On July 17^th, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a 236-page report that accused Hamas and other Palestinian Resistance groups of committing war crimes on October 7^th. However, the report has significant shortcomings, including a heavy reliance on Israeli sources and forensic evidence based on analogies of information provided by the infamous ZAKA rescue service, known for fabricating crime scenes and disseminating various propaganda hoaxes. 

Despite its length and the new details it brings to light on the events of October 7 during the Hamas-led Al-Aqsa Flood offensive, the new HRW report is perhaps the most biased international investigation so far, and does not make mention of the ‘Hannibal Directive’ and "Israel’s" role in killing its own non-combatants on that day.

Given the report's extensive nature, with over 800 footnotes, it's impossible to cover every aspect in a single article. However, it's important to examine some areas where it falls short.

Dealing with claims that HRW was biased

To begin with, Sari Bashi, the Israeli Program Director for the report and co-founder of the "Gisha- Legal Center for Freedom of Movement," which is funded by Zionist sources such as the "New Israel Fund", stated the following on X: 

"This is the most comprehensive account of October 7 by an independent international organization and concludes that Hamas-led attacks against civilians in Israel rise to the level of crimes against humanity. We need accountability and civilian protection. Now."

The methodology of the report is perhaps the most telling part, from which we can decipher how HRW reached its conclusions. Many of these conclusions do not hold up to scrutiny or, at the very least, demand further answers. 

In their methodology section, HRW notes that it interviewed "94 survivors and witnesses from the October 7 assault", which suggests a comprehensive picture of what occurred across "19 kibbutzim and five moshavim (cooperative communities), the cities of Sderot and Ofakim, two music festivals, and a beach party" that they noted in their overview. However, they admit that they were only able to actually interview survivors from the Moshav Pri Gan, Moshav Yachini, and the Psyduck music festival sites - just three out of 24 locations mentioned in their summary of events.

The report goes on to state that for its actual forensic information, HRW "spoke to two medical experts hired by the Israeli government to examine the remains collected by ZAKA (see below) and provide forensic advice." They further note that "following October 7, some ZAKA members provided information to the media that proved unfounded", which is a major understatement. The head of the "Search and Rescue" service has repeatedly peddled debunked lies, as ZAKA produced false claim after false claim, ranging from grotesque stories of rape, sexualized torture, babies strewn on clothing lines, to the infamous "40 beheaded babies" lie. 

Despite this, HRW interviewed 10 ZAKA members who were all first responders on October 7 and claimed that it only used independently verifiable information. However, it admits that the two experts they spoke to that were tasked with examining the forensic evidence provided by ZAKA, were both hired by the Israeli regime directly. 

Related News

One year since Al-Aqsa Flood

Violence: A Tool Imposed by Colonialism

Without going through every detail in their methodology, it consists of interviews with Israeli journalists, ZAKA members, an Israeli soldier, a range of experts without specifying who they were exactly, in addition to some interviews with Palestinian citizens of "Israel" and Palestinians in Gaza. "Most of those interviewed were Jewish Israelis, but we also interviewed Palestinians from Gaza, Palestinian citizens of "Israel", and foreign workers from Nepal, Thailand, and the Philippines. Interviews were primarily conducted in Hebrew with the assistance of interpreters, and in Arabic, English, Spanish, and Thai", the report states.

Then there is the fact that the HRW was prevented by the Israeli authorities from entering any other site than Kibbutz Be’eri, where they were not given unrestricted access, meaning that their ability to actually inspect would have been restricted. In the segment of the HRW report on Kibbutz Be’eri, they cite survivor testimonies and build a narrative about what occurred there, without bothering to mention the fact that the Hannibal Directive was triggered there.

In one case, at Yossi Cohen’s home in Kibbutz Be’eri, where the Israeli military opened fire with light arms and then tank fire, killing 13 Israelis, the account is completely one-sided and omits key information that is readily available online. It mentions a key witness, Yasmin Porat, who survived the battle between Hamas fighters and the Israeli military. While the report says that Porat "briefly spoke to Human Rights Watch and confirmed these events, albeit in less detail", this comes off as an attempt at providing a linguistic loophole in order to provide cover to the fact that Porat did not actually confirm the precise characterisation of events presented by HRW. 

