Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘gaza-beach-massacre’

IDF and Gaza Beach Massacre Investigation: Even Israelis Distrust Results

Friday, June 23rd, 2006
uzi benzimanUzi Benziman of Haaretz

Uzi Benziman of Haaretz has written a compelling column about the IDF’s moral turpitude in its treatment of Palestinian civilians. And even more importantly in light of the IDF’s recent feeble attempts at investigating its own possible moral lapses–its lazy, hazy record of pursuing and prosecuting such investigations.

What spurred his column was, of course, the IDF’s guilt-free judgment of itself in the case of the Gaza beach massacre. But the point of Benziman’s piece is to say that this is but the tip of the iceberg:

…Should they [the Israeli public] believe the prime minister, defense minister, foreign minister, chief of staff and Major General Meir Klifi regarding the circumstances in which the seven members of the Ghalia family were killed on the Gaza beach, or the version maintained by Human Rights Watch and Palestinian witnesses?

Whereas the Israel Defense Forces claim, after an ostensibly meticulous examination, that the family could not possibly have been hit by fire from its troops, Palestinians – among them doctors at the hospital in Gaza, the ambulance driver who evacuated the wounded and witnesses who were at the scene of the explosion – present evidence that seemingly refutes Israel’s version (as Shlomi Eldar’s Channel 10 report Friday night showed). In addition, there is the testimony of Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, who has in his possession a fragment of a 155-millimeter shell of the type the IDF was firing during the incident in question (Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, Haaretz, June 15, 2006).

Describing the discrepancy between the versions of the state authorities and the [Palestinian] victims…as one that leaves the Israeli public wondering – is an understatement. Many Israelis actually believe the Palestinians, or those who speak for them, and not because they are consumed with self-hatred. They have regrettable precedents: abuse of Palestinians that is initially denied until clear-cut evidence discredits the denials (testimony from “soldiers breaking the code of silence”); deaths of foreign human rights activists, which the state authorities ignore until international pressure compels them to investigate the circumstances in depth (the case of Tom Hurndall); bogus descriptions of how innocent people were killed during assassinations from the air (the Salah Shehada hit); false accusations against international bodies (the claims that UNRWA had helped transport a Qassam rocket while photos proved it was a stretcher); incorrect data regarding the status of built-up areas that had been designated targets for shelling (populated homes in Rafah, May 2004); internal IDF and police inquiries whose conclusions were refuted or required double-checking (the PID on the responsibility of policemen for the killing of Israeli Arab citizens in the October 2000 riots; the IDF on Captain R.’s behavior in the confirmed-kill case of the girl Iman al-Hams); the accepted…defense establishment [tradition of] wrap[ping] political and settlement-related moves in sham security arguments (…the High Court of Justice [recently] ruled that the IDF had misled it in describing the reasons for determining the route of the separation fence…).

The state authorities, including the defense establishment and its branches, have acquired for themselves a shady reputation when it comes to their credibility. Do not be surprised, therefore, when not only the international community but also the citizens of Israel do not believe their versions – until proven otherwise.

Sol Salbe, Israel peace activist from Australia, has provided some incisive commentary on the Benziman column:

But has it been proven otherwise? Again it’s hard to tell. The most independent observer to have looked at the evidence, former Pentagon weapons analyst Marc Garlasco, seems to blame Israel. Garlasco who has led the US military’s battle damage assessment team in Kosovo and Iraq had investigated the matter on behalf of Human Rights Watch. His research indicated that the blast that killed Ghalia family came from a 155 calibre gun used by the Israelis. He produced a shell fragment with the figure “155” marked on it. That would have been a clincher except that Israeli analysis (carried out at Ben-Gurion University) of other shell fragments taken from another victim was conclusively not from a 155 shell. Its origin, however, was indeterminate. The presence of traces of manufactured explosives (rather than the home-made variety) indicates an Israeli origin. However the IDF hastened to add that just like their Iraqi counterparts with their improvised explosive devices (IEDs) the Palestinians also make use of unexploded Israeli shells…

So purely on the balance of the balance of the probabilities it was an Israeli blast: either a direct hit or possibly a previously unexploded Israeli shell triggered by the vibration of the artillery barrage.

And Sol has dredged up this quotation in Haaretz from none other than Ehud Olmert, in which he presents Israel’s true priorities before the world:

“I value the lives and the welfare of the residents of Sderot as much as, if not more than, those of the residents of Gaza.

