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 ‘marc-garlasco’

Israeli Foreign Ministry Smears Human Rights Watch Analyst

Monday, September 14th, 2009

In the past few days a tempest in a teacup has been brewing regarding charges of pro-Nazi sympathy, raised by Avigdor Lieberman’s foreign ministry and amplified by the ministry’s megaphone NGO Monitor, against Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch’s senior military analyst.  The rap against Garlasco is that he is an avid collector of “Nazi” memorabilia.

That’s the claim. Here’s the truth: Marc Garlasco’s grandfather served in a Wehrmacht anti-aircraft unit (another relative served in a U.S. B-17 crew), hence he has an interest in the insignias or badges worn by members of these units. As such, he’s written two books aimed at collectors regarding this subject and he participates in online forums devoted to World War II memorabilia. In one posting, he’s pictured wearing a sweatshirt displaying an Iron Cross. Gerald Steinberg and his ilk are trumpeting the fact that the Iron Cross is a Nazi symbol. Not only isn’t it, it is today part of the official logo of the German army, the Bundeswehr, as you can see from this graphic on its website.

Garlasco collects other World War II memorabilia including objects representing U.S. forces.  He has never uttered a word supportive of Nazism.  In fact, the opposite.  The introduction to one of his books notes that the Nazi movement was evil and brought nothing but horror upon the world.  But all that will be forgotten as the pro-Israel far-right smear industry goes to work doing a “Freeman” on Human Rights Watch’s senior munitions expert.

Why do they hate him so?  HRW recently published a scathing report criticizing Israel’s attack on Gaza and its human rights record in general (it also criticized Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in a separate report which you’ll hear nothing about from Steinberg).  Garlasco was a key participant in this effort.  As such it is imperative that the Israeli government impeach the reporting in any way possible.  One of the cheapest and easiest is to raise charges of sleazy associations by someone like Garlasco.  Make him look like a weirdo, pervert, neo-Nazi.  That cuts the report down to a manageable size out of which the Israelis can then make short work.

The truth of the matter is that the Israeli-Palestinian issue can be a confusing mess.  You can’t reduce it to a sound byte.  Human rights work on this issue is also incredibly complex.  Rather than addressing complicated issues or refuting claims which are rock-solid, Israel chooses to slime the messenger.  Then it doesn’t have to do any heavy lifting in addressing the substance of HRW’s claims.  This is a tried and true tactic of bigots and demagogues (including politicians like Lieberman himself).  This is the reason Marc Garlasco is being slimed.

They even have someone who is otherwise one of the most lucid of Middle East analysts, Helena Cobban, dazed in the headlights.  Helena read the NGO Monitor report on Garlasco and came away thinking he was a near neo-Nazi pervert.  I have nothing but admiration for Helena.  But on this I think she got it wrong and several of the commenters in her post thread on this subject correctly took her credulousness to task.  Clearly, as a Quaker, war and militarism disgust her.  And I respect that view.  This country and world would be much the poorer for not having the good sense of Quakerism in it.  But to penalize Marc Garlasco because he doesn’t share her pacifism or detestation of things military seems unfair.

Do I think that the Marc Garlasco affair will harm or damage HRW in its future work regarding the I-P conflict?  No.  Does Helena?  Yes.  She sits on the HRW board.  I don’t.  I’m afraid that if Helena and Gerald Steinberg have their way, HRW will part ways with Garlasco.  This will satisfy no one except perhaps Helena.  It certainly won’t satisfy Israel or the lobby.  Nor will it have much impact on the public at large for whom this will be an internal matter.

And let’s keep our eye on the ball.  The true slime is the Israeli Occupation and the mayhem inflicted by the IDF against Palestinains who resist (and also violence against innocent Israeli civilians).  Making Marc Garlasco the issue is helping the pro-Israel right do its work for it.

