The Human Rights Report, titled, “Look for Another Homeland,” appeared on Tuesday, September 22, 2015, only to condemn Egypt’s human rights record in Sinai. While focusing on the dismantling of thousands of homes in Rafah and Sheikh Zeweid, the report neglects the reality behind the evictions taking place in Sinai.
This is a not a conclusive study but rather an overview of the report. Simultaneously, it is also a rebuttal of this same report. Let’s peruse the report for signs of bias, half truths, and one-sided interpretations.
The report is prefaced by the words of Hajja Zaynab, a resident of Rafah: “My mother told me: ‘The tree is your responsibility. I fed you from it and raised you on it. Even in times of war, we lived from its oil when nobody could find food.’ Now there’s nothing I can do but hold the tree and kiss it and say, ‘Forgive me, mom, what can I do.” – Hajja Zaynab.
Uprooting a society is not a matter to take lightly. If you move between one city and another in peaceful times, even if you move between properties, you suffer a feeling of loss, so the realization that ultimately your home, which you had lived in for decades, is to be bulldozed is a sensation that must be overwhelming. This is a realization that no one can deny. I feel for the citizens of Rafah and Sheikh Zuweid. And by personalizing the anger and pain in Hajja Zaynab’s words, the report is up one.
However, in the large scheme of things, some may be burdened in the process of eliminating the harm that is about to fall on millions of other Egyptians. The good of millions may prevail over the good of a few.
The overall tone of the report intentionally discredits Egyptian authorities. It considers the authorities’ demolishment of the tunnels across the border between Egypt and Gaza reasonless. “Egypt likely possessed the capability to detect and eliminate ‘specific’ tunnels without resorting to the ‘arbitrary’ destruction of a large buffer zone.” I have to wonder why the Egyptian authorities wouldn’t use the exceptional facilities available at their finger tips to stamp out the dozens of new tunnels that sprung up overnight.
Besides, the phrase “specific tunnels” doesn’t cut it, HRW. Some specific tunnels construed a danger, while others didn’t? Not true; all the tunnels, the many thousands of them, construed a danger for Egyptians. And the word “arbitrary” doesn’t cut it either. Nothing is random; nothing is haphazard, and, hence, demolishing the tunnels is not an indiscriminate action; it is justifiable if only to preserve the integrity of the Egyptian border.
This while the report doesn’t take into account that thousands of tunnels existed, and that every time one tunnel was destroyed, ten others were dug. It doesn’t take into account that through these very tunnels, life as Egyptians knew it, whether in Sinai or across Egypt, was being destroyed because of the armaments and the terrorists that were smuggled in.
The report doesn’t even take into account that Egypt’s right to protect its borders was being violated. “Every country has the right to preserve its borders as it deems fit. No country in the world accepts that its rights be violated the way they are violated on the border with the Gaza Strip.” Would the US allow one single tunnel under its border with Mexico, just a rhetorical question?
“Though the Sinai-Gaza tunnels may qualify as lawful military objectives in some cases, Human Rights Watch also found it unclear to what extent they make an effective contribution to the Sinai Province group’s military capability or to the overall insurgency.”. Does HRW assume that these tunnels do not play a role in the terrorist actions taking place in Sinai? Where else would the weapons and terrorists come from if not from right across the border in Gaza? The report’s conclusive view is almost laughable.
The report skims, rather lightly, over the horrendous actions that continued to take place in Sinai even after Egypt destroyed a large proportion of tunnels. The report almost gives the terrorists an excuse for their actions. “Little is known about the Sinai insurgents.” By using the terms “little” and “insurgents,” instead of how many they were, in the thousands, and who they truly were: terrorists, HRW validates their existence. If this, in itself, is not enough to call HRW a bias cause, I don’t know what is.
The report excuses the terrorists and gives them ground to terrorize, “promising ‘revenge for Muslims against whoever helped in killing or assaulting them’.” The premise here is that the terrorists have the right to do whatever they please, even if it entails killing Egyptians in retaliation for having been assaulted against—HRW gives Sinai terrorists a valid excuse to kill. But didn’t Al Qaeda explain its September 11th actions against the US in a similar fashion? I beg to differ, HRW; you are undeniably wrong.
To follow specific protections during eviction in the shape of “genuine consultation with those being evicted; adequate and reasonable notice; information on the eviction and future use of the land; legal remedies; and legal aid” is a worthy cause. What the report neglects is the time factor. Egyptian authorities had to act swiftly to counteract the massacres that were taking place in Sinai. It would’ve been wonderful if Egyptian authorities could’ve sent those about to be evicted a written warning with its intention while allowing hundreds of terrorists to move in. I call on HRW to suggest to Israel a similar action before it bombs Gaza.
HRW personifies the stories of 11 families in the Rafah district. It categorically neglects to personalize, as it did with those evicted, the stories of the soldiers’ lives that were cut short or their families who lost their breadwinner or only son. The report merely cites a number trivializing the plight.
“The demolitions made no distinction between tunnels and civilian homes” says the report. This is rather puzzling since the tunnels were dug under homes, mosques, and shops. The starting and ending points of most tunnels were homes.
The report determined that the “large-scale destruction of at least 3,255 buildings in Rafah to counter the threat of smuggling tunnels was likely ‘disproportionate’.” It also assumed that Ansar Beit El Maqdis, the Sinai terrorist group, might boast “as little as a few hundred fighters or as many as “a few thousand.” In other words HRW decided that Ansar Beit El Maqdis did not construe much danger, that their actions should be ignored, and that Egypt is safe.
This while the report itself speaks of the thousands that died in Sinai. “The insurgents have proven capable of sustaining an increasingly sophisticated campaign against Egyptian military and security forces in North Sinai … the group launched large, coordinated assaults on government positions in North Sinai in January 2015 and July 2015, likely killing more than 100 Egyptian soldiers in total.”
The HRW’s Report ostensibly targets Egypt’s forces while ignoring horrendous actions occurring in the vicinity: the actions occurring in and around the Holy Mosque of Jerusalem, the Syrian Crisis and its refugees, and the tens of other crises around the world. It’s high time that HRW gets its reporting in order.