Adloyada says Human Rights Watch now says it “cannot contradict” (huh?) the findings of the Israeli Defence Force that the fatal explosion at a Gaza beach was not caused by Israeli artillery fire.
As of now (8.38 am BST) the front page of the BBC’s multi-million pound news website says that… Palestinian workers receive wages.
Given the wall-to-wall coverage by the BBC of this story when the explosion happened, and of the earlier claim by HRW that the explosion was caused by incoming Israeli artillery, it will be interesting to see how much attention this latest turn of events receives.
Expect updates to this post.
UPDATE 9.29am: Though not yer something new to report type of update. The most likely cause of the explosion, Human Rights Watch now say, was unexploded Israeli ordnance from some earlier clash. Mr Garlasco of HRW is also quoted as saying,
“… that he was impressed with the IDF’s system of checks and balances concerning its artillery fire in the Gaza Strip and unlike Hamas which specifically targeted civilians in its rocket attacks, the Israelis, he said, invested a great amount of resources and efforts not to harm innocent civilians.”
Will these remarks of Mr Garlasco’s be quoted as widely by the BBC as his earlier assessment that “it’s likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza”? I trust the old stories will be updated.
UPDATE: 10.15am. Here is the BBC’s Middle East front page. Nothing there on this. OK, so why do I expect there to be? Because, as this Newswatch piece twice says, this story is “so significant.” Images of Huda Ghalia screaming in grief flew round the world on media wings. The story was presented then by the BBC as one of the Israelis first being trigger-happy and then trying to dodge responsibility. The BBC said (middle link under “as” above):
Of course, the Palestinians have rejected this case. On top of that, a military expert for the Human Rights Watch organisation, Mark Garlasco, says the evidence he has seen points to Israeli shelling as the cause.
He has been to the site of the blast. And he happens to be a former Pentagon intelligence analyst.
Smug, or what? Now the same former Pentagon intelligence analyst has praised the Israeli inquiry. The same man now thinks that the most likely cause of the tragedy is one – unexploded Israeli ordnance – that, while it can still be attributed to Israel’s past actions, is no longer in Israel’s power to clean up, since Gaza is under the control of the Palestinians. If everlasting peace were to be declared between Israel and Hamas this afternoon people would still occasionally be killed by UXBs for years to come. If Garlasco’s and HRW’s views were news last week they ought to be equally newsworthy this week.
UPDATE 6pm. Dunno why I call it an update. Still nothing from the BBC. But Barker John has pointed out that the subject is being discussed on this BBC message board. See Message 29 onwards. Here are two samples:
Message 31
A Pentagon-trained ballistics expert working for the US-based organisation Human Rights Watch is here in Gaza.
He has surveyed the scene and has forensically examined evidence from the beach.
He concludes that the explosion was *caused* by an ISRAELI shell.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/…
Even the LIES of Israel are clear for all to see.
And
Message 33
“And even Mr Garlasco of Human Rights Watch, who blamed ISrael, has now cleared Israel of responsibility. In fact he even praised the IDF’s professional investigation.”
I can find no evidence for this statement.
Can you provide a reference for it?
From the link to the BBC:
The speed with which Israel concluded its investigation underlines the sensitivity of the incident – but whether its findings change any minds is another matter, says the BBC’s Nick Childs in Jerusalem.
Absolutely! And the BBC will be instrumental in ensuring that minds are not changed, as the text aboe indicates.
And in a similar style John Simpson was there larger than life on BBC 10.10pm TV news last night showing again photos of people killed in Ishaqi in Iraq – still running the smear on US troops, and failing to say that the accusations were fed to him by “insurgent” supporters.
i’m still staggered that John Simpson was able to walk down a Baghdad street without being kidnapped or shot.
just watch the start of this video, posted by Grimer
i’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
there’s a big enormous elephant in the corner, which is never hinted at in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5087878.stm
the elephant in question is:
why do the Pali authorities allow civilians onto a beach which is clearly in a warzone and has unexploded ordinance on it.
but, then ,the propaganda value of dead civilians is worth far more , is it?
Allan@Aberdeen,
My thoughts exactly.
I’m dumbstruck that the BBC is not following up on the Gaza story. Hopefully searching for an update I fiddled around on the BBC site a bit and got three results:
News – Doubts over Gaza deaths inquiry
Mine theoryIsrael frequently bombards northern Gaza, targeting militant rocket crews who attack nearby Israeli territory.
14 Jun 2006
News – Gaza beach deaths divide press
HAFITH AL-BARGHUTHI IN PALESTINIAN AL-HAYAT AL-JADIDAH There is no need for Israel to deceive and try to camouflage and deny any connection with the beach massacre in Gaza.
