NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150035838991&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

It seems that the killing of an entire family in Gaza last Friday was not caused by Israel, claims a report into the killings. The shrapnel found in one of the wounded children did not match up with metal used in IDF shells, there was a large time differential between the firing of IDF shells into Gaza and the commotion of the aftermath, and there were no IAF warplanes or Naval ships in the area.

From the article: "The leading theory currently entertained, suggested that an explosive charge, buried by Palestinians on the Gaza beach to prevent Israeli infiltration, was behind the explosion.

Throughout the whole investigation, army officials complained about the lack of Palestinian cooperation. Unconfirmed reports further suggested attempts by Palestinians to remove shrapnel from the bodies of the wounded, treated in Israeli hospitals, thus impeding the investigation."

Another example of Palestinian propoganda; blame Israel first at all costs is their strategy and to make up lies to further their goal of delegitimizing and destroying the state of Israel.

This "massacre" will go down in the vast history of fake events that have been concocted to make Israel look bad; i.e. the supposed Jenin massacre and the Israeli killing of Mohammed al-Dura in 2000.

Is it just me, or have there already been a hundred threads on this topic, and about two hundred about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, in the last few days?

Slow news week?

Is it just me, or have there already been a hundred threads on this topic, and about two hundred about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, in the last few days?


Well the report on the findings just came out and I take it as a personal responsibility of mine to discredit the Israel haters whenever possible. It is our duty as all people who protect the truth to make the truth known to all.

Well the report on the findings just came out and I take it as a personal responsibility of mine to discredit the Israel haters whenever possible. It is our duty as all people who protect the truth to make the truth known to all.
Well the report on the findings just came out and I take it as a personal responsibility of mine to promote the Truth whenever possible. It is our duty as all people who protect the truth to make the truth known to all.

Would've been better if you said it like this. Otherwise it makes it sound like you always favor the Palestinians who are not exactly guilt free either.

Well the report on the findings just came out and I take it as a personal responsibility of mine to promote the Truth whenever possible. It is our duty as all people who protect the truth to make the truth known to all.

Would've been better if you said it like this. Otherwise it makes it sound like you always favor the Palestinians who are not exactly guilt free either.


I'm confused...I NEVER favor the Palestinians...lol..can you clarify your meaning?

I'm confused...I NEVER favor the Palestinians...lol..can you clarify your meaning?
simple.

your post.
Well the report on the findings just came out and I take it as a personal responsibility of mine to discredit the Israel haters whenever possible. It is our duty as all people who protect the truth to make the truth known to all.by saying to Discredit the Israel Haters means you're only focusing on what they are focusing on. which may not alway be the truth.

by Changing "discredit the Israel haters" to "Promoting the Truth". means that no matter what happens, you will favor the truth and not just that which works against the "Isreal Haters"

My mistake, I did mis read that, but I still stand by my opinion.

simple.

your post.
by saying to Discredit the Israel Haters means you're only focusing on what they are focusing on. which may not alway be the truth.

by Changing "discredit the Israel haters" to "Promoting the Truth". means that no matter what happens, you will favor the truth and not just that which works against the "Isreal Haters"

My mistake, I did mis read that, but I still stand by my opinion.


I see what you're saying, but my comments were made in response to a prior post which was questioning the reasoning for this thread. I was simply saying that I started this post to make everyone aware that Israel is not responsible for the Gaza explosion.

As for the truth, well the truth sides with the Israelis the majority of the time. The truth is that Israel does not target civilian targets while the Palestinians do. The truth is that Israel only responds with force when it has been attacked. Take the Kassam missiles constantly being fired into southern Israel and Ashkelon; there are no Jews living in or residing in Gaza yet the Palestinians are using that fact to their advantage by firing missiles into Israel from a closer range. Israel has been targeting the launchers of the rockets and their launch sites; not civilians. The shelling of Gaza will stop once the barrage of Kassam missiles stops.

While I conceed the possibility that it was not an Israeli shell, the vast majority of news sources remain silent on the matter.

no, the worlds media are all wrong. a couple of pro-israelis on an internet message board are right.

its not orwellian blame the victims stuff at all. seriously.

no, the worlds media are all wrong. a couple of pro-israelis on an internet message board are right.

its not orwellian blame the victims stuff at all. seriously.

Is SR ignoring the numerous posts on these threads where the BBC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. have all concured with the Israeli papers?

The fact is, the Israeli papers just got Israeli news first (who would think that a nation gets its own news before the rest of the world?). It took a while for the 'worlds media' to catch up. But right now the 'worlds media' concurs.

While I conceed the possibility that it was not an Israeli shell, the vast majority of news sources remain silent on the matter.
No they're not.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487474

BBC is burrying it, though. They reported it, but you pretty much need to know where to find it because it's not on teh main Middle East page with big letters the way it was when it looked like Isreal did it.

no, the worlds media are all wrong. a couple of pro-israelis on an internet message board are right.

its not orwellian blame the victims stuff at all. seriously.
No, you are wrong. You jump to conclusions before all the information is known. Yet when that information does come to light, you refuse to even acknowledge it and admit that you just might be wrong.

no, the worlds media are all wrong. a couple of pro-israelis on an internet message board are right.

its not orwellian blame the victims stuff at all. seriously.
Yes, the Palestinians are all poor innocent victims. The fact that they constantly lie (Jenin, this incident), set the Israelis up for bad press even at the risk of their own children's lives (The recent incident where they sent kids with toy guns to play within sight of a remote Israeli military outpost), and intentionally target civilians means nothing.

Yes, the Palestinians are all poor innocent victims. The fact that they constantly lie (Jenin, this incident), set the Israelis up for bad press even at the risk of their own children's lives (The recent incident where they sent kids with toy guns to play within sight of a remote Israeli military outpost), and intentionally target civilians means nothing.
My favorite episode in Palestinian honesty is when, about three or four years ago, this picture came out in the press.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/baby.jpg
The world was, of course, mortified. The Palestinian Authority made the claim that the picture was an Isreali fabrication and that they had taken the picture to make Palestinians look bad. Across town, at the same time, a Palestinian family was telling reporters that it was just a joke and that they would never actually use their baby as a suicide bomber.


Ummm.... I thought they said it was an Ireali fabrication?

No, you are wrong. You jump to conclusions before all the information is known. Yet when that information does come to light, you refuse to even acknowledge it and admit that you just might be wrong.

no the press are reporting the IDF saying they have changed their minds and arent 'claiming' it anymore. no-one is buting it, hence all the headlines, including fox, are along the lines of 'the idf claim that they arent 100% certain it was them' or 'it might have been the palestinians say the IDF'.

