BBC interview with Mark Regev, Spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister, regarding new HRW claims
Anchor: Joining us live now from Jerusalem is the Israeli Government Spokesman Mark Regev. Mr. Regev, what is the official reaction to these claims from Human Rights Watch?
Mr. Mark Regev: We put out a statement just a short while ago, quite a detailed one. Ultimately, every Israeli combat soldier going into a combat situation is briefed fully about his obligations under International human rights law. He is briefed about the importance of distinction between civilians and combatants. Obviously civilians are not to be targeted. We take allegations of this type very seriously, and as we speak these is an ongoing IDF investigation into such allegations.
I would want to say two things though about this report. I think anyone who reads it sees that it is based once again on a very problematic methodology. In other words, Human Rights Watch is relying on testimony from people who are not free to speak out against the Hamas regime. Human Rights Watch comes in, they leave: Who is there before, during and after, watching everything they are doing, watching the people they are interviewing? And as a result I'm afraid the people who speak out against the Hamas regime, who speak out against their tactics, of using civilians as human shields, it's a problem for them and very difficult from a methodological point of view.
Anchor: That's not quite to be completely honest though, is it? I mean we are also talking here about medical records of the victims, lengthy interviews with multiple witnesses, interviewed several times, plus forensic ballistic evidence gathered at the scene.
Mr. Mark Regev: Well, to be fair, some six weeks ago Human Rights Watch put out a previous report based on the same methodology. I believe this was a report about our use of drones - They claimed we used them inappropriately….
Anchor: Mr. Regev, we are not talking about your use of drones. We are talking about the evidence…
Mr. Mark Regev: No. No But there is….
Anchor: Hang on a second, sir. We are talking about the evidence that you say was not gathered, Human Rights Watch says that - Pardon me, the evidence was gathered…
Mr. Mark Regev: Correct, correct, and I'm answering your question.
Anchor: No you are not, you are talking about drones. That is a different story.
Mr. Mark Regev: No, but you are wrong. You are wrong. Unfortunately, there is a systematic pattern of behavior with Human Rights Watch. Their previous report was torn apart not by the Israeli government, but by Jane's in London, the most established military people in the world I believe, who said they were basing it on speculation and not on facts. And I'd ask the Human Rights Watch people themselves: How can anyone take you seriously as a credible, objective, professional human rights organization after you have publicly admitted that you have been fundraising in Saudi Arabia, in tandem with that kingdom's authoritarian regime. I'd ask Saudi Arabia…
Anchor: Mr. Regev, can I just ask you one final question, because we are running out of time as we always do on these interviews.
Mr. Mark Regev: Please
Anchor: It sounds like you are doing exactly what Human Rights Watch accuses you of doing. You are talking about something else. You are talking about the Saudi connection, the alleged Saudi connection. Human Rights Watch says…
Mr. Mark Regev: They have admitted it.
Anchor: Human Right Watch says you stonewall. That sounds like you are stonewalling.
Mr. Mark Regev: No, on the contrary. Two weeks ago we released a 150 page report which specifically also talks about the charges against Israel on the issue of white flags, and we are conducting an ongoing investigation. All I'm saying is: Does Human Rights Watch really have the credibility, the objectivity and the professionalism after, first of all, their previous report was severely criticized by objective people - not by the Israeli government - by the Jane's people who basically said they don't know what they are talking about, and after it has been proved that they were working in tandem with the Saudi government, fundraising with Saudi Arabian government officials in the room. Where is their credibility, sir?
Anchor: Mr. Regev, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much for joining us from our bureau in Jerusalem.
IDF Spokesman:
The Human Rights Watch report which claims that IDF soldiers killed eleven Palestinian civilians holding "white flags" is based on unreliable witness reports.
The soldiers and officers of the Israel Defense Forces are obliged to respect any individual presenting a white flag as a symbol of surrender or of non-combatant status and to avoid causing him or her harm. The wartime reality in the Gaza Strip was made especially complex due to the intensive nature of combat and Hamas' cynical exploitation of civilians as human shields. Furthermore, Hamas took advantage of Israel's obligation to avoid harming civilians to the greatest extent possible and deliberately chose to locate the battlefield in the middle of a populated civilian area.
Sadly, Hamas terror operatives ruthlessly pervert the intent of the IDF's obligations to prevent harm to civilians by exploiting those with white flags as cover for belligerent action and to protect themselves from return fire. Any person who displays a white flag in this way acts illegally, does not enjoy protection from retaliatory action, and endangers nearby civilian populations. As a clear example of this practice, the video below shows a Hamas terrorist planting an explosive device and hiding amongst civilians who are waving white flags.
Merely displaying a white flag does not automatically grant immunity, and in cases of suspicion that a person holding a white flag is endangering security forces, they are authorized to take necessary precautionary steps and, in accordance with rules of engagement, to verify and neutralize the threat.
IDF forces received unambiguous orders prohibiting fire upon identifiable non-combatants and to assist, to the greatest extent possible, injured Palestinians, even under fire. Throughout combat operations, the IDF did all it could to warn civilian populations via the distribution of more than two million flyers, more than 300,000 phone calls to Palestinian homes, and warnings issued through local media outlets in an attempt to move residents as far as possible from combat zones.
The Israel Defense Forces operate without compromise in accordance to normative morals that guide them in all missions, even under difficult and complex circumstances. IDF troops were instructed prior to and during Operation Cast Lead based on standing orders, best-practices, and international law. Investigations into IDF combat operations have clearly shown that IDF soldiers acted in accordance with the rule of war as defined by international law despite the complex nature of combat.
That said, the Israel Defense Forces are obligated to investigate any claim of behavior that allegedly deviates from IDF codes of conduct, commands, or international law. As the IDF has done and continues to do so, a number of incidents are currently under investigation, some of which are criminal. Within the framework of these investigations, relevant information is gathered from within the IDF and other sources with regard to the incidents. The Military Advocate General then decides whether to continue the investigations and what additional steps, if any, are to be taken. The IDF will not hesitate to thoroughly investigate any incident or testimony that provides cause for such.