• In this report, and accompanying press releases and conference, interviews, etc., HRW accuses the IDF of using drones to launch precise weapons during the Gaza operation, leading to wrongful civilian deaths. The entire publication is based on allegations from only 6 ambiguous incidents.
• The term "war crimes" is used 7 times, and the alleged drone attacks are termed "unlawful". The case is entirely speculative, but the conclusions are stated with absolute assurance, as if the evidence was totally clear.
• Instead of credible evidence, HRW emphasizes technical and legal claims that are unfounded or irrelevant, but present the facade of expertise. These include references to satellite imaging, precise GPS coordinates, weapons specifications, Geneva conventions, etc., none of which offset the complete absence of verifiable evidence.
• Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, stated "Human Rights Watch makes a lot of claims and assumptions about weapons and drones, all of which is still fairly speculative, because we have so little evidence." (Dan Williams, "Human Rights Watch accuses Israel over Gaza drones," June 30, 2009)
• On HRW's "evidence" quoting Palestinian claims to have seen and heard the missiles, a retired British colonel and Commander of British forces in Afghanistan "questioned whether such distinctions could be made, not least as the Spike's range is 8 km (5 miles) ...In a battlefield, in an urban environment, with all the other noises, it's certainly more than likely you would not hear something five miles away." (Reuters, June 30)
• Additional "evidence" and references are from unverifiable Palestinian "testimony," reports from journalists (such as an email from the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation quoting a Jane's Defence Weekly staffer), and from other NGO officials.
• On the legal issue of military necessity, the report takes at face value the Palestinian claims of seeing no active Hamas fighters in the area of the alleged attacks. The Israeli government's report on the Gaza combat provides details that refute this speculation.
• HRW asserts that drone operators in the midst of the conflict should have consulted with military lawyers "to help determine whether targets are legitimate." This suggests that the authors have no significant battlefield experience in which split-second decisions must be made, or are simply inventing claims.

1. Why did it take HRW 6 months to issue a report that covers no new ground and largely repeats the International Crisis Group's report of April 2009? In the interval, HRW issued two publications condemning Israel. NGO Monitor's detailed analysis of HRW's report on Israel's use of drones can be found here.
2. Why does HRW perpetuate the "balance" between terrorist groups and their targets? ("Whether it is Hamas' claims of the 'right to resist occupation' or Israel's of the right 'to combat terror', the reasons for engaging in armed conflict do not permit a party to ignore its legal obligations in the way it conducts hostilities.")
3. Why did HRW fail to condemn Hamas for extensive use of human shields? What is the basis for the claim that Hamas "did not...force civilians to remain in areas in close proximity to rocket launching sites"?

Funny how they couldn't manage to release the report at the same time they released the one condemning Israel, isn't it? Also--five bucks says most media outlets ignore this report, as opposed to the thousands that picked up the report condeming Israel.