You have to read between the lines a bit to draw out the correct interpretation of this statement. Olmert is too slick to say merely that he “values the lives of Israelis more than he values those of Palestinians,” which is of course what he really believes. If George Bush said the life of a U.S. citizen was worth more to him than a Mexican, perhaps on one level you might say this was purely pragmatic and almost self-evident since he is the president of the U.S. and not Mexico. But when you understand that Olmert is really saying that if, in order to protect a life in Sderot I must accept the loss of an innocent one in Gaza, then this is a bargain I can make. Herein lies the moral bankruptcy of the Israeli position.

And besides, there is absolutely no proof that anything the IDF has done thus far HAS provided any greater protection to the residents of Sderot. One might argue that the opposite is the case since for every Palestinian civilian murdered scores of Qassams have been launched. Further, one might argue that the IDF’s cessation of artillery barrages and targeted assassinations has almost brought the Qassam barrage to a standstill (only three fired today). This might argue for the notion of ‘peace for peace.’ That is, if the IDF ceases its Gaza counter-terror operations then the Palestinian militants might cease theirs. But of course, it is too early to tell whether any of this will hold true in the longer term as such ceasefires have a habit of being but temporary lulls leading to some horrid escalation in mayhem.

Yossi Sarid also adds his own commentary about the IDF’s credibility and places it in a sorry historical context. He notes that through the 1967 war, the IDF’s statements and claims could be vouched for and authenticated as they were based on cold, hard facts. Not so anymore. After one too many lies:

That strategic weapon – credibility – self-destructs: The moment it misses its target, it becomes junk….

Strangely, the fact that no one believes their versions puzzles the defense establishment’s top brass. These honorable individuals – in and out of uniform – cannot understand why their explanations are now unreliable.

A dramatic change has recently occurred: The defense establishment’s announcements are a priori suspect unless their validity can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

There are many among hardline pro-Israel supporters who take deep offense at my coverage of the massacre and call me all sorts of names insinuating that I’m anti-Israel or worse. It feels good to hear Israelis say almost precisely what I’ve been saying ever since the Gaza beach tragedy. To my detractors, are Uzi Benziman and Yossi Sarid anti-Israel? Of course, to the pro-Israel crowd they are–a traitor to their people, etc. But to the reasonable among my readers such charges will appear ludicrous as they indeed are.

IDF Denies Second Piece of Palestinian Shrapnel Comes from Its Shell, Clears Itself of Blame…Again

Wednesday, June 21st, 2006

Haaretz reports today that the IDF has examined a second piece of shrapnel removed from a Palestinian victim of the Gaza beach massacre and found that it is not, according to them, from an Israeli shell:

An exhaustive examination of two pieces of shrapnel, which were extracted from Palestinians wounded in an explosion on the Beit Lahia coast in Gaza, conclusively prove that the shards did not originate from a 155-mm shell used by the Israel Defense Forces’ artillery corps on the day of the incident, an internal IDF commission of inquiry said Wednesday.

This contradicts an Israeli Channel 10 news report claiming that the same piece of shrapnel had been tested and been found to have come from an IDF shell. The Haaretz article also includes this tantalizing piece of countervailing information:

IDF Lieutenant Colonel Eren Toval, who supervised lab tests of the two pieces of shrapnel, said the shards did include high levels of explosives although their quality remains unknown. Kalifi added that explosives of this kind are employed by the IDF as well as by Palestinian armed groups.

First, you’ll notice that the IDF gives no detailed accounting of why it concludes the shrapnel is not from its shell. Yet the officer who supervised the test admits that the explosive residue on the shell is used by both the IDF and Palestinian militants. So what ‘precisely’ has been proven here? I feel as much up in the air as before and certainly no more convinced by the latest IDF statements on the incident. This is second time the IDF has pronounced itself blameless. The IDF strategy seems to be if we exonerate ourselves enough times then maybe someone will eventually believe us. Good luck.

Finally, let me point out for the umte-ump time here that no amount of Israeli military action will subdue the Palestinian militants. As with the U.S. war in Iraq, there is no military solution. There is only a political solution. I can only repeat this ad nauseum though neither the IDF nor the Israeli political elite seems to get it through their thick heads. So more die as a result. Many more Palestinians than Israelis to be sure. But needless Israeli blood IS shed because of Israel’s near pathological refusal to sit down and negotiate a final status agreement with Abbas.

