HRW: We can't contradict IDF findings

[barb162]

Jun. 19, 2006 22:37 | Updated Jun. 20, 2006 1:39
HRW: We can't contradict IDF findings
By YAAKOV KATZ

While sticking to its demand for the establishment of an independent inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach 10 days ago that killed seven Palestinian civilians, the Human Rights Watch conceded Monday night for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF's exonerating findings.

On Monday, Maj.-Gen. Meir Klifi - head of the IDF inquiry commission that cleared the IDF of responsibility for the blast - met with Marc Garlasco, a military expert from the HRW who had last week claimed that the blast was caused by an IDF artillery shell. Following the three-hour meeting, described by both sides as cordial and pleasant, Garlasco praised the IDF's professional investigation into the blast, which he said was most likely caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance left laying on the beach, a possibility also raised by Klifi and his team.

"We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause was unexploded Israeli ordinance," Garlasco told The Jerusalem Post following the meeting. While Klifi's team did a "competent job" to rule out the possibility that the blast was caused by artillery fire, there were still, Garlasco said, a number of pieces of evidence that the IDF commission did not take into consideration.

The main argument between Klifi and HRW surrounded the timeline of the blast, which the IDF said took between 16:57 and 15:10, at least 10 minutes after artillery fire in the area had stopped. HRW however disputes this claim and basing itself on Palestinian hospital documentation, claims that the explosion actually took place right around the time of the IDF artillery fire.

snip
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1150355528023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Canuckistanian]

1. Weird. I've seen this story go back and forth several times

Now a 3rd story comes up? Call me suspicious.

[barb162]

3. I suspect this would be really hard to thoroughly investigate

HRW will come out with some statement somewhere along the line. What is so difficult is that so many people were on that beach and on the scene right after the incident. However the sand was configured a few seconds after the incident, well, it's not that way now...just the news crews alone and how many others walking the site, walking over the evidence. When one thinks about inmpounding evidence, taking samples, etc., how can that be done? How many people were on that site?

[Canuckistanian]

5. True. So many stories are like this

Confusion, spin, one-sided personal accounts.... from both sides.

[eyl]

12. Not new

this is one of the possibilities that have been considered from the start (and for what it's worth, IMO it's the most likely one).

[mike_c]

2. so there's artillery fire into an area where "unexploded ordinance"...

...doesn't usually blow up, but when a group of Palestinians are killed there by unexplained explosions either during or immediately after the artillery barrage the IDF concludes that they MUST have been killed by unexploded ordinance laying around the beach. Right. Occam must be laughing in his grave.

[barb162]

4. from the story

"A first piece of shrapnel, examined by the IDF as well as by an independent academic institute in Beersheba was found to not have come from a 155 mm shell, the type used in IDF artillery attacks on Kassam launch sites in the Gaza Strip."

[mike_c]

6. secondary shrapnel maybe? artillery blows other things up too...

...and sends them flying.

[barb162]

8. Could it be qassam shrapnel?

Weren't there qassam crews frequently (daily) shooting a few hundred yards from that beach? Couldn't one or more of those have landed on the beach from a day or two before?
More importantly do you trust any evidence at this point re tampering?

[Englander]

20. Or part of the shell from the navy gunboat.

That's another option.

[Canuckistanian]

7. But I heard a story on our CBC

That said they actually found a piece of shrapnel that had the markings "155mm".

[barb162]

9. I read a blog about the Israeli MD who took a piece of shrapnel

out of one of the wounded people and he said it was NOT from IDF. The doc was Michael Bayme. Lots of things are floating around on the web right now about this incident so I am content to wait for more statements from people who have access to whatever the evidence is or was. The accident site was highly compromised by many people and I think there will be more than one story on this for a long time. People will just make up their own minds on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. 'so I am content to wait for more statements from people who have access.'

Barb, I am very happy that you have reconsidered yr initial reaction where you blamed the Palestinians for it based solely on the fact that the IDF said so. In response to a story titled 'Israel: Palestinian explosives caused beach deaths', yr response was: 'Perhaps Hamas owes an apology to the families killed and injured?'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x127661#127662

[barb162]

28. Well, I am happy you're happy

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Why, thank you!

;)

[eyl]

11. Yeah

but we don't know how long it had been lying there.

[Englander]

21. 5 minutes? n/t

[eyl]

23. Or five hours

or even five days.