TS was attributing stories to AP that no-one else could find within hours of the attack and trying to confuse the issue by bluring another incident into the mix.

i find it very hard to believe the entire worlds media got it so wrong while a few anonomus activists on the net have a better inside track than all the eye witnesses and experts. very hard indeed.

i find it very hard to believe the entire worlds media got it so wrong while a few anonomus activists on the net have a better inside track than all the eye witnesses and experts. very hard indeed.

And yet, you believe that the media has it wrong now when CNN runs stories titled:

Israel: Palestinian explosives caused beach deaths (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html)

How much more clear can that be?

And yet, you believe that the media has it wrong now when CNN runs stories titled:

Israel: Palestinian explosives caused beach deaths (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html)

How much more clear can that be?
Like I said, SR won't admit anything of the sort.

lets read the whole article boys, not just the banner headline

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- The explosion on a Gaza beach that killed seven people last Friday was caused by explosives planted there by Palestinian militants, not artillery fire from an Israeli navy gunboat, Israeli military sources said Tuesday.

However, in Gaza, the group Human Rights Watch said the evidence it has been able to gather suggests that a 155 mm artillery shell, like the type used by the Israeli military, was responsible.

The Israeli investigation concluded that the possibility any of the six artillery shells fired from the gunboat could have landed on the beach was "almost nil," the sources said.

The deaths of seven people -- all members of a Palestinian family having a beach picnic -- prompted the military wing of Hamas to resume rocket strikes against Israel after a hiatus of more than a year.

The Israel Defense Forces report was presented to the Israeli defense minister and Israeli chief of staff Tuesday.

The IDF report cites several factors that led to the conclusion that the explosion was caused by a mine planted on the beach by Palestinian militants, the sources said.

An Israeli commando unit used the beach to enter Gaza for a mission in recent weeks, prompting the militants to place the mines, the sources said.

Intelligence information gathered by Israeli investigators showed that Hamas quickly removed the remaining mines from the beach after the blast, the sources said.

Investigators were able to locate where five of the six shells fired from the gunboat Friday landed and none of them were near the beach, the sources said. The sixth shell -- the first to be fired -- could not have killed the family because it was fired further north and too early, the sources said.

Adding to the conclusion that it was not an Israeli shell that killed the family was an examination of photographs of the crater on the beach. The sources said experts found it was the type of crater caused by a planted explosive, not by an artillery shell landing from above.

Finally, shrapnel removed from three of the injured by doctors at Israeli hospitals was not from an artillery shell, the sources said.

But Human Rights Watch said its investigation of the incident came up with opposite conclusions in almost every case.

The group said most of the injuries to the dead were to the head and torso. A Human Rights Watch spokesman said that would be consistent with an incoming shell, not a bomb buried in the ground.

Human Rights Watch also said the crater was consistent with a 155 mm artillery shell.

*snip*

You are aware that this group that goes by the name HRW in Gaza is different from the Human Rights Watch that functions as an international body, right? Its actually on a list of groups that support terror in the United States.

Of course, the facts speak quite clearly for themselves. The shrapnel itself has been analyzed, a full investigation has been underway. Its been a joint effort between the IDF and Palestinian Security. I think I'll believe that over a questionable group in Gaza.

You are aware that this group that goes by the name HRW in Gaza is different from the Human Rights Watch that functions as an international body, right? Its actually on a list of groups that support terror in the United States.

Of course, the facts speak quite clearly for themselves. The shrapnel itself has been analyzed, a full investigation has been underway. Its been a joint effort between the IDF and Palestinian Security. I think I'll believe that over a questionable group in Gaza.

source?

the HRW everone else associates with the Gaza can be found here
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

why would cnn be interviewing the wrong ones? or are you lying again?

source?

the HRW everone else associates with the Gaza can be found here
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

why would cnn be interviewing the wrong ones? or are you lying again?

Source for what? That is the US based HRW, its distinct from the group in Gaza that goes by the same name. And if you notice, it doesn't have anything about the Gaza Beach incident on its website.

Human Rights Watch also said the crater was consistent with a 155 mm artillery shell.


There are no Israeli naval vessels of any kind that have any cannon larger than 75mm (long since retired), and the rest are between 20mm and 30mm.

Are you saying that the shell was fired from a large ship that does not exist?

Source for what? That is the US based HRW, its distinct from the group in Gaza that goes by the same name. And if you notice, it doesn't have anything about the Gaza Beach incident on its website.

source for your assertion there is a distinct and seperate group called HRW Gaza that have nothing to do with HRW USA? Ive never heard this and if, as you say CNN are up to mischief here, this will surely strengthen your argument.

or, as i suspect it is HRW USA who are questioning the IDF version of events, it weakens your argument.

**edit, from another thread**
It appears that this may be the US based HRW, and not the Gaza based on as CNN implied. This is from Reuters

Israel denies role in deadly Gaza beach blast (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-13T173624Z_01_L139968_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-SHELLING.xml&src=rss)



what else have you gotten wrong here in the last few days?

its a legitimate question

There are no Israeli naval vessels of any kind that have any cannon larger than 75mm (long since retired), and the rest are between 20mm and 30mm.

Are you saying that the shell was fired from a large ship that does not exist?

christ on a bicyle, im quoting a CNN article to counter TS's use of the articles headline. he put the headline here
And yet, you believe that the media has it wrong now when CNN runs stories titled:

Israel: Palestinian explosives caused beach deaths (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html)

How much more clear can that be?

up as CNN are reporting his story as fact, wheras the article he brought up clearly doesnt.

source for your assertion there is a distinct and seperate group called HRW Gaza that have nothing to do with HRW USA? Ive never heard this and if, as you say CNN are up to mischief here, this will surely strengthen your argument.

or, as i suspect it is HRW USA who are questioning the IDF version of events, it weakens your argument.



christ on a bicyle, im quoting a CNN article to counter TS's use of the articles headline. he put the headline up as CNN are reporting his story as fact, wheras the article he brought up clearly doesnt.

So you're trying to counter one part of one article in this thread out of the half dozen that have been posted so far after making a statement:

"no, the worlds media are all wrong. a couple of pro-israelis on an internet message board are right. "

Even after being shown that the HRW, whoever they may be, obviously don't have all the facts?

Edit:

From the other thread:

An investigator from international rights group Human Rights Watch told reporters in Gaza earlier that evidence pointed to Israel having fired the shell, but he had to leave the door open to the possibility that the explosion was caused by something else.

you are deliberatly missing my point.

the entire worlds media, including the Israeli, reported an incident whereby a shell, possibly from an Israelitub killed a family.

Israel expresses regret, a statement many assume is an admission of guilt.

then TS starts, initially claiming it was hamas with rockets, which was disproven. then there was no explosion and on and on.

then some western outlets report that the IDF has denyed they were involved.

this means simply the IDF have denied they were involved. which they would.

a well respected human rights group claims to have evidence to counter the IDF, and TS decides they are terrorists. then they arent.

throwing bullshit around the internet does not mean that your heros didnt fuck up and kill lots of people.



