2006 Gaza beach explosion

An IDF investigation into the deaths concluded, on 13 June 2006, that one piece of shrapnel removed from the body of Amneh Ghaliya did not match the metal signature of Israeli munitions, and that IDF shells or missiles would have left larger craters than found on the site of the incident.[31] The report suggested the blast was probably caused by an explosive device buried in the sand, but did not determine whether it was planted by Palestinians (as the IDF committee head speculated but could not confirm) or was an old IDF explosive.[32]

The IDF explained that six cannon shells were fired in the vicinity. The landing spots of last five were identified as being 250 meters away from the incident, but that of the first was not determined. The army is nevertheless convinced that the first shell, which they say was shot at least eight minutes prior to the fatal blast, could not have fallen on the beach almost half a kilometer away from its intended target.[32] Major General Dan Halutz, IDF Chief of Staff and former Israeli Air Force Commander was reported as saying "We can say, surely, that the IDF is not responsible for the incident," and that, "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 every one according to a timetable and according to the accuracy of where they hit the ground."[32]

On 17 June, The Times (of London) reported that the Israeli Army had told them its report was flawed, in that it failed to mention two gunboat shells fired at 4:24 pm and 4:55 pm. According to the IDF the two shells landed too far away to have been responsible. A UN radio transmission describing "casualties" in the area at 4:33 pm was identified by the head of the IDF inquiry commission Major General Meir Klifi as related to "an earlier incident" near the abandoned settlement of Dugit.[8]

In a 19 June press release, Marc Garlasco, the senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, declared the IDF investigation not credible, citing its complete reliance on information gathered by the IDF and exclusion of all evidence gathered by other sources.[10] Garlasco said “An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible. The IDF’s partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation. [...] If the Israeli allegations of tampered evidence are to be believed, many Palestinians would have to have engaged in a massive and immediate conspiracy to falsify the data. The conspirators – witnesses, victims, medical personnel and bomb disposal staff – would have had to falsify their testimony, amend digital and hand-written records, and dip shrapnel into a victim’s blood. It beggars belief that such a huge conspiracy could be orchestrated so quickly.” The press release also pointed to inconsistencies in the IDF analysis of the shell fragments.

Major General Meir Kalifi, head of an IDF investigative committee into the beach deaths, reported that the security establishment had received information that Ilham Ghalia said that “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion”. The IDF viewed this as supporting their contention that the Ghalia family had not been hit by an Israeli shell.[12][13] Other sources list Ilham as one of the immediate fatalities of the explosion.[2][33][34] The day after Khalifi's report, in a Hebrew version, the same newspaper recorded: “However, the degree of reliability of the information is unclear. A senior General Staff member yesterday told "Haaretz" that this is unsubstantiated information - and that the army does not have a recording of the girl say(ing) these things.” [14] In 2009 Haaretz reported that “Decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason shelved her admission”.[13]

In response to the call for an independent, international investigation of the incident.[10] IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said there was no possibility of such an investigation.[32]

A spokesperson for the Palestinian Interior Ministry described the Israeli report as "a lie and an attempt to escape moral responsibility for the massacre of a completely innocent family."[32] Colonel Saleh Abu Alozom of the Palestinian bomb squad said multiple fragments from the copper shell casing of an IDF 155mm artillery shell of the type fired towards the area on the day in question had been recovered from the beach.[35]

The victims had initially been treated by Palestinian doctors who removed almost all shrapnel from the bodies of victims before they arrived at Israeli hospitals for treatment.[36] Representatives of the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center said that Palestinian doctors at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, who had treated a woman wounded during the blast, had made unnecessary cuts all over her body in an effort to remove all the surgically reachable shrapnel. The Israeli hospital said they had never before received a patient from which all possible shrapnel had been removed."[37]