Let me be clear.  I don’t know Marc Garlasco or the reasons for his hobbies.  They’re certainly not hobbies I would choose.  Some of the statements he made online which Helena quotes make me wince.  But he comes out of a military background (and calls himself a “military geek”) and served in the Pentagon for eight years.  Do we wish to criminalize or even ostracize people for their personal hobbies?  Is that what it’s come to?  Let’s not be hoodwinked by this vicious smear.  Let’s consider the source.

The victim of this smear has written an explanation of his behavior that should be read by anyone who wishes to be fair (Steinberg & Lieberman: don’t bother, there isn’t any further ammunition with which to impeach him).

Israel Tests New Highly Lethal, Cancer-Causing Tungsten Bomb in Gaza

Tuesday, October 10th, 2006


Hat tip to Sol Salbe for turning me on to the following story by Haaretz’s Meron Rapoport.

Forget about Israel being a “light unto the nations” as the seminal early Zionist thinker Ahad HaAm used to say. Think more like Nazi Germany and the Spanish Civil War. Besides an ideological affinity between Franco’s fascists and Hitler, the Fuhrer found that conflict a perfect testing ground for Germany’s new weapons technology. During the Civil War, the Luftwaffe first previewed the new technique of aerial bombardment to devastating effect in places like Guernica. Hitler and Goering got to test all of their new playtoys like the Messerschmitts, Junkers, and anti-tank cannons.

It seems that Israel has been using Gazans in precisely the same way since its invasion following the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. The weapon it has tested, known by the acronym DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive), works to horrifying effect:

An investigative report to be aired on Italian television Wednesday raises the possibility that Israel has used an experimental weapon in the Gaza Strip in recent months, causing especially serious physical injuries, such as amputated limbs and severe burns.

Just to be clear about my analogy above (for the sake of the Little Green Footballs harpies among my readers), I did not intend to say that Israel as a whole is like Franco’s Spain or the U.S. like Nazi Germany. I merely meant to make an analogy to the ways in which this particular weapon was developed and possibly “lent out” to the IDF for experimental purposes.

The weapon is similar to one developed by the U.S. military, known as DIME, which causes a powerful and lethal blast, but only within a relatively small radius…

The investigation, by Rai24news, follows reports by Gaza-based doctors of inexplicably serious injuries. The doctors reported an exceptionally large number of wounded who lost legs, of completely burned bodies and injuries unaccompanied by metal shrapnel. Some of the doctors also claimed that they removed particles from wounds that could not be seen in an x-ray machine.

Dr. Habas al-Wahid, head of the emergency room at the Shuhada al-Aqsa hospital, in Deir el-Balah, told the reporters that the legs of the injured were sliced from their bodies “as if a saw was used to cut through the bone.” There were signs of heat and burns near the point of the amputation, but no signs that the dismemberment was caused by metal fragments.

Dr. Juma Saka, of Shifa Hospital, in Gaza City, said the doctors found small entry wounds on the bodies of the wounded and the dead. According to Saka, a powder was found on the victims’ bodies and in their internal organs.

DIME bomb explosionThe fruits of DIME (credit: Air Force Research Laboratory)

Haaretz quotes U.S. military websites which describe DIME and how it works:

According to the official website of a U.S. air force laboratory, it is a “focused lethality” weapon, which aims to accurately destroy the target while causing minimum damage to the surrounding.

According to the site, the projectile comprises a carbon-fiber casing filled with tungsten powder and explosives. In the explosion, tungsten particles – a metal capable of conducting very high temperatures – spread over a radius of four meters [12 feet] and cause death.

According to the U.S.-based website Defense-Tech, “the result is an incredibly destructive blast in a small area” and “the destructive power of the mixture causes far more damage than pure explosive.” It adds that “the impact of the micro-shrapnel seems to cause a similar but more powerful effect than a shockwave.”

Defense Tech specifies a much larger kill zone:

In the case of the SDB [Small Diameter Bomb], that gives a destructive radius of about 25 feet.

So from a purely layperson’s perspective, this weapon seems designed to kill anything within a 12-25 foot radius (depending on which source you believe) and not kill anything outside it. But unlike other more conventional weapons with less lethality, it would essentially leave almost nothing or no one alive within that sphere.