Even after being shown that the HRW, whoever they may be, obviously don't have all the facts?
.

no-one has all the facts, that is preciscly my point. the pro-israeli activists are claiming in various threads that not only were the IDF not involved, it was all a dastardly palestinian plot. and that is no more right or wrong than the original story.

you are deliberatly missing my point.

the entire worlds media, including the Israeli, reported an incident whereby a shell, possibly from an Israelitub killed a family.

Israel expresses regret, a statement many assume is an admission of guilt.

then TS starts, initially claiming it was hamas with rockets, which was disproven. then there was no explosion and on and on.

then some western outlets report that the IDF has denyed they were involved.

this means simply the IDF have denied they were involved. which they would.

a well respected human rights group claims to have evidence to counter the IDF, and TS decides they are terrorists. then they arent.

throwing bullshit around the internet does not mean that your heros didnt fuck up and kill lots of people.




No, the IDF stated regrets and were investigating. How people "took it" doesn't matter. They did NOT accept responsibility. Lots of posts were made attacking the IDF. You stated you questioned the accuracy but have yet to show that. Hamas DID hit Gaza w/ a rocket, not the beach a short time later but blames the IDF. IDF states that an investigation shows they didn't hit the beach. You question the sources. HRW states it was a 155mm shell that the IDF Navy doesn't use. You still question the sources.

You wanting them to doesn't mean that the IDF did do it. You seem to keep wanting it to be them though. You've made the statement that "all the reporters were wrong and the internet guys were right" sarcasm while all the while the reporters are retracting most of what they wrote.

No, the IDF stated regrets and were investigating. How people "took it" doesn't matter. They did NOT accept responsibility. Lots of posts were made attacking the IDF. You stated you questioned the accuracy but have yet to show that. Hamas DID hit Gaza w/ a rocket, not the beach a short time later but blames the IDF. IDF states that an investigation shows they didn't hit the beach. You question the sources. HRW states it was a 155mm shell that the IDF Navy doesn't use. You still question the sources.

You wanting them to doesn't mean that the IDF did do it. You seem to keep wanting it to be them though.
HRW said diddlyshit about it being a navy shell.

HRW said diddlyshit about it being a navy shell.

The Palestinians said it was a Navy shell, the HRW said it was a 155mm shell. The two don't match.

No, the IDF stated regrets and were investigating. How people "took it" doesn't matter. They did NOT accept responsibility. Lots of posts were made attacking the IDF. You stated you questioned the accuracy but have yet to show that. Hamas DID hit Gaza w/ a rocket, not the beach a short time later but blames the IDF. IDF states that an investigation shows they didn't hit the beach. You question the sources. HRW states it was a 155mm shell that the IDF Navy doesn't use. You still question the sources.

You wanting them to doesn't mean that the IDF did do it. You seem to keep wanting it to be them though. You've made the statement that "all the reporters were wrong and the internet guys were right" sarcasm while all the while the reporters are retracting most of what they wrote.

am i being criticised for questioning both sides here? heaven forbid

there is the rub. reporting that the IDF say it wasnt them does not to me mean a retraction. it means they are rehashing a press release that got and not a lot else.

my objection to these threads is the smugness that a few internet warriors somehow 'discovered' something that eluded the worlds press, and not just a standard denial that doesnt quite add up.

why were the israeli navy shelling the gaza anyway?

am i being criticised for questioning both sides here? heaven forbid

there is the rub. reporting that the IDF say it wasnt them does not to me mean a retraction. it means they are rehashing a press release that got and not a lot else.

my objection to these threads is the smugness that a few internet warriors somehow 'discovered' something that eluded the worlds press, and not just a standard denial that doesnt quite add up.

why were the israeli navy shelling the gaza anyway?
because they get rocket attacks coming from there all the time.

am i being criticised for questioning both sides here? heaven forbid

there is the rub. reporting that the IDF say it wasnt them does not to me mean a retraction. it means they are rehashing a press release that got and not a lot else.

my objection to these threads is the smugness that a few internet warriors somehow 'discovered' something that eluded the worlds press, and not just a standard denial that doesnt quite add up.

why were the israeli navy shelling the gaza anyway?

You only seem to be questioning the IDF though.

Just like the smugness of those who equate IDF w/ any possible killing?

Read the articles, it states why the IDF shells areas. Hamas rockets being launched from them.

You only seem to be questioning the IDF though.




im questioning a group of internet warriors 'solving' the case.

it just happens the sherlocks are totally exonerating the IDF under the most spurious of evidence

im questioning a group of internet warriors 'solving' the case.

it just happens the sherlocks are totally exonerating the IDF under the most spurious of evidence

In comparison to the news media and internet warriors who sacrificed them under the most spurious of evidence.

The Palestinians said it was a Navy shell, the HRW said it was a 155mm shell. The two don't match.
They said that it was an IDF shell from northern Gaza. I thought the IDF said that it was a navy shell, because they claimed that was the only thing close.

They said that it was an IDF shell from northern Gaza. I thought the IDF said that it was a navy shell, because they claimed that was the only thing close.

No, FWIK, the IDF investigated the Army because that is what was firing. The Palestinians were the ones claiming initially that it was the Navy but have changed their story several times.

If it was the Army, it was a misfire that sat there for over 10 minutes as other shells have been accounted for. This would bring into question the blast pattern info from the HRW as a settled misfire would blow different than a direct hit round.

im questioning a group of internet warriors 'solving' the case.

it just happens the sherlocks are totally exonerating the IDF under the most spurious of evidence
Well it's pretty easy to solve given that the weapon that the palestinians claim did the damage isn't even in the Israeli Navy's arsenal. It's just a sad fact that the press don't do any real research. They just paraphrase press releases.

Well it's pretty easy to solve given that the weapon that the palestinians claim did the damage isn't even in the Israeli Navy's arsenal. It's just a sad fact that the press don't do any real research. They just paraphrase press releases.

thats my point re the internet FBI.

how do you KNOW the caliber if IDF shell on any given boat?

the IDF were shelling that area at the time of the explosion. this is not the crazy anti-israeli hatchet job TS wants you to believe.

thats my point re the internet FBI.

how do you KNOW the caliber if IDF shell on any given boat?

the IDF were shelling that area at the time of the explosion. this is not the crazy anti-israeli hatchet job TS wants you to believe.