14 Jun 2006
News – Beach deaths ‘not Israel’s fault’
My assessment [is] that it’s likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza.”
13 Jun 2006
On closer examination I saw that although all the headlines express doubt over who was to blame, the blurb below them is all pro the Palestinian version.
I thought I’d stumbled across a Palestinian propaganda website. Hmmm, maybe I did.
Nice. Care to comment on that, John Reith?
After fiddling a bit more, I came across another awful From your own Correspondent, dated June 17th.
I was struck by this:
As they play he sits and scans the skies for Israeli helicopters or ships on the horizon.
People on the beach in Gaza would be better employed instructing their children not to dig holes. There are landmines and unexploded shells down there. But the BBC wont tell them that.
Oops, make that From Our Own Correspondent.
The Human Rights Watch “military expert” is not really any sort of expert – he had a desk job at the pentagon, is not an expert on ordnance.
And of course the BBC fails to mention that Human Rights Watch is a leftie outfit very anti-Israel and anti-American, funded by George Soros. Think of it as MoveOn.Org or StopTheWarCoalition – but with a legalistic veneer.
The BBC has a long long list of “experts” it calls on – who are often simply propagandists, pushing an anti-West rhetoric.
By failing to label the true provenance of these “experts”, indeed by elevating them to an expertise they don’t actually have (eg Juan Cole) the BBC is displaying serious journalistic bias and unprofessionalism.
Bryan
Yes, that maudlin’ “From Our Own Correspondent” piece was terrible, ignorant, still a smear on the Israeli forces.
And it will have been broadcast all round the world this week, not just on Radio 4 twice.
“People on the beach in Gaza would be better employed instructing their children not to dig holes. There are landmines and unexploded shells down there. But the BBC wont tell them that.”
BBC = MiniTruth
i’m reminded of 1984, where the Party knew that it was better to let periodic rocket-bombs explode, so as to keep the proles fearful and under control. Regular casualties amongst the proles also gave them reason to hate the enemy, Oceania (or EastAsia).
Winston Smith speculated that maybe it was the Party itself that was causing the explosions.
i cant help wondering that what we are seeing in Gaza actually is “1984” , come to life.
Garlasco did not have a scientific background how could be an expert on ballistic.
Don’t worry. Any minute now, the Beeb will update their website and start broadcasting retractions on their news bulletins…..
If they fail to report the truth on this one, then the BBC should just be dismantled.
What is it for?
Will we see it on the BBC???
In the Israeli news bulletin (Haaretz and Ynet in Hebrew, English version does not report all the details yet) reported that one victim of the beach incident has regained consciousness today, but still in bad condition. Doctors say they could not find any shrapnel in her body since they were taken out (apart from one they cannot get to). Those who endeavoured to meticulously take out the shrapnel inflicted further severe cuts to the girl, but neglected her afterwards. Is it because they wanted to hide something? Did they do it for love of the cause rather than their children?. Reminds me former PM Golda Meir’s statement
“We will have peace when Arabs love their children more then they hate us”
Link for the above comment by Rachel:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3265297,00.html
Still no news on the HRW retraction, instead we get this:
Gaza air strike leaves two dead
An Israeli air strike on a car in the Gaza Strip has killed two children and injured at least 10 other bystanders, Palestinian officials say.
Witnesses say the occupants of the car leapt out of the vehicle before the explosion in a narrow, crowded street in the Jabaliya refugee camp.
The Israeli military confirmed it had attacked the vehicle.
…
An Israeli strike on a van carrying militants in Gaza City last week left nine people dead, seven of them civilians.
Earlier this month, seven members of a Palestinian family were killed in an explosion as they picnicked on Gaza’s beach.
Israel denied Palestinian accusations that its shelling had caused the blast.
Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 June 2006, 17:34 GMT 18:34 UK
I’m waiting for “John Reith” to tell me that the BBC does not have an agenda!
If the beach is known to be littered with UXB’s why are people visiting it? That’s just asking for trouble, and I’m really not sympathetic at all.
The whole pallywood production was just silly, if a 105mm shell went off there would be alot more damage than was shown.
http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/wt_of_fire.htm
(WWII Research by the british Fire Effect Board)
Personally, I try to stay away from UXB’s. But that’s just me.
I’m surprised the Beeb hasn’t picked up on this angle. They’d love this one!
‘Israel used shells with depleted uranium’ with regards to the beach bombing.