If I understand it correctly, the tungsten fibers act with such savage penetrating force they become, in effect, circular saws which sever limbs from the body. The Defense Tech site calls them “micro-shrapnel.” Is this beyond ghoulish or what? Israel has already committed violence worthy of war crimes in Lebanon this summer. It appears that it also wishes the world to see it as the Frankenstein monster of military technology. If this doesn’t add a Frankenstein factor, I don’t know what will:

It is believed that the weapon is highly carcinogenic and harmful to the environment.

This passage refers to this Defense Tech article: Cancer Worries for New U.S. Bombs:

In a study designed to simulate shrapnel injuries, pellets of weapons-grade tungsten alloy were implanted in 92 rats. Within five months all the animals [T.O.-emphasis mine] developed a rare cancer called rhabdomyosarcoma

I do hope that the Gazan DIME victims and their doctors realize that they are at extremely high risk for developing cancer. So there you have it: a weapon designed to kill more efficiently which inadvertently becomes an environmental disaster for anyone unluckly enough to have been innocent and struck by it. Do you think the IDF will be offering free medical treatment to the Gazans who develop cancer due to this odious weapon?

A University of Arizona cancer researcher had this to say about the cancer risk:

“My opinion is that there needs to be much more research on the health effects of tungsten before the military increases its usage.”

You can see why it’s so attractive for the Air Force to farm out this weapon to Israel which has no compunction about causing a few cancer cases among Palestinians. The IAF doesn’t need to wait for “more research on the health effects” of DIME. “Bombs away” is their motto.

Given what we’ve come to expect from IDF spokespeople I half expected to hear them call DIME a “humanitarian weapon” because it supposedly doesn’t kill indiscriminately, but rather kills a specific target in a small geographic area. You can bet your bottom dollar you’re eventually going to hear DIME called a precision or targeted munition. And the IDF will tout its new ability to kill better and cleaner.

I’d also have thought that the IDF would flat out deny use of the new weapon especially since it’s apparently based on a U.S. designed munition. One would think Israel would like to keep such stuff hush-hush. Apparently not:

Israel Air Force Maj.-Gen (res.) Yitzhak Ben-Israel, formerly head of the IDF’s weapons-development program, told the Italian reporters that “one of the ideas [behind the weapon] is to allow those targeted to be hit without causing damage to bystanders or other persons.”

…Ben-Israel told the Italian reporters that “this is a technology that allows the striking of very small targets.”

In some small way, the IDF has validated my analogy between Gaza and Franco’s Spain with this statement made during the Lebanon war:

“This [the Lebanon war] is more like the Spanish Civil War,” says Daniel Seaman, an Israeli government spokesman. “What we are seeing is a series of conflicts that foreshadow a future world conflict, just as the Spanish Civil war prefigured
the Second World War.”

And if the killing fields of Gaza and Lebanon are like pre-WWII Spain, why not use the natives as guinea pigs to test out weapons we’ll be using in that “future world conflict?”

The new weapon is so advanced that international law doesn’t appear to know what to make of it:

The report says that the weapon is not banned by international law, especially since it has not been officially tested.

One wonders what role or connection the U.S. military plays in all this. Did the IDF get the technology from the U.S.? Did it develop the weapon separately from the U.S.? Did, perhaps, the U.S. use the IDF in precisely the same way as Hitler used Franco’s soldiers–to test new weapons which it cannot yet test in battlefield conditions?

Happily for the U.S. military, Israel does not feel bound by the same moral constraints that sometimes (though much more rarely now) bind our forces. Therefore, it would’ve been oh so convenient for Rummy’s guys to test this thing out on Gazan guinea pigs. After all, what’s the blood of a few lowly Palestinians worth these days?

If this were southern Lebanon, Nasrallah could launch a few missiles against Israel to make it pay a price for such egregious disrespect of Arab lives. But as it is, Palestinian rocketeers have weapons little better than glorified slingshots compared to DIME. They cannot exact much of a price for Israel’s depredations against the Palestinian people.