Human Rights Watch Suggests Unexploded Israeli Shell May’ve Caused Gaza Beach Massacre

Tuesday, June 20th, 2006

There’s the truth and then there’s the Jerusalem Post’s version. These two are often as mismatched as Beauty and the Beast. The Post, in typically sloppy journalistic fashion has published a misleading report on a meeting between Human Rights Watch bomb damage assessment expert Marc Garlasco and IDF Maj. Gen. Meir Kalifi, who conducted the investigation into the Gaza beach massacre. The latter’s initial findings suggested that an IDF shell did not cause the deaths and that the actual cause was most likely a Hamas landmine buried at the beach to inhibit IDF landings there which targeted Qassam launching cells. This is from Haaretz on June 12th:

[A] committee, headed by Major General Meir Kalifi, is due to present its findings to the defense minister and the chief of staff Tuesday night. Its tentative conclusion is that the deaths stemmed from a bomb that Hamas planted on the beach in order to ambush Israeli naval commandos operating in northern Gaza…

Israel has amassed considerable information indicating that over the past few weeks, ever since Israeli commandos infiltrated Gaza and killed a rocket-launching cell, Hamas has been systematically mining the northern Gaza beach in an attempt to keep Israeli commandos from landing there again.

While Garlasco originally said that it was most likely that an Israeli shell fired at the beach killed the beachgoers, he now appears to have amended this view. After meeting with Kalifi, he still believes an Israeli shell killed them. But he believes it is possible the shell had been fired earlier, did not explode on impact, and later exploded. This is the Human Rights Watch statement about the Garlasco-Kalifi meeting:

During the two-and-a-half hour meeting with Kalifi, the IDF agreed with Human Rights Watch that it is possible that unexploded ordnance from a 155mm artillery shell fired earlier in the day could have caused the fatal injuries. The IDF fired more than 80 155mm shells in the area of the beach on the morning of the incident. Sand would increase the possibility of a fuse malfunction leading to a dud shell that may have sat in the sand waiting to be set off. The shelling between 4:31 p.m. and 4:50 p.m. could have triggered a dud shell, as could the human traffic on the beach that afternoon.

I will admit that this would be a whole lot less damning to the IDF than raining live shells on their heads. At least this makes the tragedy an accident. But it by no means gets the IDF off the hook. They still caused the deaths. If anyone reading this wants to pooh pooh this distinction let me present an example: if I collect guns and store them in my home and sell my home to you–then leave a gun behind and your child accidentally fires it killing itself or someone else–am I in the clear? Certainly not. I left the weapon there. It’s my fault though I didn’t deliberately set out to kill anyone.

Now let’s return to the Post which wrote:

On Monday, the Human Rights Watch…conceded for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF’s exonerating findings.

That’s NOT what HRW said. HRW said that a piece of unexploded IDF ordnance MAY HAVE killed the Palestinians, not that a Hamas-planted mine killed them as the IDF contends. And HRW’s theory of what may’ve happened, if true, still does NOT “exonerate” the IDF.

The main argument between Klifi and HRW surrounded the timeline of the blast…

This is only one of the arguments between them. An equally important argument was whether the shrapnel in the wounded Palestinians was of IDF origin or not. The IDF report still swears up and down it wasn’t.

The Post learned that the IDF was currently inspecting a second piece of shrapnel doctors had retrieved from one of the Palestinians wounded in the blast and currently being treated at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba…The second piece of shrapnel, sources said, was currently being examined in an IDF lab.

This is apparently the shrapnel referred to in the Israeli Channel 10 report which the station claimed was proven to have come from an IDF shell (a report the IDF denounced yesterday as “falsehood”). I’m betting that the IDF is now backpedaling because it knows the Channel 10 report was accurate. And undoubtedly Garlasco brought with him to his meeting with Kalifi pieces of the Israeli shrapnel he found on the Gaza beach during his visit to the site shortly after the explosion. But an important question is: if the IDF did such a thorough report why didn’t it test this ’second piece’ of shrapnel? Why is it only testing it now? Doesn’t this justify the doubts that so many have about the credibility of the original IDF investigation?

UPDATE: After I wrote to Human Rights Watch eight hours ago, castigating them for allowing the Post to be the first media source to characterize the results of the Garlasco-Kalifi meeting, one of my intrepid readers points me to a new statement published today on the HRW site. Read it and you’ll wonder whether we and the Post are even in the same universe. Needless to say, the Post article appears even more outrageously fatuous after reading HRW’s version of the meeting.

It’s also important to note in today’s HRW statement the utterly obtuse attitude of Kalifi toward any evidence that might shake his firm resolve in IDF innocence:

The IDF…dismissed as “unimportant” evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch indicating that the IDF’s suggested timeline surrounding the fatal incident is flawed. Yet, the IDF originally claimed that the timing of the incident was the most important factor absolving it of responsibility. According to the IDF, the eight civilians were killed after the IDF shelling ceased at 4:50 p.m. on June 9, 2006.