The Palestinian Authority continues to spread lies and libels about Friday’s events on the Gaza beach, even though it now seems certain that Israel was not responsible for the civilian deaths.
The latest PA story is that a Palestinian artist is in the hospital with burns over his body after handling the shrapnel from the “Israeli bombs.” The bombs were then examined and found to give off radiation, suposedly because Israel had contaminated the bombs with “depleted uranium.”
http://www.pmw.org.il/
Can someone school me on how to change a font to bold/italic with Haloscan, it would make my life far easier!
barker john ->
< i > for italics < / i >
< b > for bold < / b >
just remove the spaces i’ve inserted
The radiological dangers of pure depleted uranium are relatively low, lower (60%) than those of naturally-occurring uranium due to the removal of the more radioactive isotopes, as well as due to its long half-life (4.46 billion years). (Wikipedia)
So it’s not going to cause radiation burns. I bet the BBC will report the allegation as fact though…
More:
Civilian applications for depleted uranium are fairly limited and are typically unrelated to its radioactive properties. It primarily finds application as ballast because of its high density. Such applications include sailboat keels, as counterweights and sinker bars in oil drills, gyroscope rotors, and in other places where there is a need to place a weight that occupies as little space as possible. Other relatively minor consumer product uses have included: incorporation into dental porcelain used for false teeth to simulate the fluorescence of natural teeth; and in uranium-bearing reagents used in chemistry laboratories.
So highly dangerous then 🙄
The only/main danger from depleted uranium is that it has similar valence structure to calcium(just like lead). So you get the typical effects of heavy metal poisoning. Uranium is not very radioactive. Something like plutonium/radium is much more energetic and dangerious.
Just to get an idea of what damage from a 105mm shell looks like.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600121107,00.html
(A 105mm howitzer shell fired near Sundance in Provo Canyon overshot its mark and landed with a bang in the Conners’ back yard. The boom was heard over several blocks.)
Note the size of the crater relative to the lawnmower. And this was an avalanche controll shell which is probably much weaker than a real military shell.
There is a NewsWatch video showing an interview with Jon Williams.
Hard to find a working web link – do a BBC search on “Gaza Beach” and its there just right of centre page.
The latest PA story is that a Palestinian artist is in the hospital with burns over his body after handling the shrapnel from the “Israeli bombs.”
I’d think it more likely he was struck by the evil Zionist hair rays.
dumbcisco,
Yes, that maudlin’ “From Our Own Correspondent” piece was terrible, ignorant, still a smear on the Israeli forces.
And it will have been broadcast all round the world this week, not just on Radio 4 twice.
Yes, BBC propaganda fed into millions of homes.
Archduke,
Yes, it’s getting to be more and more like 1984. But the Palestinians wont quite be able to crack it. They’re a bit too thick to be really good propagandists. Now the BBC on the other hand….
I think the scenario probably went something like this:
Children dig holes in beach, setting off buried explosives. The Palestinian propaganda brigade arrive on the scene, see the huge potential for an anti-Israel fest and bring in the nearest guy with a TV camera (Ramattan TV in this case) and start to stage the aftermath.
But being thick, unimaginative knuckle draggers with strictly limited intellect they do a lousy job of it. So lousy, in fact, that people with more than two brain cells to rub together to make a spark start to pick the story apart even as it’s being told.
The BBC can see it’s a load of crap but lacks both the political honesty and the backbone to challenge it. So it takes refuge in its usual fashion: silence.
Garlasco and his HRW boss did praise the Israeli investigation; it was mentioned in the Jerusalem Post report:
In addition, my latest post has the story of how the Gazan hospital staff appear to have done some medically inexplicable surgery to remove shrapnel from a patient they subsequently sent on to Ichilov Hospital in Tel-Aviv.
The failure of the BBC and UK press to correct or modify the sensational blame-Israel reports they ran on the basis of Garlasco’s original “analysis” is outrageous.
Not only haven’t they fixed it, if you look at the video link from the page on the latest Israeli air strike you’ll find Alan Johnston talking about previous “israeli attacks” into which he lumps the Gaza beach incident and talks about the “independent expert”.
On the Pallywood production, Death on the Beach, Bryan wrote:
“The BBC can see it’s a load of crap but lacks both the political honesty and the backbone to challenge it. So it takes refuge in its usual fashion: silence.”
The BBC wasn’t silent. A group of BBCers took the laughable product as shown on CNN (CNN considered it genuine) and edited an ‘improved’ version which was then put on the BBC’s website to masquerade as news footage.