Reading this passage from a Navy League of the U.S. website, one sees that DIME was practically designed with densely-packed urban Gaza in mind:

Under a project titled Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME), Dahlgren scientists are studying the effects of adding dense metallic particles, such as tungsten, to a high-explosive chemical mixture. According to tests performed at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., the detonation of such a mixture shows increased deadly effects at a slightly greater range from the center of blast, contrasted with conventional explosives. But the DIME mixture’s lethality falls sharply a short range from the blast center, reducing the chance of destroying something other than the intended target.

The DIME concept is particularly interesting to the Navy for use in urban areas. Cook explains: “a normal blast-frag warhead has high-explosive putting fragments out. You get a high probability of kill, but it lasts for quite a distance. That means that if you were to drop a blast-frag weapon in the middle of a city block you would be doing a lot of damage in an urban area,” which is not always the effect U.S. forces want to achieve. With DIME, the blast effect equals that of a blast-fragment weapon, but the chances of collateral damage appear to be substantially less, said Cook.

If you read the military-oriented websites discussing DIME you note that none of them talk about the effect of the impact on the intended victim. They all tout the weapon’s greater precision and lower lethality at longer distances. That seems a perfect illustration of the military mind which hardly thinks of its victims except in terms of how to kill them more efficiently.

Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch’s resident bomb blast expert, points out that the Army’s intention of reducing casualties may be precisely negated by using DIME in urban areas:

While Human Rights Watch is supportive of the US military’s commitment to reducing civilian casualties, collateral damage as they call it, it is unfortunate that these weapons are being developed specifically for use in densely populated areas which may negate the intended effect.

If you’re trying to kill a bad guy in an urban setting, does the IDF not realize that innocent bystanders will be highly likely within the 12-25 kill zone? And if the weapon provides for increased lethality within that zone might it not be possible that you would kill more, rather than less innocents by using it in the most densely packed urban environment on earth, Gaza? And the testimony by Gaza doctors of the wounds which the new Israeli munition caused seem to bear this out. Unless of course every single victim brought to their hospitals was a Palestinian bad guy.

The Wall Street Journal touts DIME enthusiastically (natch!) in one of its columns.

If there are any Italian readers among those reading this post who could find the link at the Rai site and provide me a fuller account of this report I’d be grateful.

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.

IDF Admits Official Report of Gaza Massacre Shelling Erred

Friday, June 16th, 2006

Thanks to Dave Ray of Lgfwatch for this piece of gold from the Times of London. Neither the NY Times nor Haaretz appears to have covered this yet though Ynetnews has.

Palestinian relative mourning victims of Gaza beach shellingRelative mourning Gaza beach shelling deaths (photo: AFP)

THE Israeli Army has admitted to The Times that its official account of the explosion that killed eight Palestinians picnicking on a Gaza beach last week was flawed. The account is also contradicted by a UN radio transmission.

The army has told The Times that its report was flawed because it failed to mention two gunboat shells fired at about the time of the deaths. It insists, however, that they landed too far away to have been responsible…

The Times has established that at 4.43 pm the UN received a radio call from one of its officials in northern Gaza that said: “At 16.33hrs IDF artillery shelling has started again targeting the northern area, two artillery shells so far. One of the shells fell down at the coast west of the evacuated old Dugit settlement, some casualties among the people spending their day at the . . . ” Transmissions could be picked up by anyone with a scanner, which are widely available in Gaza.

In other words, the Israeli contention that the shelling had to have happened between 4:57 and 5:10 (and after it ceased fire) is wrong since this UN transmission confirms the beach massacre at 4:43. And Israel has already admitted it WAS shelling at 4:43PM. I’d say that Israel’s vaunted surveillance and intelligence apparatus has fallen down grievously on the job.

Now I understand why pro-Israel hardliners hate the UN so. No doubt a few will populate the comments section of this post with claims that everyone knows the UN lies and that this evidence is fraudulent, etc.