Um, do some frickin' research. Even Wiki has specs on IDF ships including thier armament.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/navytoc.html

Unless you consider it to be all one big tinhatted conspiracy to hide 155mm cannons on ships.

thats my point re the internet FBI.

how do you KNOW the caliber if IDF shell on any given boat?

the IDF were shelling that area at the time of the explosion. this is not the crazy anti-israeli hatchet job TS wants you to believe.
It's public knowledge. I did a search and found a website with all the different classes of ships used by the Israeli Navy and the armaments they carry. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/navy-equipment.htm

so its utterly impossible that the IDF dont put every little toy they have in the public domain? and bear in mind TS reported as a FACT that the IDF didnt do it, it was hamas who murdered these people. too many people are claiming utter certainty over issues they cannot have knowledge, such as all the armaments in the IDF.

a google search of one fact reported in one article does not disprove the original thesis, that a shell went off course during a naval shelling of hamas and hit a family on a beach no matter how hard you try.

I don't know. There is still something 'off' about this. Its not that I don't trust the IDF... because, well, I don't. Its just until more facts are out I don't think anyone can say one way or the other, who 'caused' this.

so its utterly impossible that the IDF dont put every little toy they have in the public domain? and bear in mind TS reported as a FACT that the IDF didnt do it, it was hamas who murdered these people. too many people are claiming utter certainty over issues they cannot have knowledge, such as all the armaments in the IDF.

a google search of one fact reported in one article does not disprove the original thesis, that a shell went off course during a naval shelling of hamas and hit a family on a beach no matter how hard you try.
A 155 mm howitzer isn't classified weaponry. If they had ships with them they'd report it. Hell, they report their advanced missile technology on their ships. Why not admit you have guns that have been around since WWII?

The fact is that the evidence available clears the IDF and looks suspiciously like a HAMAS hoax. Like the one at Jenin, and like how they recently tried to stage an IDF shooting of young boys.

If you ask me who to trust in this situation evidence and past track record show you should trust Israel.

so its utterly impossible that the IDF dont put every little toy they have in the public domain? and bear in mind TS reported as a FACT that the IDF didnt do it, it was hamas who murdered these people. too many people are claiming utter certainty over issues they cannot have knowledge, such as all the armaments in the IDF.

a google search of one fact reported in one article does not disprove the original thesis, that a shell went off course during a naval shelling of hamas and hit a family on a beach no matter how hard you try.

Because the IDF hid one of these on a gunboat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Howitzer_firing.jpg

Reach a little farther.

thats my point re the internet FBI.

how do you KNOW the caliber if IDF shell on any given boat?

the IDF were shelling that area at the time of the explosion. this is not the crazy anti-israeli hatchet job TS wants you to believe.

I know because I have a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships in my house (in addition to the Internet resources).

You're really in over your head now. Guns of that caliber require much larger ships than the Israeli Navy uses - they are all small patrol boats. The guns they have are used solely for missile defense, and are configured for that use (they are either Phalanx or Goalkeeper anti-missile systems).

The Israeli ships are equipped with anti-ship missiles (they don't attack ground targets).

No sense, however, in arguing with a moron who knows nothing about ships.

You can't hide a destroyer in port.

The Guardian, who it has been pointed out in earlier threads blamed the Israelis fairly heavily earlier on, and hence are going to try to keep that version of events looking plausible go into quite a bit of detail into the HRW report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1796691,00.html
But a former Pentagon offical sent by the New York-based Human Rights Watch to investigate the death of the family has concluded that there is little doubt they were killed by an Israeli shell. "All the evidence points to the fact that it couldn't have been a mine," said Marc Garlasco, a former Pentagon expert on battlefields who led the US military's battle damage assessment team in Kosovo and worked for its intelligence wing, the Defense Intelligence Agency.

"You have the crater size, the shrapnel, the types of injuries, their location on the bodies. That all points to a shell dropping from the sky not explosives under the sand."

The Guardian, who it has been pointed out in earlier threads blamed the Israelis fairly heavily earlier on, and hence are going to try to keep that version of events looking plausible go into quite a bit of detail into the HRW report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1796691,00.html

Like I said earlier though, that contradicts the Israeli doctors, the initial accusations by the PA, as well as the timing of the firing.

Like I said earlier though, that contradicts the Israeli doctors, the initial accusations by the PA, as well as the timing of the firing.

how does this expert testimony contradict the PA or the timing? the IDF acknowledge 7 shells in the area at the time.

Like I said earlier though, that contradicts the Israeli doctors, the initial accusations by the PA, as well as the timing of the firing.
It's not too far from the time of the firing for it to have been a dud, and I don't think what the Palestinians said after the incident, which was the predictable blame the Israelis of the most plausible atrocity, has any bearing on the reports of an independent body.

how does this expert testimony contradict the PA or the timing? the IDF acknowledge 7 shells in the area at the time.

All accounted for except 1 which was over 10 minutes before the blast. Like I said earlier would have changed the blast pattern etc. and completely contradicts the PA saying it was the Navy. Try and keep up.

It's not too far from the time of the firing for it to have been a dud, and I don't think what the Palestinians said after the incident, which was the predictable blame the Israelis of the most plausible atrocity, has any bearing on the reports of an independent body.

It could have been a dud. A settled round would blow different than an initial blast.

At least you aren't taking the PA too seriously though.

All accounted for except 1 which was over 10 minutes before the blast. Like I said earlier would have changed the blast pattern etc. and completely contradicts the PA saying it was the Navy. Try and keep up.
The Palestinians just said what seemd most likely at the time. Beach - hence Navy. When they were responding to the accusation immediately after the explosion the Israelis came out and said that the shelling going on in the area was Army not Navy and the HRW report says 155 mm shell, which i think this thread has established are army shells. I don't see any inconsistency.

About the blast patterns, I don't think there's enoug been published to make an informed decision, but the HRW guy certainly has the experience to back up his comments.

The Palestinians just said what seemd most likely at the time. Beach - hence Navy. When they were responding to the accusation immediately after the explosion the Israelis came out and said that the shelling going on in the area was Army not Navy and the HRW report says 155 mm shell, which i think this thread has established are army shells. I don't see any inconsistency.

About the blast patterns, I don't think there's enoug been published to make an informed decision, but the HRW guy certainly has the experience to back up his comments.

Well the PA just makes stuff up on demand.

As for the HRW inspector, he does have credentials but so far it's seem to be based on an initial inspection. His report also contradicts the Israeli doctors and the forensic results of the fragments.

So far we've gone from "The IDF is shelling civilians" to "Hamas may have done it" to "It was most likely a misfire and not intentional but we have to investigate more".

The Palestinians just said what seemd most likely at the time. Beach - hence Navy. When they were responding to the accusation immediately after the explosion the Israelis came out and said that the shelling going on in the area was Army not Navy and the HRW report says 155 mm shell, which i think this thread has established are army shells. I don't see any inconsistency.

About the blast patterns, I don't think there's enoug been published to make an informed decision, but the HRW guy certainly has the experience to back up his comments.
No inconsistency? The shrapnel didn't come from any Israeli munitions.

