of the country (which also gave him control of 70 percent of national revenue derived from customs taxes on the Iranian border). Khan became so powerful that he soon called himself the “Emir of Herat.”

Khan was not the worst. CIA money led to the resurrection of many faded and washed-up warlords, who then essentially took control of different patches of land and militias on the condition that they joined the US “war on terror.” CIA-paid forces could be seen in Kandahar, Gardez, and Ghazni, their gunmen guarding CIA and special forces bases. Indeed, it was no secret that the CIA was providing cash to obtain services: autobiographical accounts by CIA officers of the first months of post-9/11 US operations in Afghanistan, like Gary Schroen’s First In and Gary Berntsen’s Jawbreaker, contain descriptions of large cash payments to warlords.

The cashflow has continued for years. Media reports in 2009 described the CIA delivering cash to Karzai’s late brother in Kandahar, the strongman Ahmad Wali Karzai. In 2010, a scandal emergedinvolving Karzai’s crooked National Security Council director, Mohammed Zia Salehi, who was briefly arrested by Afghan police for impeding a major corruption investigation; the New York Times reported had been receiving CIA cash for years. The entire budget and payroll of Afghanistan’s intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security, was paid directly by the CIA for most of the last decade.

Of course, some might ask: what’s new? Intelligence services shunt cash to problematic actors. This is how the CIA often does business, and not only in Afghanistan; the journalist Jeremy Scahill hasreported on the same practice in Somalia, among other places.

The twist of the latest CIA cash scandal is not the CIA is handing over wads of US bills to a corrupt president. It is that the CIA has continued to hand over cash for so long, which is not merely unethical but now antithetical to the US government’s stated policy goals.

While cash to gunmen may have been justified by circumstances in late 2001, it was less so as time passed. By 2002, the Taliban was severely weakened. This was the time when US policy should have been reevaluated to ensure that practices on the ground were aligned with the stated goals of the newly created Afghan government, the US, the UN and other donor nations: establishing the rule of law, fighting corruption, and advancing human rights and justice for past crimes.

Instead of creating a slush-fund presidency, the US could have helped Afghanistan transform into a more stable post-conflict country in which outside budgetary support for security forces, as for other offices, became part of a transparent system of revenue and expenditure overseen by elected officials.

You don’t need to be a human rights advocate or a counterinsurgency expert to foresee the consequences when bags of cash are thrown around without oversight. It creates lawlessness and encourages broader corruption.

The chaos of diffuse authority is of course an ancient problem in human life. Thomas Hobbes, during a brutal civil conflict in England more than three centuries ago, wrote of “distracted” men at arms with diverse aims—warlords basically—who “when there is no common enemy, they make war upon each other for their particular interests.”

The Obama administration would do well to ask itself what consequences have accrued from years of secret cash funding, and ask why the US government is still embracing the practice. More than a decade after the Taliban’s fall, it is time to end the unaccountable cash flow that props up human rights abusers and pushes off a future functional state. Bags of cash have not served the Afghan people well. Continue reading

Who decides what we eat

Standard

Who Decides What We Eat?

In March, US President Barack Obama signed the HR 933 continuing resolution — popularly known as the Monsanto Protection Act — that effectively divests the federal courts of their constitutional power to stop the planting or sale of genetically modified (GM) seeds and crops regardless of the health and environmental consequences. In other words, whether you like it or not, despite the havoc it can play with your life and environment, you have no choice but to quietly accept GM foods.

On 22 April, amidst the noise over the 2G Spectrum and Coal blocks scams, the government introduced in Parliament the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2013. The jubilation that followed in the Association for Biotechnology-Led Enterprises (ABLE) was telling of how industry and the government work in tandem in this country.

Setting aside all concerns expressed by the 2004 Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology, led by eminent scientist MS Swaminathan, the Bill is a hurried attempt to remove all possible obstacles in the promotion of the risky and controversial technology. In a lot of ways, the BRAI Bill is a precursor to the Monsanto Protection Act in the US. While the US government has removed all regulatory hurdles in the promotion of GM crops, the BRAI Bill too makes the task much easier for biotech firms by providing a single-window, fast-track clearance for GM crops. In the garb of “confidential commercial information”, it imposes restrictions on the application of the Right to Information Act. It also has certain clauses that limit the jurisdiction of the courts. The BRAI Bill, therefore, provides a strong and legally-tight protective shield to biotechnology companies.