[Andromeda]

10. It doesn't matter, barb...

if you have 100% certifiable proof that the IDF's findings were right. There are going to be the naysayers who will never believe it wasn't Israel's fault.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. The problem is that neither of you have 100% certifiable proof...

...but one of you immediately announced that the Palestinians were to blame for it. I'm kind of curious as to how that Israel NEVER EVER Does Anything Wrong attitude doesn't creep into the naysayer category...

[barb162]

31. And you certainly have no 100% certifiable proof of anything

and neither does Galasco, though he came out blabbing soon after the incident that it was Israel's fault.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I never claimed I did...

Maybe you could point me to the post where I made this claim? Or not. Considering it doesn't exist, it's going to be extremely hard to locate...

I see. So Garlasco was blabbing when he said something you didn't agree with, but now he's not? Oh-kay....

[barb162]

29. Yes, it is interesting phenomenom, isn't it?

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

13. But weren't you saying Garlasco wasn't an expert a few days ago?

'The so-called "expert" Galasco
He has specifically what in his background that makes him an expert in this?'


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x127697#127706

'Who says this so-called expert knows what he's looking at
when it comes to munitions'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x127697#127726

'Ah, the magic word "clueless" goes very well with this
The "clueless, so-called expert" Galasco

Has a nice ring to it.

Unless he's a munitions and/or forensics expert, why drag him out as knowing something. Maybe he's a hotshot in some things, but not this'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x127697#127726

:)

[Englander]

22. A week is a long time in I/P, it looks like.

Last week - clueless, this week - credible witness.

[barb162]

30. The statements stand, Violet

Just because someone worked at the Pentagon doesn't mean he or she are forensics or accident reconstruction, munitions, etc., experts. Just because HRW has its nose in this particular incident and is meeting with this or that group doesn't mean that it will come up with a definitive answer of any type with which anyone will agree. And just because the man seems to change his opinion doesn't mean a hill of too many beans because he doesn't seem to have any personal expertise to back anything up one way or another.

[Englander]

32. So, HRW are clueless? Got it.

Since Galasco is the Senior Military Analyst at HRW, you're saying that HRW are clueless, because
their expert in military matters, isn't. The attempt to claim that this particular expert is 'clueless',
whilst also claiming that if he says something that happens to be agreeable, he's no longer 'clueless',
does strike me as being exceptionally dishonest. I mean, which is it?

[Englander]

33. ~~

[Violet_Crumble]

36. So you still think he's clueless?

Okay, at least there's some consistancy there. It's just that you don't seem to have been calling him clueless etc in this thread where what he's reported to have said has been seen by some 'supporters of Israel' as absolving Israel of blame :)

And for the record, someone on an internet board who has no expertise in those fields really isn't the most convincing argument for claiming someone who has got expertise isn't an expert. I did see in the other thread that this guy has also said a fair bit on the same topic when it comes to Iraq, and he is considered an expert by everyone apart from you :)

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Something stinks about this story...

I just went and checked out the HRW site and there's nothing at all on there about this. Then I went and checked out google news to see if there were any reputable sources carrying the same story. At the time I checked (only a few minutes ago) only JPost and Israpundit and a few far less than reputable blogs were carrying this story...

Also, the title of this story is 'HRW: We can't contradict IDF findings' and the article tries to make out that the IDF finding was that it was an unexploded Israeli ordinance. From various articles posted in this very forum and articles all over the media, the IDF finding exonerated Israel of any responsibility and claimed it was a Palestinian ordinance. In fact, only in the past day or so, Olmert has very publicly stated that it wasn't an Israeli ordinance that caused the deaths on the beach...

Garlasco is reported as saying (and with the source being JPost, who knows how accurate that is) 'We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause was unexploded Israeli ordinance'. If anything, if that's true, then it's the IDF who has changed its opinions on the most likely cause :)

[Scurrilous]

17. Yep...

...I'm waiting to hear what HRW and Garlasco have to say.

Meanwhile, I guess we can kiss the Single Mine Theory goodbye.

[pelsar]

18. thats for me....single mine theory..

what do you think all those IEDs blowing up in iraq are?....they're all single mines planted in "strategic places".....hardly a theory......

....i realize this maybe mundane for some...but certain army patrols at certain times carry among their items a mine or two....(they can be heavy)...and dont carry enough for mine fields...and they lay that mine or two in spots that are most appropriate.

single mine theory is theory for those who simply dont know some extremly basic stuff that most infantry learn their first day out.....

as far as the "shell/kassam/mine"....its pretty obvious that at this point no "fact" shall go unchallanged

[Tom Joad]

19. Violet, are you questioning the sacred scriptures, otherwise known

as the Jerusalem Post?? That they would spin a story in Israel's favor?
Heretic!

