Israel accused of war crimes in recent Gaza war

According to an AP report, Human Rights Watch on Tuesday accused the Israeli military of carrying out attacks that “apparently amount to war crimes” during an 11-day war in May against the Hamas militant group. 

The international human rights organization issued its conclusions after investigating three Israeli airstrikes that it said killed 62 Palestinian civilians. It said “there were no evident military targets in the vicinity” of the attacks.

“Israeli forces carried out attacks in Gaza in May that devastated entire families without any apparent military target nearby,” said Gerry Simpson, Associate Crisis & Conflict Director at HRW.

He said Israel’s “consistent unwillingness to seriously investigate alleged war crimes,” coupled with Palestinian rocket fire at Israeli civilian areas, underscored the importance of an ongoing investigation into both sides by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In a statement, the Israeli army said its attacks were aimed at military targets and that it took numerous precautions to avoid harming civilians. It said Hamas is responsible for civilian casualties because it launches attacks from residential areas.

“While the terror organizations in the Gaza Strip deliberately embed their military assets in densely populated civilian areas, the IDF takes every feasible measure to minimize, as much as possible, the harm to civilians and civilian property,” it said.

The war erupted on May 10 after Hamas fired a barrage of rockets toward Jerusalem in support of Palestinian protests against Israel’s heavy-handed policing of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, built on a contested site sacred to Jews and Muslims, and the threatened eviction of dozens of Palestinian families by Jewish settlers in a nearby neighborhood. Israel has said it struck over 1,000 targets during the fighting.

In all, some 254 people were killed in Gaza, including at least 67 children and 39 women, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Hamas has acknowledged the deaths of 80 militants, while Israel has claimed the number is much higher. Twelve civilians, including two children, were killed in Israel, along with one soldier.

The HRW report looked into Israeli airstrikes. The most serious, on May 16, involved a series of strikes on Al-Wahda Street, a central thoroughfare in downtown Gaza City. The airstrikes destroyed three apartment buildings and killed a total of 44 civilians, HRW said, including 18 children and 14 women. Twenty-two of the dead were members of a single family, the al-Kawlaks.

The Israeli military said the attacks were aimed at tunnels used by Hamas militants in the area. The airstrikes unexpectedly caused nearby buildings to collapse, leading to “unintended casualties,” it said.

In its investigation, HRW concluded that Israel had used US made GBU-31 precision-guided bombs, and that it did not warn residents to evacuate the area ahead of time. It also found no evidence of military targets in the area.

“An attack that is not directed at a specific military objective is unlawful,” it wrote.

The investigation also looked at a May 10 explosion that killed eight people, including six children, near the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. It said the two adults were civilians.

In its statement, the Israeli military said the casualties were caused by errant rocket fire launched by militant groups, not Israeli airstrikes. It released aerial photos of what it said was the launch site, some 7.5 kilometers (4.5 miles) away, and the landing area. It also said it did not carry out any strikes in the area at the time of the explosion.

But based on an analysis of munition remnants and witness accounts, HRW said evidence indicated the weapon had been “a type of guided missile” used by Israel.

“Human Rights Watch found no evidence of a military target at or near the site of the strike,” it said.

The New York-based group said that Israel refused to allow its investigators to enter Gaza. Instead, it said it relied on a field researcher based in Gaza, along with satellite images, expert reviews of photos of munitions fragments and interviews conducted by video and telephone.

The third attack HRW investigated occurred on May 15, in which an Israeli airstrike destroyed a three-story building in Gaza’s Shati refugee camp. The strike killed 10 people, including two women and eight children.

Israel said the target was a group of senior Hamas officials hiding in an apartment, and that the civilian deaths were unintended and “under review.”

But Human Rights Watch said it found no evidence of a military target at or near the site and called for an investigation into whether there was a legitimate military objective and “all feasible precautions” were taken to avoid civilian casualties. HRW investigators concluded the building was hit by a US made guided missile.

The May conflict was the fourth war between Israel and Hamas since the Islamic militant group, which opposes Israel’s existence, seized control of Gaza in 2007. Human Rights Watch, other rights groups and U.N. officials have accused both sides of committing war crimes in all of the conflicts.

Early this year, HRW accused Israel of being guilty of international crimes of apartheid because of discriminatory policies toward Palestinians, both inside Israel as well as in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel rejected the accusations.