The need to curb transparency and accountability arises only when something dangerous has to be kept hidden from public glare. It first begins by pro-industry scientists occupying senior government and university positions to create scare by misrepresenting facts in the name of ‘science-based’ debates.

Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot points to the particular instance when the chief veterinary officer of UK had “discounted fears that BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) could jump from one species to another”. The failure to acknowledge a scientific fact led to the emergence of mad cow disease.

In India, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research has been aggressively pushing for the use of GM crops in the name of food security. When the environment ministry questioned the veracity of scientific claims, and imposed in 2010 a moratorium on the genetically engineered food crop — Bt Brinjal — the GM industry was pushed on the backfoot. Adding to its woes was the 2012 report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee, which found “biotechnology regulation to be too small a focus on the vast canvas of biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health and therefore recommended an all-encompassing Biosafety Authority”.

Subsequently, after seven states — West Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Kerala — refused to go in for open field trials of GM crops, the only option left was to bulldoze public resistance through a legally binding mechanism. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) then swung into action, and knowing that the MOEF is no longer a natural ally, moved the introduction of the Bill to the Department of Science & Technology, which incidentally is a promoter of the technology. The conflict of interest is clearly visible. But a defiant PMO continues to look the other way.

At the same time, citing “public interest”, the Bill has taken away the hold states have over agriculture and health. States can no longer refuse permission; they are left with only an advisory role.

What makes the Bill a subject for a serious national debate, besides of course looking into the role being played by the PMO in promoting corporate welfare, is that it impacts everyone in the country. Whether you want to know or not, the Bill provides biotechnology companies with unlimited powers to tamper with your food, health and environment. In the end, the decision is ours whether you would like the government and the GM firms to decide what you eat.

Razia Sultan, Princess Born to Rule.

Standard

images
Razia was the first women who ruled medieval India during Muslim empire. Razia Sultan’s original name was Razia-al-Din. Her throne name was Jalalat-ud-Din Raziya. She preferred to be called as Razia Sultan as sultana was feminist.

Razia succeeded her father Shams-ud-din Iltutmish to the Sultanate of Delhi in 1236. Iltutmish always said, “My Razia is better than my sons”. It was true; while his sons were enjoying youth, Razia was actively participating in the Administrative matters of the kingdom.

Image

Once when Iltutmish was busy with the siege of Gwalior, he had entrusted the government in Delhi to Razia. On his return he was very much impressed by the way Razia had run the empire. At that very moment he declared Razia as her heir. It was the will of the king that after his death Razia, his daughter should succeed the throne. But the Muslim people were not happy with this decision.

When Iltutmish died, Rukn-ud-din Firuz, one of his sons, usurped the throne and ruled for about 7 months.

Ruknuddin was all wasted after he got the control and the throne. Muslim nobility with reluctance agreed to allow Razia to rule the empire.

She was an efficient Sultan working for the betterment of the empire but like her father, most of her time was spent infighting rebellions. She had personally led the army to many places like Punjab and Multan.

She is also having many controversies on her name. She was supposed to having feelings for one of her advisers, Jamal-ud-Din Yaqut, an Abyssinian Siddi slave.

In her battle with Altunia in Bhatinda, Yaqut was killed and Razia was taken into prison. There she decided to marry Altunia. In her absence, Razia’s brother Muizuddin Bahram Shah took over the throne. After Razia married Altunia, they had a battle with Bahram to take back the empire. Both Razia and Altunia were defeated in the battle (Oct.1240). Both of them fled to Delhi and on reaching Kaithal, the remaining forces abandoned them. They both fell into the hand of the jatts and were robbed and killed (October 1, 1240).

Controversies did not leave Razia’s side even after her death. There are three claims regarding her grave.

Awadh_Begum_534_650w

First claim is that her grave is in Old Delhi, in courtyard, Bulbul-i-khana, Shahjahanabad. Haryana also claims to be having tomb of Razia in Kaithal.Third and the most recent claim is that her African slaves Paramour are buried at Tonk in Rajasthan.

Her reign was just for three years yet her bravery, struggle and her undaunted spirit has been preserved in the treasures of history.