On 30 June, the Human Rights Watch presented a report, concluding that the evidence collected by HRW researchers and independent journalists on the ground in Gaza indicates that the civilians were killed within the time period of the shelling. That evidence included computerized hospital records that showed children injured at the beach were treated by 5:12 p.m., and hand-written hospital records that showed they were admitted at 5:05 p.m. HRW concludes that in light of the 20-minute round trip drive between the hospital and the beach, this evidence suggests that the blast that caused the family’s death occurred during the time of the IDF shelling.[2][38]

Marc Garlasco,[29] the senior military analyst and battle damage assessment expert at Human Rights Watch, said that the nature of the injuries was not consistent with the Israeli explanation of an explosion originating from a buried object,[39] and said in his report that shrapnel 10–12 cm in diameter scattered in an area of 90 meters had been found around the explosion sites, some stamped with the number "55" and the word "mm".[2] [35][40] On 16 June it was reported that he had examined a piece of shrapnel from the abdomen of a Palestinian boy and had concluded that the shrapnel was part of an artillery fuse.[30] According to The Times, "after seeing the details of an Israeli army investigation that closely examined the relevant ballistics and blast patterns, (Garlasco stated) that he had been wrong and that the deaths were probably caused by an unexploded munition in the sand. But this went down badly at Human Rights Watch HQ in New York, and the admission was retracted by an HRW press release the next day."[41]

Following this report, the IDF conceded that the cause of the blast may have been a 155mm shell, which it argued may have been placed on the beach by Palestinians as an IED, or that it may have been an unexploded Israeli shell from an earlier shelling, that was triggered by the IDF barrage further down the beach that afternoon.[2]

In a meeting with IDF investigator Major General Klifi on 19 June 2006, the IDF and Human Rights Watch agreed that it is possible that unexploded ordnance from a 155mm artillery shell fired earlier in the day could have caused the fatal injuries.[10][42] According to the HRW report, the IDF fired more than 80 155mm shells in the area of the beach on the morning of the incident, and sand would increase the possibility of a fuse malfunction leading to a dud shell that may have sat in the sand waiting to be set off. The report says the shelling between 4:31 p.m. and 4:50 p.m. could have triggered a dud shell, as could the human traffic on the beach that afternoon.

HRW has repeatedly called for an independent investigation.[2][43]

On 17 June The Guardian published the findings of their own investigation into the incident, casting doubt on Israeli version that army was not to blame.[11] The report included interviews with some of the people that were on the beach that day and concluded with the following statements from Human Rights Watch's Marc Garlasco: "The likelihood that the Ghalia family was killed by an explosive other than one of the shells fired by the Israeli army is remote," and the Israel Defense Forces' Capt Dalal: "We're not trying to cover up anything. We didn't do the investigation to exonerate ourselves. If it was our fire, we'll say it." However, according to The Jerusalem Post, Garlasco reversed his opinion after further examination of the evidence, concluding that the blast was "probably caused by an unexploded munition in the sand."[42]

On 16 June 2006, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that the Israeli Army had assured that fragmentation found in one of the treated patients could not match any weapon used by the Israeli army.[44] It also questioned the reliability of the video footage following the incident, alleging that one of the dead bodies next to Huda's father is later seen alive and carrying a gun. Citing alleged cases of Palestinian doctoring of video footage, the report suggested that both the footage and the site of the blast may have been manipulated.

On 19 June Israel's Channel 10 television's Shlomo Eldar reported that shrapnel from an Israeli shell was discovered in the body of one of the Palestinians wounded in the blast (twelve-year-old Adham Ghaliya). An IDF spokesman responded that "Unfortunately, Channel 10 persists in publicizing falsehoods despite having been given the true facts".[45]

On 5 January 2009 Ha'aretz's military correspondent Amir Oren reported that Ilham Ghalia, who was treated for her injuries at Israel's Ichilov hospital, said that the explosion was caused by her father's manipulation of unexploded ordnance found on the beach.[13] According to Oren, the admission was shelved by the Israeli government and the IDF. Other sources list Ilham Ghalia as one of the immediate victims of the explosion.[33]