In reality, Yasmin Porat was lambasted after a number of appearances she made on Israeli television, where she said that during hours of being kept under Hamas captivity "they did not abuse us. They treated us very humanely," adding that "they give us something to drink here and there. When they see we are nervous they calm us down. It was very frightening but no one treated us violently. Luckily nothing happened to me like what I heard in the media." Porat also said that a Palestinian fighter spoke to her in Hebrew in order to calm her down and said "'Look at me well, we’re not going to kill you. We want to take you to Gaza. We are not going to kill you. So be calm, you’re not going to die.' That’s what he told me, in those words." Porat lost her husband on October 7 and undoubtedly endured significant trauma, which is why her testimony was so powerful at the time. 

Porat did not attempt to justify the actions of Hamas, but she presented a completely different picture to the one depicted in the HRW report, which is not at all acknowledged. If anything, the way the report deals with this specific incident is evidently omitting important details. 

Then we have the allegations of a premeditated mass rape campaign, which the Israeli regime claims was carried out on the orders of Hamas that day. The report, in its section titled "Crimes Involving Acts of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence", admitted the following:

"Human Rights Watch was not able to gather verifiable information through interviews with survivors of or witnesses to rape during the assault on October 7. Human Rights Watch requested access to information on sexual and gender-based violence in the possession of the Israeli government, but this request was not granted."

Although this is a massive blow to the Israeli narrative about a mass rape campaign, they did claim that "forced nudity, and the posting without consent of sexualized images on social media", but provided no in-depth information and simply stated that it came to these conclusions after "interviewing first responders, and experts on sexual violence who provided information about the context, and reviewing images captured during the assault". It did not name who these experts and first responders were, however, we can reasonably assume from the information presented on methodology that ZAKA and Israelis were the bulk of those sources. The photographic evidence aspect is also not clearly explained or detailed, which does not enable us to further inspect such claims. 

This segment seems, however, to rely heavily on a report by the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Pramila Patten, which concluded that there is "reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery" despite admitting no conclusive evidence. This report was made at the request of the Israeli regime and did not claim to be investigative in nature, however, it did reveal the below-mentioned issues:

"At least two of the allegations of sexual violence previously reported were determined by the mission team to be unfounded, due to either new superseding information or inconsistency in the information gathered, including first responder testimonies, photographic evidence, and other information. These included the allegation of a pregnant woman whose womb had reportedly been ripped open before she was killed, with her fetus stabbed while still inside her. Another such account was the interpretation initially made of the body of a girl found separated from the rest of her family, naked from the waist down. It was determined by the mission team that the crime scene had been altered by a bomb squad and the bodies moved, explaining the separation of the body of the girl from the rest of her family. Allegations of objects found inserted in female genital organs also could not be verified by the mission team due in large part to the limited availability and low quality of imagery."

In addition to this, the HRW report notes that they viewed and analyzed hundreds of videos and photos from that day, most of which were from Telegram channels and have long been available to the public. These only provide snapshots of what went on and are no way conclusive. 

On top of this, there was no analysis, investigation, or even mention of "Israel’s" triggering of the Hannibal Directive at numerous sites that day, which has now been confirmed as per sources cited by the Israeli daily Haaretz. Right here, this is the biggest red flag that indicates bias and debunks the idea that this report was in any way comprehensive, as it completely left out the role of Israeli forces in killing non-combatants that day. The most recent UN report which focused heavily on October 7, released on June 12 under a Human Rights Council resolution, mentions the Hannibal Directive and reports of Israeli forces killing their own people, making it a lot more balanced than the HRW report. 

Overall, if we look at the examples noted above, the claim that this report is unbiased and presents a comprehensive view of the situation is false.