In Tuesday’s report, HRW called on the United States to condition security assistance to Israel on it taking “concrete and verifiable actions” to comply with international human rights law and to investigate past abuses.

It also called on the ICC to include the recent Gaza war in its ongoing investigation into possible war crimes by Israel and Palestinian militants. Israel does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction and says it is capable of investigating any possible wrongdoing by its army and that the ICC probe is unfair and politically motivated.

In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Bassem Naim called for Israeli leaders to be brought before “international tribunals.” He also claimed that the Hamas rocket fire was a “legitimate right to resist the occupation.”

 

Iran claims arresting Mossad agents with weapons

According to Fars News Agency, Iranian Intelligence Ministry claims arresting a network of Mossad agents and seizing a heavy shipment of weapons and ammunition after they entered Iran through its western border.

The Ministry stated that the Mossad network in the area was hit hard after Iran managed to thwart the alleged sabotage attempts.

The Intelligence Ministry thanked the people of Iran for their constant vigilance and called on all citizens to be more vigilant and aware of suspicious offers, especially on the Internet.

The seized weapons included pistols, grenades and shotguns, according to the Ministry, which added that some of the weapons have been used to provoke clashes during protests.

The Ministry claimed that the alleged agents intended to use the weapons during the ongoing protests taking place throughout Iran in order to carry out assassinations and that Israel attempted to carry out acts of sabotage in various places during the recent presidential elections.

The announcement comes as protests continue across Iran for a third week in light of a severe drought and water crisis in southwestern Iran, and the day after anti-government protests broke out in Tehran.

A video shared on social media showed protesters marching down the streets of the capital on Monday shouting slogans such as “Death to the dictator” and “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon: I will sacrifice my life for Iran.”

Additionally on Tuesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that it had killed two terrorists and captured another in the West Azerbaijan province in northwestern Iran. The IRGC claimed that the three member team planned to carry out sabotage and anti-security measures, according to Fars.

Three additional suspects who intended to protect the terrorists were also arrested, according to the report.

A “considerable amount” of weapons, ammunition and explosives were seized in the arrest, according to Fars.

On Monday, the Judiciary Office in the Fars Province announced that 11 members of a terrorist-takfiri group controlled by leaders located outside of Iran were arrested in the Fars Province.

An additional 25 individuals connected to the group were arrested in other provinces in a coordinated operation, according to the announcement.

“Takfiri” is a term used by Iran and pro-Iranian groups to refer to hard-line, Islamist militants.

The Judiciary Office added that the group had released a number of video clips on the Internet to spread terror and declare their existence. The office did not state what the name of the group was or where exactly its leaders are located.

“The group intended to carry out simultaneous terrorist operations in several provinces of the country which was plotted with the intelligence and financial cooperation of two intelligence services of the European countries and certain regional states but they were thwarted, thanks to the vigilance of judicial officials,” said the head of the Judiciary Office, according to Fars.

US military involvement in Afghanistan was a mistake

Americans are evenly divided on whether the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, as the withdrawal of US troops from the region nears completion. Gallup reported on Monday that 47% of Americans believe US military involvement in Afghanistan was a mistake, while 46% support the mission.

President Joe Biden announced in April that all US troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 11th September 201, the 20th anniversary of the attacks on twin towers, resulting in the longest war in American history.

Earlier this month, Biden moved up the target date for pulling all troops from the region, revealing that the US military mission would end by 31st August.

More than 2,400 US service members have died in Afghanistan, according to Gallup. The war, which has cost the US more than US$2 trillion, has left around 20,000 US troops injured.

The poll, conducted between 6th to 21st July was the second time in history that fewer than half of Americans said US involvement in Afghanistan was not a mistake, according to Gallup.

Support for sending troops into Afghanistan was high in October 2001, shortly after the US sent troops into the country, with 80% of Americans supporting the move, and 18% opposed.

Support for the war increased the next year, with a record-high 93% of Americans saying it was not a mistake to deploy troops to the country.

In 2014, backing for the war slipped. That year was the first time US adults were as likely to say it was a mistake to send troops into Afghanistan as they were to say it was not, Gallup reported.

Of the Americans polled that year, 49% said the US made a mistake sending troops into Afghanistan, while 48% said it was not a mistake.