:sarcasm:

Yes, strange how this story has evolved. The same folks who insisted this was caused by a Palestinian mine (and only Israel-haters would believe otherwise!) now are pushing this story.

I would like to hear what HRW says myself.

[Englander]

24. HRW - Israel: Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence

IDF’s Partisan Probe No Substitute for Independent Inquiry

(Jerusalem, June 20, 2006) – The Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) investigation of the Gaza beach explosion that killed eight Palestinian civilians and wounded dozens is incomplete because it excludes important evidence, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch researchers met yesterday with Israeli Major-General Meir Kalifi, who led the internal IDF investigation, to discuss its findings. After the meeting, Human Rights Watch reiterated its call for an independent investigation into the deaths.

The meeting revealed that the IDF’s conclusion that it was not responsible for the deaths on the beach was based exclusively on information gathered by the IDF and excluded all evidence gathered by other sources. Its investigation centered on mathematical models said to show a “statistical impossibility” that a shell fired by IDF artillery was responsible for killing the civilians. The reliability of such a conclusion should be evaluated by independent experts with access to the underlying data.

“An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible,” said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. “The IDF’s partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation.”

Kalifi told Human Rights Watch that Palestinians “have no problem lying,” and that the IDF discounted information gathered from any Palestinian information sources in its investigation. The day after the incident, the IDF asked the official Palestinian security liaison office to provide evidence for testing, but later dismissed the evidence provided, which consisted of 155mm shrapnel, both new and old, and dirt from the beach and crater. When offered evidence collected first-hand by Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza, the general either called it into question or declined to accept it.

>snip

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.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595.htm

[eyl]

25. The reason that evidence was discounted

was given in the Haaretz article I translated.

According to Garlasco, Kalifi told him that the Palestinian authority had cooperated with the investigation of the incident. A day after the incident, the PA transferred to Israel three bags of evidence:

The first sack contained fragments of 155mm shells, which had been gathered in the area of shelling. According to Garlasco, Kalifi explained that the fragments were not thoroughly examined because they had been gathered from a wide area, not just where the family had been hit.

The second bag contained fragments the Palestinians claimed were gathered from the crater of the shell which killed the Ralia family. According to Garlasco, Kalifi explained that the bag contained both old and new fragments and thus no conclusions could be drawn from it.

According to Garlasco, the third sack contained dirt which had been gathered from the same crates, but Kalifi explained that no residue of standard TNT had been found in it. This would seem to rule out the possibility that a shell caused the crater, and supports the claim the explosion was caused by a homemade bomb. However, Garlasco said, even the Qassam rockets the Palestinians fire contain a certain amount of TNT, so it is unlikely to be a bomb.

Actually, the HRW article also highlights one of the problems, though it doesn't address it:

but later dismissed the evidence provided, which consisted of 155mm shrapnel, both new and old

What would old fragments be doing with the evidence?

[Scurrilous]

26. Israel: Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence

<snip>

"The Israel Defense Forces' (IDF) investigation of the Gaza beach explosion that killed eight Palestinian civilians and wounded dozens is incomplete because it excludes important evidence, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch researchers met yesterday with Israeli Major-General Meir Kalifi, who led the internal IDF investigation, to discuss its findings. After the meeting, Human Rights Watch reiterated its call for an independent investigation into the deaths. The meeting revealed that the IDF's conclusion that it was not responsible for the deaths on the beach was based exclusively on information gathered by the IDF and excluded all evidence gathered by other sources. Its investigation centered on mathematical models said to show a "statistical impossibility" that a shell fired by IDF artillery was responsible for killing the civilians. The reliability of such a conclusion should be evaluated by independent experts with access to the underlying data.

"An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible," said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "The IDF's partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation."

Kalifi told Human Rights Watch that Palestinians "have no problem lying," and that the IDF discounted information gathered from any Palestinian information sources in its investigation. The day after the incident, the IDF asked the official Palestinian security liaison office to provide evidence for testing, but later dismissed the evidence provided, which consisted of 155mm shrapnel, both new and old, and dirt from the beach and crater. When offered evidence collected first-hand by Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza, the general either called it into question or declined to accept it.

The IDF also 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."


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/8e410a1bf9a51a80af52b8e0c634187c.htm

[eyl]

27. See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x128178#128293