No inconsistency? The shrapnel didn't come from any Israeli munitions.
Well I meant inconsistency outside the Israeli report on the incident. Clearly there are very fundamental disagreements between what that report says and what HRW says.

Of course, the facts speak quite clearly for themselves. The shrapnel itself has been analyzed, a full investigation has been underway. Its been a joint effort between the IDF and Palestinian Security. I think I'll believe that over a questionable group in Gaza.

Personally I'd have trouble with a questionable group in Tel Aviv. There'll have to be an international inquiry.


If you ask me who to trust in this situation evidence and past track record show you should trust Israel..

But why would we ask you?. And as for past track record, they're in violation of more resolutions than Saddam was.


No inconsistency? The shrapnel didn't come from any Israeli munitions...


According to the Israelis. You don't see a problem there, do you.....

Personally I'd have trouble with a questionable group in Tel Aviv. There'll have to be an international inquiry.



But why would we ask you?. And as for past track record, they're in violation of more resolutions than Saddam was.




According to the Israelis. You don't see a problem there, do you.....
The Israelis haven't faked massacres or told little kids with toy guns to play within sight of isolate enemy military outposts. Call me crazy, but they seem a bit more trustworthy than the people who do those things.

Has anyone actually seen the HRW report? Is it to be made public?

The Israeli inquiry was made public at a press conference just recently. Yedioth Internet covered it, and here is what the lead investigator of the inquiry, Major-General Meir Kalafi stated:

Peretz: IDF not involved in Gaza beach blast (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3262611,00.html)

"We can say that all the shells hit their targets. We have an exact documentation of every shell. We know where it hit. The second thing we checked is whether it is possible there was a shell dud. We checked our fire in the past months and there were no duds. Therefore, I can rule out with certainty that the hit was caused by IDF fire. In light of the findings, I cannot say what did hit them."

"We can say that it took place 150 meters (about 492 feet) north of what we call 'the casino' (a structure near Bet Lahia). This took place on the basis of intelligence analysis, witness statements we received from Palestinians themselves. A general analysis of films, in both foreign agencies and in Israel, and footage documenting the Israeli attacks that day. We believe that the time of the incident was between 16:57 and 17:10."

"Due to the close proximity of the hospital from which the ambulances set out, we concluded that the incident did not take place before 16:57. We examined all of the incidents of firing carried out by the IDF in the previous 24 hours. The closest Air Force attack took place two and a half kilometers from the area at 15:17. The last two attacks took place hours before," he said.

Referring to the Gaza beach blast, Peretz said: "We have enough findings confirming our big suspicion that the attempt to portray the incident as an Israeli incident is not true. I know this is very difficult to explain, but the facts accumulating prove that this was not caused by an Israeli incident."

According to the official findings, we know where every shell hit. That excludes, with certainty, the possibility of an Israeli shell killing the Palestinians on the beach. We also know that there were no dud shells, according to the official inquiry. Again, the official findings are that it is certain it was not IDF fire.

It may have been a mine, it may have been a qassam rocket, or some other type of mortar fire.

Now, aside from the fact that the official inquiry has concluded it is certain, we have HRW possibily claiming something else. I see the anti-Israeli crowd on these forums selectively quoting from news sources, ones that are known to have an anti-Israeli bias like the Guardian (CAMERA and Honest Reporting have already condemned the Guardian, specifically, regarding its unbalanced coverage of the Gaza incident) in an attempt to make it look as if the HRW report tells us anything. So far, it really doesn't. And what it does tell us contradicts the official findings of the Gaza inquiry.

For example, Reuters wrote:

Israel denies responsibility for Gaza beach deaths (http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-13T182608Z_01_L139968_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-SHELLING.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1)


"An investigator for international rights group Human Rights Watch told reporters in Gaza earlier that the evidence pointed to Israel but he had to leave the door open to the possibility that something else might have caused the blast."

"The chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Dan Halutz, said an investigation into the timing of Israeli shelling of Gaza and the shrapnel taken from victims showed his forces were not to blame for Friday's blast.

"We can say, surely, that the IDF is not responsible for the incident," Halutz told a news conference, flanked by Defense Minister Amir Peretz.

"We checked each and every shell that was fired from the sea, the air and from the artillery on the land and we found out that we can track each and every one according to a timetable and according to the accuracy of where they hit the ground.

"We are very sorry for the deaths of the seven Palestinians, but that does not mean that we are responsible," he said."

Halutz said there was no possibility of an international investigation into the explosion.

This is a far, far cry from what the Guardian claimed. Reuters cited HRW as leaving open the possibility that it wasn't an Israeli shell. In addition, the official report given at the press conference by Kalafi and Peretz contradicts the spurious, and late, claims made by HRW.

The real question, as I wrote, is to see if the HRW report has been made public like the IDF report. Since Halutz blocked an international investigation, I can tell you that it is most likely that HRW did not actually examine the bodies, or any physical evidence. HRW probably drew its conclusions based on photographs alone.

In addition, HRW has been noted as being biased against Israel to the degree of anti-Semitism by groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL):

ADL condemns HRW (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ifGCRfkWrrgJ:www.adl.org/Israel/un_israel.asp+adl+human+rights+watch&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2)

"For years, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has singled out Israel for condemnation, while ignoring other countries guilty of serious human rights violations."

So, you have to ask yourself - are the HRW reports, as it has been demonstrated by other civil rights groups as being anti-Semitic and biased, coupled with the fact that they have not been made public and are based on likely no examination of physical evidence, more accurate than the offical IDF reports? Probably not.

Personally I'd have trouble with a questionable group in Tel Aviv. There'll have to be an international inquiry.

So far, no one has been able to explain why the Israeli investigation is not good enough, except for the fact that it is Israeli.

Not only is this a logical fallacy, its blatently anti-Israeli.

According to the Israelis. You don't see a problem there, do you.....

There is no problem there, according to logic. People who want to create a false problem do so by invoking the fallacy of poisoning the well. The argument is essentially "Oh, its the Israelis, they can't be trusted by merit of being Israeli."

Unless someone can demonstrate fraud or bias in this investigation, then there is no credible basis to dispute the findings. The findings of the HRW should be disputed, since it has been noted by the ADL as an anti-Semitic group that singles out Israel, since it was not legally authorized by the Israeli government to engage in an investigation (according to Peretz), since its investigation has not been made public like that of the IDF, and since its investigation most likely excludes direct physical analysis of the evidence.

When someone wants to address that, I'd love to hear it.

In addition, HRW has been noted as being biased against Israel to the degree of anti-Semitism by groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL):

ADL condemns HRW (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ifGCRfkWrrgJ:www.adl.org/Israel/un_israel.asp+adl+human+rights+watch&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2)



So, you have to ask yourself - are the HRW reports, as it has been demonstrated by other civil rights groups as being anti-Semitic and biased, coupled with the fact that they have not been made public and are based on likely no examination of physical evidence, more accurate than the offical IDF reports? Probably not.