Support rose again in 2015 and 2019. This year, it is back on par with the results from 2014, according to the polling organization.

As the US withdrawal effort nears the completion concerns are growing about the stability of the Afghan government once American forces vacate the country, particularly as the Taliban continues to make gains in the region.

Gallup polled a random sample of 1,007 adults in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Remove Ashraf Ghani immediately, if peace can be established in Afghanistan without him

According to an Associated Press report, Taliban say there will not be peace in Afghanistan until President Ashraf Ghani is removed and there is a new negotiated government in Kabul.

Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said the insurgents would end their fighting when a negotiated government that agrees with all sides of the conflict is established in Kabul, and Ghani's government is removed. 

“I want to make it clear that we do not believe in the monopoly of power because any governments who (sought) to monopolize power in Afghanistan in the past were not successful governments,” Shaheen said.

 “So we do not want to repeat that same formula.”

Shaheen dismissed Ghani's right to govern, calling him a warmonger and accusing him of using his speech on Eid-al-Adha to assure an offense against the Taliban.

Shaheen also brought up allegations of widespread fraud regarding Ghani's win. Ghani has said that he will remain in office until new elections determine the next government, which his critics, including the Taliban, say is only a method for him to remain in power. 

Last week, the Executive Officer of the country, Abdullah Abdullah, led a high-level group of representatives to talk with Taliban leaders, according to the AP.

While Shaheen said those talks were good at first, the government’s repeated demands for a cease fire without the removal of Ghani were similar to a Taliban surrender. 

“They don’t want reconciliation, but they want surrendering,” Shaheen said.

Before the Taliban can agree to a cease fire, there must be a new government “acceptable to us and to other Afghans,” he said. Only then will there be no war, according to Shaheen. 

Shaheen said the new government would allow women to work, go to school, participate in politics and walk freely without a male relative. However, they will be required to wear a hijab or headscarf. 

However, many reports from captured Taliban districts dispute this claim, as there are many harsh restrictions imposed on women, including setting fire to schools, according to the AP. 

Shaheen said that the capture of those districts was done through negotiation, not fighting. He said that some Taliban commanders ignored the leadership's orders against repressive and drastic behavior.

“Those districts which have fallen to us and the military forces who have joined us ... were through mediation of the people, through talks,” he told the publication. “They did not fall through fighting. ... It would have been very hard for us to take 194 districts in just eight weeks.”

Is Bennett being trapped by non-state actors?

On last Sunday it appeared that Prime Minister Naftali Bennett had just erased a 54-year policy banning Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount. Had Bennett actually made such a policy change, it likely would have started a religious war between Jews and Muslims, due to vehement opposition to Jewish prayer at the site. 

Domestically it would have collapsed his coalition and set Israel hurtling back into another election cycle.

It’s a move that could have severed Israel’s ties with its neighbor Jordan and complicated relations between Amman and Washington on the eve of US President Joe Biden’s first meeting there with King Abdullah the next day, particularly given that the Hashemite Kingdom has a special custodial relationship to the Temple Mount.

At issue was a line in a tweet sent out by the Prime Minister’s Office in the aftermath of clashes at the Temple Mount, also known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif.

Initially it looked like a simple message, letting the public know that Bennett had spoken “with Public Security Minister Bar Lev and Israel Police Insp.-Gen. Shabtai and thanked them for managing the events on the Temple Mount with responsibility and consideration.”

This could have been termed the most innocuous statement in the world, the Prime Minister’s Office added that this was done “while maintaining freedom of worship for Jews on the Mount.”

The Prime Minister’s Office continued the Twitter thread, stating that Bennett had emphasized that “freedom of worship on the Temple Mount will be fully preserved for Muslims as well, who will soon be marking the fast of the Day of Arafah and the Eid al-Adha.”

Not exactly the type of notice one issues when setting a policy change. Except that a policy – known as the status quo – worked out in the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967 between Israel and the Wakf Islamic religious trust allows members of all faiths to visit the site, while banning anyone but Muslims from praying there. Jews in particular are expected to pray at the nearby Western Wall.

Bennett backtracked, with his spokesman Matan Sidi clarifying that there was no change to the status quo. Sidi’s words appeared to extinguish potential sparks, but the timing could not have been worse.