I would say that this was one of the worst acts of the BBC to date. It is noteworthy that John Reith still hasn’t provided an opinion on the BBC’s actions in this matter.
Alan Johnston is building up a lot of form, isn’t he ?
He knows damn well that the Gaza beach deaths are increasingly looking like NOT being down to the Israelis. (The patient who had been further injured by “surgical” efforts by Palestinians to remove incriminating shrapnel is another indication of a Pallywood exercise.)
So Johnston should NOT have mentioned the Gaza beach deaths at all. And then he seems to dismiss the Israeli case – he talks of the so-called “independent expert” without saying that Human Rights Watch has backed away from his inexpert testimony. And he seems to be scornful in saying that the Palestinians might “somehow” have caused the explosion themselves.
Johnston has no profile at the BBC site. Where did he come from ?
And would he even recognise the term “Pallywood” ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/index_j.shtml
Market Participant,
If the beach is known to be littered with UXB’s why are people visiting it? That’s just asking for trouble, and I’m really not sympathetic at all.
I grew up on Salisbury Plain, there is unexploded ordinance all over the place. The military has great big signs up, telling people not to touch anything. Unfotunately, children are stupid. We used to go searching for unexploded/unused flares, blanks, etc and then chuck them on a fire. Obviously, it was great fun for a 10 year old, but could have ended in disaster.
If children are hurt, I have the greatest sympathy. But let us not forget the word “accident”. If I had blown my arm off playing with munitions, that wouldn’t be entirely the British Army’s fault (although soldiers on exercise shouldn’t leave whole tins of blanks behind), it would have been a combination of my stupidity (I knew what I was doing was wrong, but couldn’t accurately assess the risks), poor education of the risks involved and a lack of parental supervision.
If this explosion was caused by an unexploded Israeli shell, then it is a tragic accident. If it turns out to have been a Hamas mine, then they bear full and sole responsibility for the deaths. What kind of moron mines a beach that is used by families?
Allan@Aberdeen,
Yes, I realise that. I’ve been following the story quite closely. The silence I’m referring to is the period after the BBC trumpeted Israel’s ‘guilt’ to the world. They stopped trumpeting when the Israeli version started to look more likely and the Palestinian one more dubious.
Now I’m going to grit my teeth and look at what Alan Johnston has to say.
As I thought, there’s Johnston lying by omission again by saying that Palestinians and independent experts believe that it was an Israeli shell, and not mentioning that Mark Garlasco, the HRW ‘munitions expert’ that Johnston himself reported on in such glowing terms when he supported the Palestinian position, has now changed his mind.
But whatever comes out of the on-going Israeli investigation and final rebuttal, it remains a fact that the BBC edited an unconvincing piece of pallywood propaganda in an attempt to render it more authentic. This deed is that of a collaborationist body with no moral compass and no journalistic ethics. It is an act worthy of Goebbels himself.
Apologies if this German dissection of the Pallywood Gaza beach production has already been posted here :
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000123.html
It appears that Palestinian surgeons badly injured a woman following the Gaza beach incident by crudely cutting out pieces of shrapnel before she was passed to the Israelis for further medical attention.
Now doubt the BBC will report this very soon ?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355536302&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
HRW are changing their story yet again!
Contrary to yesterday’s report, the anti-Israel, anti-America, George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch is not backing down on their claims about the Gaza beach bombing. In fact, they’re stepping up their attacks: Rights group says Israel beach death probe not credible.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21150_Human_Rights_Watch_Enables_Palestinian_Propaganda&only
Melanie Phillips’ take on the Gaza beach deaths :
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary-new/?p=1260
Talking of Melanie, here’s a must-see interview on Sky News with her and somebody from MPACUK who states that the cause of Islamic terrorism is… “foreign policy”.
Melanie Phillips vs. MPACUK
Why don’t the BBC run stuff like this?
BioD
The MPACUK guy simply does not agree with representative democracy. In his eyes an anti-war march outweighs the overwhelming vote in the House of Commons to proceed to the invasion of Iraq.
Muslim street anger trumps our democratic principles.
Nice.
His view is very pervasive in the Muslim community, and should be exposed day in day out by the BBC.
Instead, the BBC acts as an echo chamber, a facilitator, for such anti-democratic garbage.
The MPACUK guy simply does not agree with representative democracy.
Neither does he believe any non-Muslim has a right to criticise Islam – specially if they’re a woman.
What’s also interesting is that MPACUK seems to believe they came out of the encounter better than Melanie:
Asghar Bukhari from MPACUK takes on Melanie Phillips. He basically makes her look like a nutcase calling her paranoid and hysterical
The 2 comments there tell another story.