Actually that report condemns the UN HR commission w/ the HRW agreeing.

The Israelis haven't faked massacres or told little kids with toy guns to play within sight of isolate enemy military outposts. Call me crazy, but they seem a bit more trustworthy than the people who do those things.

No, they've committed and been a party to massacres, and occupied the area against all sense and reason for nearly 40 years now.

And as for trustworthy - these are the ones who let the christian militias into civillian refugee camps in Lebanon...after issuing assurances to their erstwhile US allies they'd safeguard same...A certain Ariel Sharon is prominent in that whole business.


In addition, HRW has been noted as being biased against Israel to the degree of anti-Semitism by groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL):.

O thats the lad. Get your retaliation in first. Throw the old "they just hate Jews" muck and hope it sticks. Are you worried they'll sing a different tune?

Why do they have rather prominent articles against Islamic Jihad, Hamas and so on if they're so "against Israel"?

Here is something telling, from a previous Guardian article linked on this thread:

But after investigating the scene, Mr Garlasco concluded that the army's explanation is deeply flawed. Among the new shrapnel he collected at the scene of the deaths is a piece stamped with the figures: 155MM.

Remember, the shrapnel in the IDF investigation was taken from the bodies of the victims. We know that shrapnel came from whatever explosives killed the families.

It would seem that Mr. Garlasco here collected his evidence "cold." The shrapnel he got was found at the scene, but as the beach has shrapnel from numerous shells (as he actually admitted in the Guardian article as well), is there any way he can be sure that it is shrapnel from the explosion that killed the family? No, unlike the Israeli investigation, where the shrapnel was taken directly from the bodies, shrapnel that did not match any IDF explosives.

"Cold collecting" of evidence is sloppy, very sloppy. Sounds like deliberately sloppy measures from a group that has been noted for its anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli bias in the past.

No, they've committed and been a party to massacres, and occupied the area against all sense and reason for nearly 40 years now.

And as for trustworthy - these are the ones who let the christian militias into civillian refugee camps in Lebanon...after issuing assurances to their erstwhile US allies they'd safeguard same...A certain Ariel Sharon is prominent in that whole business.





They are also the ones that have been accused of similar atrocities that have later been shown to be staged or completely imaginary.

I see the anti-Israeli crowd on these forums selectively quoting from news sources, ones that are known to have an anti-Israeli bias like the Guardian .

I don't think I've said anything anti Israeli in this thread or in fact ever on these forums, and I specifically quoted the Guardians biases when I linked it. It just seemed to have the most complete quotes of the HRW investigation.

In addition, HRW has been noted as being biased against Israel to the degree of anti-Semitism by groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL):

ADL condemns HRW (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ifGCRfkWrrgJ:www.adl.org/Israel/un_israel.asp+adl+human+rights+watch&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2)

Actually the article you quote accuses the UN Human Rights Commission of anti-israeli sentiments. The Human Rights Watch are one of the organisations quoted in the article criticising them.

No, they've committed and been a party to massacres, and occupied the area against all sense and reason for nearly 40 years now.

And as for trustworthy - these are the ones who let the christian militias into civillian refugee camps in Lebanon...after issuing assurances to their erstwhile US allies they'd safeguard same...A certain Ariel Sharon is prominent in that whole business.

Watch Nodinia attempt to poison the well further, by trying to link unrelated events. "The IDF was party to massacres [dozens of years ago] and let Christian militians into refugee camps in Lebanon [dozens of years ago], thus, this investigation is flawed."

Nodinia, when will you start being logical and stop with the fallacious reasoning?

O thats the lad. Get your retaliation in first. Throw the old "they just hate Jews" muck and hope it sticks. Are you worried they'll sing a different tune?

Why do they have rather prominent articles against Islamic Jihad, Hamas and so on if they're so "against Israel"?

I can't say I'm surprised, but you seem to be hinting at another fallacy, the false dichotomy.

Articles against terror groups does not imply that they aren't biased against Israel. Everyone against terror groups isn't pro-Israel any more than anyone who is against Israel is for terror groups.

Not to mention, it isn't me personally who is saying "they hate Jews." In fact, no one said that. Rather, its credible human rights groups such as the ADL that have noted their anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic bent. You've yet to address that fact.

Not to mention, it isn't me personally who is saying "they hate Jews." In fact, no one said that. Rather, its credible human rights groups such as the ADL that have noted their anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic bent. You've yet to address that fact.

OK, dude. Overall you've done some excellent research. However, you've FUBARed on the HRW thing. Read your own link.

So far, no one has been able to explain why the Israeli investigation is not good enough, except for the fact that it is Israeli.

Not only is this a logical fallacy, its blatently anti-Israeli..

emmm...Does anybody trust the Americans investigating the Americans - Abu Ghraib being a prime example - ? I certainly don't trust the bastards.

If a black man dies in custody in certain parts of the world and the police investigate themselves, are people trusting of the result? Much like the old joke about someone found dead in a single cell with dozens of police issue boot marks all over the body and a baton up the arse being labeled "death by misadventure".


Unless someone can demonstrate fraud or bias in this investigation, then there is no credible basis to dispute the findings. The findings of the HRW should be disputed, since it has been noted by the ADL as an anti-Semitic group that singles out Israel, since it was not legally authorized by the Israeli government to engage in an investigation (according to Peretz), since its investigation has not been made public like that of the IDF, and since its investigation most likely excludes direct physical analysis of the evidence.

When someone wants to address that, I'd love to hear it.

I'm beginning to wonder what role this "ADL" has in combating anti-semitism, as opposed to trying to demonise criticism of the foreign policy of the Israeli state. Then again it might be just you abusing their material.....I shall look into it, time permitting.

Actually the article you quote accuses the UN Human Rights Commission of anti-israeli sentiments. The Human Rights Watch are one of the organisations quoted in the article criticising them.

Oops, wrong article. This is the one where the ADL condemns HRW for promoting the myth of the Jenin massacre. Ironically enough, its related to this event, as this is yet another massacre faked by Palestinians.

Anatomy of Anti-Israel Incitement: Jenin, World Opinion and the Massacre That Wasn't (http://www.adl.org/Israel/jenin/)

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged Israel with violations of international law and war crimes. Neither discussed the international law violations involved in arming a refugee camp, or demanded the United Nations be held in any way accountable for its lack of oversight in the camp. While Human Rights Watch acknowledged in a May 3 report that there was no evidence of a massacre and that Palestinian gunmen had contributed to endangering Palestinian civilians, they continued to emphasize that there was prima facie evidence Israel committed war crimes.

