Filling in the Blanks Documenting Missing Dimensions in UN and NGO Investigations of the Gaza Conflict A publication of NGO Monitor and UN Watch Edited by Gerald M. Steinberg and Anne Herzberg Filling in the Blanks Documenting Missing Dimensions in UN and NGO Investigations of the Gaza Conflict Filling in the Blanks Documenting Missing Dimensions in UN and NGO Investigations of the Gaza Conflict A publication of NGO Monitor and UN Watch Edited by Gerald M. Steinberg and Anne Herzberg Contributors Gerald Steinberg Hillel Neuer Jonathan Schanzer Abraham Bell Dr. Uzi Rubin Trevor Norwitz Anne Herzberg Col. Richard Kemp Table of Contents Preface i. Executive Summary 1 Chapter 1: Production and Import of Rockets and Missiles Launched from Gaza at Targets in Israel 6 Chapter 2: The Sources of Hamas Financing, and the Implications Related to Providing Assistance to a Recognized Terror Organization 27 Chapter 3: Evidence Regarding the Abuse of Humanitarian Aid to Gaza for Military and Terror Purposes, and Questions of Supervision and Accountability 41 Chapter 4: The Credibility of Reports and Allegations from Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Regarding the 2014 Conflict 73 Appendix 1: Submission to the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict by Colonel Richard Kemp CBE 131 Appendix 2: Letter to Mary McGowan Davis, Chair of United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict by Trevor S. Norwitz 144 Appendix 3: Why the Schabas Report Will Be Every Bit as Biased as the Goldstone Report by Hillel Neuer (originally published in The Tower, March 2015, reprinted with permission) 149 Appendix 4: Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations by Prof Gerald Steinberg 161 Contributors and Acknowledgements 163 Endnotes: 168 Filling in the Blanks i Preface his report provides an independent, fully-sourced, systematic, and detailed documentation on some of the key issues related to the renewal of intense conflict between Hamas and Israel during July and August 2014. As such, Tit is intended to provided information on dimensions that are likely to be absent from the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry on Gaza, initially known as the Schabas Commission. The need for investigations that are conducted independent of the United Nations structure stems from a number of defects that have stained previous UN inquiries into armed conflict, in general, and regarding Israel, in particular. As reflected in numerous such investigations, these defects include political bias in the mandate and the appointment of commissioners, the secrecy that surrounds the investigation, the lack of information on the backgrounds and professional capabilities of the researchers and consultants, an apparent absence of expertise on military operations and laws of armed conflict, and reliance on unqualified and highly politicized sources. This history indicates a high probability of unverifiable allegations, distortions of fact and international law, and selective omissions, producing documents that are exploited in political, academic, media and legal frameworks, including submissions to the International Criminal Court. As a result of these failures, UNHRC investigations of conflicts involving Israel, and particularly regarding Gaza following the complete Israeli withdrawal in 2005, have generally erased or ignored central dimensions. Due to these blatant omissions, it was impossible to produce a credible description and analysis of the events. These fundamental failures characterized the 2009 “Goldstone Report”1 (which Judge Richard Goldstone later acknowledged was based on false premises and allegations), as well as previous reports under the UN Commission of Human Rights (replaced by the Council in 2006). In the process of writing this report, the leadership and timeframe of the UNHRC document changed dramatically, affecting the expectations that guided the choice of topics. At the beginning, the selection of William Schabas (who has a history of anti-Israel activism and prejudicial comments), the biased mandate that he received from the Council, the reliance of unverifiable claims combined with the absence of military expertise, and the secrecy which surrounded the investigation indicated that, once again, the final product would fall far from the basic requirements of a credible fact-finding report. It was highly probable that this report, like its predecessors, would omit key dimensions regarding the activities of the Hamas organization, including the thousands of rocket and ii Filling in the Blanks other attacks against Israeli citizens, and the international treaties and other legal instruments that are aimed at blocking support to terrorist entities. However, at the beginning of February 2015, Schabas suddenly resigned after evidence emerged that he had omitted a key conflict of interest in a UN application form. Another member of the Commission, Judge Mary McGowan Davis, was appointed to replace Schabas, and subsequently, the date for presenting the report was delayed by three months. This was apparently necessitated by the need to investigate issues and dimensions that had not been examined by Schabas. Although the process was still kept under intense secrecy, more witnesses were called and a wider variety of source material was consulted. These changes suggested the possibility that, in this case, the UN publication would actually address some of the issues that had been previously ignored. Regarding the elements that we address and are not in the UNHRC report, our publication will provide details on central dimensions required to adequately understand the conflict. In addition, to the extent that the report initiated by Schabas and completed by McGowan Davis does, in fact, examine the issues considered in our investigation, readers will have the opportunity to compare the two products, and perhaps find different angles and analyses, particularly regarding interpretations of international law. I acknowledge the important contributions of a number of experts, including Jonathan Schanzer, Dr. Uzi Rubin, Anne Herzberg, Hillel Neuer, Prof. Abraham Bell, Trevor Norwitz, and Col. Richard Kemp, in the preparation of this report. I also wish to extend a special thanks to Naftali Balanson, Yona Schiffmiller, Josh Bacon, Rebecca Wertman, and Elana Zygman for their dedicated research, editing, and fact-checking assistance. Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg Filling in the Blanks 1 Executive Summary his report provides, in parallel to the report of the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry on Gaza (the “COI” or “Commission”), independent, fully-sourced, systematic, and detailed documentation on someT of the key issues related to the outbreak of intense conflict between Hamas and Israel during July and August 2014. Based on past UNHRC investigative commissions regarding Israel, in which the facts related to central dimensions of the conflict were omitted, a group of experts was assembled to provide the missing information and analysis. On this basis, and noting that other detailed and verifiable reports are available on issues such as Hamas’ violations of international law, the use of the Gaza population as human shields, the abuse of UN facilities for military purposes,2 and the Israeli military’s decision making during the conflict (the latter posted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs), this report focuses narrowly on four other issues that are expected to be omitted by the UNHRC: 1) The production and import of rockets and missiles, which were then launched from Gaza at targets in Israel, in violation of international law: This section documents evidence on the transfer of rockets and components from Iran, via sea and land routes, as well as the use of materials and facilities in Gaza for producing such weapons. In the period since 2001, more than 20,000 projectiles have been launched from Gaza, targeting the Israeli civilian population in a gradually increasing radius. The import, production, storage (in densely populated civilian areas), and launch of these weapons clearly and repeatedly violate international law. 2) The sources of Hamas financing in light of international law forbidding the provision of assistance to terror organizations: Hamas is widely recognized as a terror organization, and as such, providing financing is a violation of international law. In this chapter, we examine the internal and external funding mechanisms of Hamas, with a particular emphasis on states that provide financial, military, and material support – specifically Syria, Iran, and, after 2012, Qatar and Turkey. 3) Evidence regarding the abuse of humanitarian aid provided by different sources — international agencies, individual governmental, and non- governmental aid groups — to Gaza; the diversion of aid for military and terror purposes; questions of supervision and accountability by aid providers; and the 2 Filling in the Blanks international law implications of the diversion of aid. By acquiescing in the large- scale diversion of such aid to military and terror objectives, the providers of this aid, including governments and humanitarian organizations, share responsibility for the violent attacks and their deadly outcomes. 4) The credibility of reports and allegations from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) regarding the 2014 conflict: In this, as in many other, conflicts, NGOs that claim to promote universal human rights, international law, and similar principles, repeatedly and