However, evidence collected by Human Rights Watch researchers and many independent journalists on the ground in Gaza indicates that the civilians were killed within the time period of the shelling. That evidence includes computerized hospital records that show children injured at the beach were treated by 5:12 p.m., and hand-written hospital records that show they were admitted at 5:05 p.m. In light of the 20-minute round trip drive between the hospital and the beach, this evidence suggests that the blast that caused the family’s death occurred during the time of the IDF shelling.

…Kalifi confirmed that the IDF had removed and tested one piece of shrapnel from one of three injured Palestinians moved to Israel and that the test results revealed that it was weapons-grade alloy, but not from a 155mm shell. He stated that the IDF was not removing shrapnel from the other injured Palestinians. However, last night an Israeli news report contradicted this information, stating that the IDF had removed two additional pieces of shrapnel from one of the other injured and found them likely to have come from a 155mm shell. The IDF spokesperson today acknowledged the removal and testing of one additional piece of shrapnel, but claimed that there were no test results yet.

Kalifi also dismissed artillery fuse shrapnel removed by Palestinian doctors from a 19-year-old man injured in the blast, and examined by Human Rights Watch. He questioned the chain of custody, stating that anyone could take shrapnel and dip it into the blood of the injured…

“If the Israeli allegations of tampered evidence are to be believed, many Palestinians would have to have engaged in a massive and immediate conspiracy to falsify the data,” said Garlasco. “The conspirators – witnesses, victims, medical personnel and bomb disposal staff – would have had to falsify their testimony, amend digital and hand-written records, and dip shrapnel into a victim’s blood. It beggars belief that such a huge conspiracy could be orchestrated so quickly.”

Kalifi is clearly a guy, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, who has a desired outcome and will force all the evidence to fit it. If it doesn’t fit, he’ll reject it out of hand without even so much as analyzing it. That’s some way to conduct a rigorous, credible inquiry.

In this passage, HRW closes in on what may’ve been the ultimate cause of the tragedy:

During the two-and-a-half hour meeting with Kalifi, the IDF agreed with Human Rights Watch that it is possible that unexploded ordnance from a 155mm artillery shell fired earlier in the day could have caused the fatal injuries. The IDF fired more than 80 155mm shells in the area of the beach on the morning of the incident. Sand would increase the possibility of a fuse malfunction leading to a dud shell that may have sat in the sand waiting to be set off. The shelling between 4:31 p.m. and 4:50 p.m. could have triggered a dud shell, as could the human traffic on the beach that afternoon.

The IDF has fired more than 7,700 shells at northern Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal in September 2005, creating a problem of unexploded ordnance in heavily populated areas.

Israeli TV Reports IDF Shrapnel Removed from Palestinian Wounded in Gaza Beach Massacre

Monday, June 19th, 2006

The Gaza Beach massacre story keeps deepening and the IDF’s “cover story” keeps unraveling bit by bit. The latest news reported by Haaretz is that Israel’s Channel 10 announced that a piece of shrapnel removed from one of the Palestinian wounded who was treated at an Israeli hospital has definitively been identified as deriving from IDF ordnance:

The Monday television report said that a previously unreported shrapnel fragment recovered from one of those wounded in the incident, was from the type of shell Israeli artillery had been firing prior to the explosion…

Laboratory examinations by the IDF and then by an Israeli academic institution, the army said, proved conclusively that the shrapnel was not from a 155 mm shell of the type used by the IDF in shelling targeting northern Gaza at the time. The IDF said the fragment resembled explosives used by Palestinian organizations.

However, Channel 10’s Shlomo Eldar reported late Monday that a second fragment, removed last week from a different Palestinian wounded in the incident, was from an 155mm shell.

If this report is true it would make the IDF outright liars. Of course, the IDF has denounced the TV report calling it “a falsehood.” But they would do that if they’d covered up the origin of the second shell fragment. Of course, there are two ways the IDF can get itself out of this jam. It can provide the ballistic reports on both shell fragments for all the world to see; or it can convene an external, independent inquiry to which it provides such information. Will we ever see either of those outcomes? Hmmm.

You have to give credit to the Israeli media for staying on top of this story. As for U.S. media, their response after the basic early reporting was concluded has been pathetic. The NY Times, for example has published one story last week mentioning Human Rights Watch’s doubts about the IDF report. It has not mentioned the Times of London report based partially on new Human Rights Watch evidence and so far has not mentioned the Channel 10 report. I’ve e-mailed Steven Erlanger and Ian Fisher, the Times’ Israel correspondents asking about the prospect for new coverage and received no response so far. I guess as far as they’re concerned this is old news. Thank God we have more enterprising news sources than our sleepy American ones in situations like this.