OK, dude. Overall you've done some excellent research. However, you've FUBARed on the HRW thing. Read your own link.

haha, yes, I know. I posted the wrong article, the other one explaining how Human Rights Watch was involved in pushing the Jenin massacre myth has been posted above.

They are also the ones that have been accused of similar atrocities that have later been shown to be staged or completely imaginary.

I'm quite sure they have, but as an army of occupation investigating themselves, its hardly reasonable to take their word, is it?

haha, yes, I know. I posted the wrong article, the other one explaining how Human Rights Watch was involved in pushing the Jenin massacre myth has been posted above.

I'm still not reading it that way though. I read that they found the "massacre" to be BS but that the IDF had some issues.

Oops, wrong article. This is the one where the ADL condemns HRW for promoting the myth of the Jenin massacre. Ironically enough, its related to this event, as this is yet another massacre faked by Palestinians.

Anatomy of Anti-Israel Incitement: Jenin, World Opinion and the Massacre That Wasn't (http://www.adl.org/Israel/jenin/)

So now Amnesty are in on it too?

I'm quite sure they have, but as an army of occupation investigating themselves, its hardly reasonable to take their word, is it?


Have I said that? No. However, all their detractors here including the HRW have had contradictions in their stories so all the facts are not known.

It's just easier to put the blame on them though, isn't it?

So now Amnesty are in on it too?
Didn't you know?

Its an international conspiracy by humanitarian groups against teh ebhil j00h's!!1!11

emmm...Does anybody trust the Americans investigating the Americans - Abu Ghraib being a prime example - ? I certainly don't trust the bastards.

Its not really an issue of your personal trust. Its an issue of logic and fairness.

Abu Ghraib is a good example of why groups can be trusted to investigate themselves. The scandal wasn't that of an improper investigation, but of what actually occured at Abu Ghraib. Photos of the crimes were released, and the investigation resulted in seven convictions of criminal offenses and the dishonorable discharge of 17 soldiers. It isn't as if there was some huge coverup, or that the United States turned a blind eye and didn't give a just and fair trial. Justice was meted out.

So why exactly don't you trust Americans investigating Abu Ghraib? And why don't you trust IDF investigations?

Have I said that? No. However, all their detractors here including the HRW have had contradictions in their stories so all the facts are not known.

It's just easier to put the blame on them though, isn't it?

As I said when the very first thread on this appeared and have said numerous times since - it may well have been a palestinian rocket, but the IDF saying so does it not make it true. Theres two groups in Gaza firing munitions and the light shines out of neithers arses.

I'm quite sure they have, but as an army of occupation investigating themselves, its hardly reasonable to take their word, is it?

The claim that they are an "army of occupation" is unrelated to the investigation. Again, this falls into the fallacy of poisoning the well.

As someone who is familiar with logic, I can tell you that it actually is reasonable. There has yet to be a credible charge against the IDF in this investigation that could lead a person to conclude that it is flawed. All I'm getting as arguments are "they can't be trusted because they are Israelis" or "they can't be trusted because they are investigating themselves."

Both claims of which are internally inconsistent due to their illogical nature (PTW).

Oops, wrong article. This is the one where the ADL condemns HRW for promoting the myth of the Jenin massacre. Ironically enough, its related to this event, as this is yet another massacre faked by Palestinians.

Anatomy of Anti-Israel Incitement: Jenin, World Opinion and the Massacre That Wasn't (http://www.adl.org/Israel/jenin/)
Well that's a much less damning article, at least regarding the HRW. It doesn't for instance as you say 'condemns HRW for promoting the myth of the Jenin massacre', The HRW report claimed that there was no massacre.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1965471.stm
From this BBC article they seem to have investigated Palestinian atrocities too.

Its not really an issue of your personal trust. Its an issue of logic and fairness.

Abu Ghraib is a good example of why groups can be trusted to investigate themselves. The scandal wasn't that of an improper investigation, but of what actually occured at Abu Ghraib. Photos of the crimes were released, and the investigation resulted in seven convictions of criminal offenses and the dishonorable discharge of 17 soldiers. It isn't as if there was some huge coverup, or that the United States turned a blind eye and didn't give a just and fair trial. Justice was meted out.

So why exactly don't you trust Americans investigating Abu Ghraib? And why don't you trust IDF investigations?

Because it never went into the various members of Army intelligence who visited and approved of the regime, because it never looked into the CIA link. Essentially Abu Ghraib just got slightly out of hand - what they were doing was part of a systematic method of torture approved at the upper levels. Justice was not meted out, just rednecks hung out to dry.

[QUOTE=Tropical Sands]
As someone who is familiar with logic[QUOTE]

You are? Well fuck me, I never would have guessed.....But you are informative. Thanks to you every time I go to bed I check under it first to see if theres somer deep anti-semitic agenda lurking there....

Didn't you know?

Its an international conspiracy by humanitarian groups against teh ebhil j00h's!!1!11

Nei...No! I knew nothing of ze sort.

Well that's a much less damning article, at least regarding the HRW. It doesn't for instance as you say 'condemns HRW for promoting the myth of the Jenin massacre', The HRW report claimed that there was no massacre.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1965471.stm
From this BBC article they seem to have investigated Palestinian atrocities too.

Well yes, they have investigated Palestinian atrocities. But as I mentioned earlier, that doesn't remove an anti-Israeli bias on their part. They've come under scrutiny from other groups similiar to the ADL as well, such as the NGO Monitor:

NGO Monitor on HRW Letter (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/news/HRWLetter-NYSun.htm)

Now, perhaps I stretched it a bit far. I didn't mean to make it sound like they are a bunch of skinheads with swastika tattoos on their foreheads who have a mission to remove Israel from the map. However, a good look into HRW activities would note that they are far to the left, and that they do have a bias against Israel.

Reading through the front page of their Israel and the Occupied Territories section on their website we see almost twice as many anti-Israeli articles as we do those that scrutinize the Palestinians. Is this because Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is in greater violation of human rights than all of the terror groups in the PA?

If that alone doesn't make its anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian bias somewhat more clear, a look into their articles works. For example, the articles citing the numbers of Palestinian to Israeli deaths during the conflicts. These attempt to portray Israel as being the vicious, violent state because more Palestinians have died, yet they exclude context completely; the fact that some 400 of the 3000 Palestinians dead were killed by Palestinians, and the fact that over 75% of the dead Palestinians were terrorists. Thus, it slips into the dishonest use of statistics to promote an agenda.

I could go on and on, but I think anyone who has looked into HRW a bit will come to the same conclusion. That is why its name keeps popping up with scrutiny in regards to groups like the ADL and NGO Monitor.