US airstrikes in Afghanistan

During this past week, the US military launched several airstrikes in support of Afghan government forces fighting Taliban, including in the strategically important province of Kandahar. It must be kept in mind that at present United States has no airbases in Pakistan or Central Asian countries.

These strikes demonstrate the US intentions to continue supporting Afghan forces with combat aircraft based outside the country, at least until the scheduled conclusion of the US military withdrawal by 31st August 2021.

The US has a variety of combat aircraft based in the Middle East within range of Afghanistan, including warplanes aboard an aircraft carrier in the region and fighters and bombers in the Persian Gulf area.

These are the first known US airstrikes in Afghanistan since Gen. Scott Miller, the top US commander in the country, relinquished his command and left the country. The authority to launch airstrikes against the Taliban has since been in the hands of Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, who oversees US military involvement in the greater Middle East.

The United States conducted a total of more than four airstrikes in support of Afghan forces. At least two of the strikes were to destroy military equipment, including an artillery piece and a vehicle that the Taliban had taken from Afghan forces. The Afghans requested those strikes, as well as those targeting Taliban fighting positions, including at least one strike in the southern province of Kandahar.

At a Pentagon news conference Wednesday, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Taliban now control about half of the 419 district centers in Afghanistan, and while they have yet to capture any of the country’s 34 provincial capitals, they are pressuring about half of them. As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that after 31st August the main focus will be on countering threats to the US homeland from extremist groups inside Afghanistan. He added that the administration will provide financial and other kinds of support to Afghan defense forces, even with no combat troops or strike aircraft based there.

 

Can joining Quad help India fight Himalayan war against China?

The ambiguity over officially announcing China as its adversary, the lack of overlap between the geographies or the issues of its members with China, and the military disadvantages before a well-prepared Chinese puts a question mark over Indian inclusion in the Quad.

India has maintained that it perceives the Quad as not aimed against anyone, “denied it is an Asian NATO”, stressed on broader issues from vaccine collaboration, to resilient supply chains, and framed its language that avoids irking China. But the belated adoption of broader goals such as climate change and vaccines in the 12th March Quad Leaders’ Summit, to make it more acceptable to other countries, suggested that the target is Beijing.

Only India and Japan have territorial disputes and are geographically close with China, while the US and Australia’s opposition stems from Great Power contest, China’s socio-political system and policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the South China Sea and Taiwan.

The only tangible dispute Australia has with China was the trade war where the latter’s tariffs cost Australia US$3 billion ‑ themselves in response to Australia backing a global inquiry into the COVID-19 origins in April 2020.

While India’s territorial disputes with China are in the Himalayas, Japan contests the Senkaku Islands (or Diaoyu in Chinese) in the East China Sea. Thus, the lack of a contiguous land or maritime geography with China does not allow a ‘united front’ per se — like Egypt and Sudan against Ethiopia, or Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean against Turkey. Moreover, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on 22nd April refused intervening in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan itself, while clarifying 17th April joint statement with Biden in the Japanese Parliament.

India is not likely to join Quad members to collectively confront China in the South China Sea, as China can be expected to retaliate with severe backlash in Ladakh. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is already limiting the disengagement only to the Pangong Tso, with the standoff becoming a year old.

Beijing initiated the standoff because of India’s rising military dalliance with the US and tacitly joining former US President Donald Trump’s COVID-19-origin charge in early 2020. China perceived it as a threat to its sovereignty and India and US exploiting its vulnerability. Moreover, India’s reconciliatory statements at the beginning of the standoff reflected an unwillingness to go to war.

Giving up the Kailash Range plateau that had stunned the Chinese, has also left India with little military options. Add to it its obsolete military equipment and structure, India can only fight a defensive war. In the South China Sea against the US Navy that is stretched thin, the Chinese have a home advantage.

In the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) knows it faces the ‘away’ disadvantage and, therefore, will not challenge the Quad or India.

Retired US Navy Admiral Dennis Blair also discredits the ‘String of Pearls’ theory, saying it is “not possible for any navy to encircle a country (like India) with a few ports.” Since international law would permit India to strike regions it faces attacks from, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Pakistan will not host Chinese military facilities aimed at India.

A China policy independent of the US geopolitical rivalries that objectively addresses Indian issues with Beijing and avoids the destabilization that Washington’s military alliances effect would inspire a positive response from China. Moreover, banking on military alliances against China would harm the current government’s muscular, nationalistic image.