IDF and Gaza Beach Massacre: ‘We Didn’t Do It…They Killed Themselves’

Sunday, June 11th, 2006

My post title is perhaps a slight stretch, but only by a little if you continue reading below.

The comedy of errors continues with the IDF positing various theories about how eight Palestinian beachgoers were blown to smithereens last Friday. At first, the Israeli press and military sources said the most likely explanation was an errant Israeli shell which hit the beach instead of its target 400 meters away. But almost immediately, the press reported that perhaps a Palestinian bombmaker had had a “work accident.” The following day the new theory was that an errant Qassam rocket had hit the beach. Now, the newest brilliant bit of misinformation conveyed via Haaretz is:

Detonation of a Palestinian bomb: Less than two weeks ago Israeli naval commandos operated in the northern Gaza Strip and ambushed a team of Qassam rocket operators. The Palestinians reported that groups of divers had arrived by sea, and militant forces announced that they would find ways to prevent any similar operations in the future. The possibility does exist that areas near the beach were mined and that the family members accidentally set off an explosive device that was intended to destroy a team of Israeli special-forces troops.

Possible evidence of this hypothesis are Palestinian eye-witnesses who said that Hamas militants rushed to the site of the blast on Friday evening to collect remnants of the explosives.

And the idea that because Hamas militants rushed to the scene of a horrible accident–that it means that Hamas mined the beach is beyond belief. They wouldn’t possibly have been running there because they’d just heard an awful explosion and wished to aid the survivors, now could they?

The army proposes another cockamamie theory that absolves itself of blame:

Unexploded IDF ordnance: In the past months the IDF has fired hundreds of shells in the area of Friday’s incident. In some instances, Palestinian civilians were killed when they touched the unexploded shells including youths who sought to dismantle the ordnance in order to sell the metal. Israel has no means of pinpointing the location of the unexploded ordnance from previous operations.

To paraphrase this theory: “the shell WAS ours but they killed themselves touching it.” Another convenient explanation that blames the victims for their own deaths. There was a time when the Jewish people were very sensitive to the concept of blaming the vicitms since it was one used against the victims of the Holocaust. It seems a quaint notion now after seeing the use the IDF makes of it in this case.

The general IDF strategy in dealing with this incident seems to be–if we produce enough different theories blaming the Palestinians themselves for their own deaths then perhaps we’ll get the world off our backs. It’s quite repulsive. But then again, Israeli political leaders and the IDF have rarely been known for their sophistication or ability to project a humane image to the world regarding their treatment of the Palestinians.

The IDF, again according to Haaretz’s unnamed military sources, is beginning to discount the theory that the IDF is to blame:

An off-target IDF shell: This appeared to be the most likely scenario during the initial stages of the investigation, however, as it advances there is growing skepticism about it. The head of the Southern Command, Major General Yoav Galant, said Sunday: “There is more than a single piece of evidence that counters the possibility that this [incident] involved artillery shelling. Our shelling ended at 4:51 P.M. [on Friday]. Our observation sources scanned the beach by 4:58 P.M. and they did not witness any unusual activity. This raises serious questions.”

In addition to the inconsistency between the time of the shelling and the time of the explosion, Palestinian witnesses believe the latter was between 5 P.M. and 5:15 P.M., there is a discrepancy between the programming of the shells’ target and the actual site of the incident…Out of six shells fired, five had targeted an area approximately 250 meters north of the site of the actual blast.

This “defense” of the IDF is also not credible. They claim they stopped firing 25 minutes before the accidental explosion on the beach. They claim that the target for their shells was 250 meters (until today the IDF was claiming the target was 400 meters from the beach) distant from the beach. Can the IDF claim that its firing is so accurate that it simply is not possible that a shell fell 250 meters off course? Also, can they be absolutely certain that the information they have confirming the timing of their shelling is unimpeachable? Can they be certain that another shell was not fired after the firing sequence they have confirmed?

And finally what troubles me most of all is that the only source we have to go on is the IDF itself. And the IDF’s word has been proven untrustworthy in situations such as this time and again. The army thinks nothing of shading the truth or of lying if it suits their interests. Why should anyone believe the statements and claims they make about this incident? My fear is that an Israeli population which is terrifically laissez faire regarding security issues will give the army yet another bye on this incident; and that yet again there be no accountability for the criminal murder of innocent Palestinians by Israeli forces.