The Times also quotes Palestinian records which contradict the timing of the Israeli shelling:

Palestinian hospital and ambulance records — some computerised, some handwritten …also contradict aspects of the Israeli chronology, as do survivor accounts. Those indicate that the fatal explosion may have happened before 4.54, when Israel’s aerial cameras were trained on the quiet beach.

The logs of Kamal Adwan hospital, in northern Gaza, also show that seven patients were admitted at 5.05pm, ten minutes before Israel says it filmed ambulances arriving.

The Guardian also quotes multiple Palestinian eyewitness accounts which discredit the Israeli timeframe:

The first ambulance man to leave another Beid Lahia hospital, the Alwada, and a doctor summoned to work there say they clearly recall the time.

The ambulance driver, Khaled Abu Sada, said he received a call from the emergency control room between 4.45pm and 4.50pm. “I went to look for a nurse to come with me,” he said. “I left the hospital at 4.50pm and was at the beach by 5pm.”

The Guardian also quotes new information from Marc Garlasco, the Human Rights Watch bomb damage assessment expert (who earlier worked at the Pentagon), who did an on site investigation several hours after the shelling ended:

From the number of shells counted beforehand by the survivors, Mr Garlasco believes the killer shell was one the army records as fired at 4.34pm.

…A military spokesman, Captain Jacob Dalal, said…shrapnel taken from Palestinians treated in Israeli hospitals was not from 155mm shells fired that day. “We know it’s not artillery,” he said. “It could be a shell of another sort or some other device.”

Garlasco said the metal taken from the victims may be detritus thrown up by the explosion or shards from cars. He said shrapnel collected at the site of the explosion by Human Rights Watch and the Palestinian police was fresh and from artillery shells.

The former Pentagon analyst said that after examining a blood-encrusted piece of shrapnel given to him by the father of a 19-year-old man wounded in the beach explosion, he determined it was a piece of fuse from an artillery shell.

“The likelihood that the Ghalia family was killed by an explosive other than one of the shells fired by the Israeli army is remote,” he said.

Capt Dalal defended the army’s investigation. “We’re not trying to cover up anything. We didn’t do the investigation to exonerate ourselves. If it was our fire, we’ll say it,” he said.

And indeed he may yet have to do so.

I find it interesting that the IDF only admitted its error after being presented with incontrovertible physical evidence. What other facts might they be concealing?? Can anyone doubt that further qualifications and backtracking may be forthcoming? Please tell me how a gold-plated IDF investigation led by a general misses the fact that Israeli gunboats shelled the beach area at the same time as the deadly shells landed? Perhaps (and this is speculation), the Israeli navy thought it could get away with obscuring the facts; or perhaps the IDF investigation was a house of cards to begin with. I don’t know which explanation might be true. But I’ve always said here that the Israeli explanation stank to high heaven. And I still believe that. I am not saying, as others have, that the IDF deliberately shelled civilians. At least I hope that isn’t what happened. But the Israeli explanation is not credible considering the counter evidence presented by Marc Garlasco of Human Rights Watch and this UN transmission.

To be fair, we should quote the IDF’s reply to the Times information:

Major-General Meir Kalifi, who led the Israeli investigation, insisted that the 4.33pm report was an earlier incident, near the abandoned settlement of Dugit. “[We] know of a request from the Red Cross to the Red Crescent at 4.30pm regarding one wounded individual along the beach. [We] believe that that is the case you are referring to,” General Kalifi said. “This is most likely in the Dugit area. Indeed they were shelling in the Dugit area, but the Dugit area was not near the incident. It was 700 metres away.”

This might be a credible explanation. It might not. But with the admission of the above error, one wonders whether there may be further contradictions to come. Further, the general’s reply does not explain the contradicting evidence of Palestinian hospital and health worker records and accounts.

Congratulations to the Times and the Guardian. Keep up the good work. But where is the U.S. media on this story??