Because it never went into the various members of Army intelligence who visited and approved of the regime, because it never looked into the CIA link. Essentially Abu Ghraib just got slightly out of hand - what they were doing was part of a systematic method of torture approved at the upper levels. Justice was not meted out, just rednecks hung out to dry.

You're confusing the Abu Gharib scandal itself with the investigation process. Keep in mind, those involved were convicted and punished. The facts of the case, the results of the case, are evidence that internal investigations do work, and can be fair.

So far, there is no evidence of a "systematic method of torture approved at the upper levels." Thats stretching it a bit far, its sounding very much like a conspiracy theory. We have evidence that points to this, but not enough evidence to conclude such a thing.

You're confusing the Abu Gharib scandal itself with the investigation process. Keep in mind, those involved were convicted and punished. The facts of the case, the results of the case, are evidence that internal investigations do work, and can be fair.

So far, there is no evidence of a "systematic method of torture approved at the upper levels." Thats stretching it a bit far, its sounding very much like a conspiracy theory. We have evidence that points to this, but not enough evidence to conclude such a thing.


I'm not particularily given to "conspiracy theory" as it tends to be recylced bollocks in which Masons, Jews, the CIA are interchangeable depending on the target audience.

"NGO Watch. A Project of the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society. "

Who the fuck are the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist society? Why is the name vaguely familiar?
"Originally set up as a spokesperson for big business and the promotion of free enterprise, the AEI came to major national prominence in the 1970s under the leadership of William Baroody, Sr., during which time it grew from a group of twelve resident "thinkers" to a well-funded organization with 145 resident scholars, 80 adjunct scholars, and a large supporting staff. This period of growth was largely funded by the Howard Pew Freedom Trust "


"More recently, it has emerged as one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. AEI rents office space to the Project for the New American Century, one of the leading voices that pushed the Bush administration's plan for "regime change" through war in Iraq. AEI reps have also aggressively denied that the war has anything to do with oil. "
(I've put in bold the relevant section)

So a bunch of far right American conservatives don't like NGOs...theres a fucking shock.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

As for the truth, well the truth sides with the Israelis the majority of the time. The truth is that Israel does not target civilian targets while the Palestinians do. The truth is that Israel only responds with force when it has been attacked. Take the Kassam missiles constantly being fired into southern Israel and Ashkelon; there are no Jews living in or residing in Gaza yet the Palestinians are using that fact to their advantage by firing missiles into Israel from a closer range. Israel has been targeting the launchers of the rockets and their launch sites; not civilians.

Well, the Truth is a big word, so you're looking just at one side of the truth, and I colud play the same game as you but I won't. Let's just tell that you're on Israel side and you present facts on a favorable view for Israel, but it's possible to do the opposite, always telling the truth.

Looking in the wikipedia seems to be that the ADL is an interested part in this question, 'cause it's aim is to fight to defend the jews against hate and so. I think it's genial but it would be better for their credibility to defend anyone against hate and so, like Amnesty or HRW.
Anyway, that's not the point here, most of you trust almost completely opn what IDF says (and US also) and some don't (like me). I doesn't mean I trust on the PA, as long as thay are also a group of power with their own interest above the palestinians ones. But unfortunately for you, the occupating potence has always more responsability than any other part. So does happens with US in Irak.

And it's very weak to say " we cannot trust on people who attacks civilians" at the same time you don't want to talk about why there are attacks on civilians. I don't want to begin with that, is quite clear what we think in general and is tiring me. But one thing is linked with the other.

And it's very weak to say " we cannot trust on people who attacks civilians" at the same time you don't want to talk about why there are attacks on civilians. I don't want to begin with that, is quite clear what we think in general and is tiring me. But one thing is linked with the other.

Of course, the difference here is that the Palestinian leadership, Hamas, has a systematic policy of terror against civilians, and explictly against Jews. This much is a fact; it is written in their charter.

So there isn't much debate about why they attack civilians. All you have to do is read the Hamas charter - because they are Jewish. It calls for the systematic extermination of Jews throughout the world. The fact that we have that, in print, is contrary to the idea that Palestinian attacks on civilians is a result of the occupation. In reality, as we see from the charter in print, the attacks on civilians occur because they are Jewish civilians.

Israel, on the other hand, has laws against attacking civilians. There is no systematic policy of civilian killing. And the civilians killed as a result of Israeli attacks are accidental, they fall under the category of collateral damage. It should also come as no shock that the percentage of civilians killed by Palestinians is around 75%, whereas the percentage of civilians killed by Israelis is around 25%.

Israel, on the other hand, has laws against attacking civilians. There is no systematic policy of civilian killing. And the civilians killed as a result of Israeli attacks are accidental, they fall under the category of collateral damage. It should also come as no shock that the percentage of civilians killed by Palestinians is around 75%, whereas the percentage of civilians killed by Israelis is around 25%.

....according to you. Or perhaps "StatisticsWatch" founded by the "This Land is Ours by Gods Decree" institute, with the aim of insuring rational and truthfull use of statistics in debate.

But after investigating the scene, Mr Garlasco concluded that the army's explanation is deeply flawed. Among the new shrapnel he collected at the scene of the deaths is a piece stamped with the figures: 155MM.

There are no Israeli naval vessels of any kind that fire 155mm shells.

There are no Israeli naval vessels of any kind that fire 155mm shells.

The article claims it was from a howitzer, not a naval vessel, at least as far as I could tell.

There are no Israeli naval vessels of any kind that fire 155mm shells.

The military have admitted firing earlier in the area but now say that the explosion occurred between 4.47 and 5.10pm, when it says firing had stopped. An ambulance driver from the nearby al-Awda hospital, Khaled Abu Sada, said that he first took a call about the emergency at 4.50pm.

The military did not explicitly repeat claims in earlier leaks that Hamas had planted the device or say whether it was a dud shell. It says that shrapnel taken from the bodies of victims being treated in Israeli hospitals was not from a 150mm shell. But Mr Garlasco said that copper-lined shrapnel taken from two injured girls who had been in a car at the time of the blast and from the car itself were consistent with such a shell fired by a M109 howitzer.

"The leading theory currently entertained, suggested that an explosive charge, buried by Palestinians on the Gaza beach to prevent Israeli infiltration, was behind the explosion.
There was no conspiracy here. The Palestinians (likely Hamas, mainly because they're the biggest) planted the bomb to prevent Israeli infiltration. Then some Palestinian civilians set it off by accident. Nobody is at fault here.

There was no conspiracy here. The Palestinians (likely Hamas, mainly because they're the biggest) planted the bomb to prevent Israeli infiltration. Then some Palestinian civilians set it off by accident. Nobody is at fault here.

you really havent read much of this thread have you?

despite the fact there was shelling at the time and place and the only independent investegators say the injuries and crater are consistant with shelling and not a mine.

fair play TS, you got one hook line and sinker