Market Participant (20.06.06 – 8:14 pm ) provided this link
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/ 0…0121107,00.html
If you work backwards from here you can avoid the link & spare yourself many spammy messages & webpages.
If you are logical & read chronologically my warning will be too late.
It’s Final: IDF Not Guilty of Death on Gaza Beach
Physical proof exists that the seven members of the Rhalia family who died on a Gaza beach 12 days ago were not killed by an Israeli shell.
biodegradable:
The actual responses to the video are here…
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2242/35/
The man opposing Mad Mel is a joke.
The early responses are a joke.
mick in the uk – don’t call her “Mad” or archduke will be very upset 😉 http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115051226812035649/#288691
Bio:
I did of course mean to use inverted commas around Mad Mel.
Wouldn’t want to upset Archduke whilst England are still in the World Cup.
No less than three articles today from the extremeley sane Melanie, on the Gaza beach incident, HRW and our favourite… the BBC
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary-new/
By the way, has the BBC reported that one of the injured women had all the accessible shrapnel cut out before she was taken to an Israeli hospital, and thatthey made many un-necessary cuts to get to them.
daffersd
We have mentioned that gruesome news here a couple of time, plus the fact that the removal of shrapnel was so crude that the woman was badly injured by these efforts to lose the evidence. But the BBC have simply ignored it.
So – they ignore the expert statement of Israeli surgeons on the damage on the woman inflicted by Palestinian surgeons.
But they give repeated prominence to a the Human Rights Watch “military expert” who is not expert on this sort of incident, and fail to mention that Human Rights Watch is a deeply anti-US and anti-Israel outfit.
Does the BBC go hunting for bad stuff to say about Israel, or do they just swallow what they are fed ?
Both.
Here’s the Bullsh*t Backfiring Corporation still grimly pushing the Palestinian version of the Gaza beach explosion:
Israel beach probe ‘not credible’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5104010.stm
The army fired more than 80 155mm shells in the area, Human Rights Watch says, and one of these may have got stuck in the sand waiting to be detonated.
But one of the first things that HRW’s ‘munitions expert’, Mark Garlasco, said was that the explosion must have come from above (incoming Israeli shell) and not from below (landmine) because the wounds were to the head and upper torso of the victims, evidently unable to take the simple step in logical thinking which would lead him to the fact that people lie down on a beach and dig holes in the sand.
He can’t even remember what idiocy he’s spouted to whom. Some expert. And some bunch of journalists we have in the BBC – if they can’t or wont expose this glaring contradiction.
Then the motley crew decides there’s been enough outrage over its coverage for it to go on some excuse of a damage control exercise in the form of ‘Newswatch’ –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_5080000/newsid_5088800/5088854.stm
– bringing in World News ‘Editor’ Jon Williams to spout the usual evasive BBC half-truths and distortions while presenting an appearance of transparency by quoting some of the complaints the BBC received over its coverage of the issue.
It’s classic BBC spin. But what’s frightening is that he really seems to believe it:
A report on Monday focused on Huda Ghalia, who was being presented as a symbol of Palestinian suffering. Maurice Freedman said: “I notice today you have made a very emotional video of the beach deaths in Gaza caused by an accidental Israeli shell.
“Can you tell me how many similar videos you have made in the last five years when a deliberate atrocity has been carried out against innocent Israeli citizens and children?”
[Evidently he can’t, since he doesn’t answer the question.]
Jon Williams: I don’t think it was overly emotional. I think the piece focused on a little girl we had featured on Friday night.
Two weeks ago I appeared on the NewsWatch programme answering a complaint from a viewer who said we don’t ever follow up stories.
We felt it was our responsibility, having introduced the audience on Friday night, to finish telling the story so we went to visit her on Monday.
[But he evidently doesn’t feel it’s his responsibility to tell the Israeli side of the story.]
It’s also worth noting that in James Reynolds’ piece, he included the script line “whatever the cause”, referring to the explosions on the beach. I don’t accept that the coverage was over-emotional.
I was happy it was a justified and responsible piece of journalism.
Somebody pass me a bucket.
Augean Stables update!
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2006/06/22/palestinian-medical-practices-and-mark-garlascos-beggared-imagination/
Excellent site. He’s right, that picture was cropped. But I remember that the girl’s hand appeared to be injured in an uncropped photo I saw shortly after the explosion.
The point, of course, is that no matter what happens the Palestinians go into Pallywood mode – as long as there is the slightest chance of getting the gullible “international community” to blame Israel.
And that sure ain’t difficult to do.