The battle of Huda Ghalia - who really killed girl's family on Gaza beach?

When Ehud Olmert apologised for the killing of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach The Israeli military swiftly realised that they were facing a PR disaster to rival that of the death of young Mohammed al-Dura, who died in his fathers arms amid a hail of Israeli bullets, transforming him into the first icon of the intifada.

Anxious that this not be repeated the Israeli military convened a committee to investigate the Gaza beach incident, and swiftly exonerated themselves from any responsibility.

Most bizarrely of all, the army admit that they fired six shells into Beit Lahia beach, and that one of their shells is unaccounted for, although they claim it is impossible that their shell could have been responsible for the death of the Palestinian family. Instead they contend that an old Palestinian mine must have simply exploded at the same time and caused the damage.

Pro-Israeli groups even started to doubt the footage of the young girl weeping over her dead family and asked, "Were the bodies moved, was the girl asked to re-enact her discovery for the camera, was the video staged?"

Most of the Israeli defence hinges on discrepancies in timings, although further examination would appear to suggest that the Israelis have this timing wrong. It's also stunning to suggest that an old land mine must have been responsible when (a) you admit that you were shelling this beach around that time, and (b) one of your shellings is unaccounted for.

The key part of the military's defence hinged on timings. It says it fired shells toward the beach between 4.30pm and 4.48pm, and that the artillery barrage stopped nine minutes before the explosion that killed the Ghalia family.

The army concluded that the deadly explosion occurred between 4.57pm and 5.10pm based on surveillance of the beach by a drone that shows people relaxing until just before 5pm and the arrival of an ambulance at 5.15pm.

Major General Meir Kalifi, who headed the army's investigation committee, said the nine-minute gap is too wide for Israel to have been responsible for the deaths. "I can without doubt say that no means used by the Israeli defence force during this time period caused the incident," he said.

But hospital records, testimony from doctors and ambulance men and eyewitness accounts suggest that the military has the timing of the explosion wrong, and that it occurred while the army was still shelling the beach.

Palestinian officials also question the timing of video showing people relaxing on the beach just before 5pm if the army, by its own admission, was dropping shells close by.

Several of those who survived the explosion say it came shortly after two or three other blasts consistent with a pattern of shells falling on the beach.

Among the survivors was Hani Asania. When the shelling began, he grabbed his daughters - Nagham, 4, and Dima, 7 - and moved toward his car on the edge of the beach. The Ghalia family was on the sand nearby awaiting a taxi.

"There was an explosion, maybe 500 metres away. Then there was a second, much closer, about two minutes later. People were running from the beach," said Mr Asania. "Maybe two minutes later there was a third shell. I could feel the pressure of the blast on my face it was so strong. I saw pieces of people."

This sequence is backed by others including Huda's brother, Eyham, 20. Annan Ghalia, Huda's uncle, called an ambulance. "We were sitting on the sand waiting for the taxis, the men on one side and the women on the other. The shell landed closer to the girls," he said. "I was screaming for people to help us. No one was coming. After about two minutes I called the ambulance."

The first ambulance took children to the Kamal Odwan hospital. Its registration book records that five children wounded in the blast were admitted at 5.05pm. The book contains entries before and after the casualties from the beach, all of whom are named, and shows no sign of tampering. The hospital's computer records a blood test taken from a victim at 5.12pm. Human Rights Watch said altering the records would require re-setting the computer's clock.

The distance from the beach to the hospital is 6km. Even at speed, the drive through Beit Lahia's crowded back streets and rough roads would not take less than five minutes and would be slower with wounded patients on board.

Dr Bassam al-Masri, who treated the first wounded at Kamal Odwan, said allowing for a round trip of at least 10 minutes and time to load them, the ambulance would have left the hospital no later than 4.50pm - just two minutes after the Israelis say they stopped shelling.

Factoring in additional time for emergency calls and the ambulances to be dispatched, the timings undermine the military's claim that the killer explosion occurred after the shelling stopped.

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

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

The Alwada's anaesthetist, Dr Ahmed Mouhana, was woken by a call from a fellow doctor calling him to the hospital. "I looked at the time. That's what you do when someone wakes you up. It was 4.55pm," he said.

Dr Mouhana left for the hospital immediately. "It only takes 10 minutes from my house so I was there by 5.10pm or 5.15pm at the latest. I went to reception and they had already done triage on the children," he said.

If the hospital records and medical professionals are right, then the emergency call from the beach could not have come in much later than 4.45pm, still during the Israeli shelling.

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

A military spokesman, Captain Jacob Dalal, said the army stood by its interpretation. Military investigators said shrapnel taken from Palestinians treated in Israeli hospitals was not from 155mm shells fired that day. "We know it's not artillery," he said. "It could be a shell of another sort or some other device."

The military has suggested that the explosion was rigged by Hamas against possible army landings but Palestinian officials say that would only be an effective strategy if there were a series of mines or Hamas knew exactly where the Israelis would land.

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

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

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

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

The Israelis are, of course, following a neo-Con habit of attacking the messenger with Garlasco being attacked from the usual sources.

However, in this case, they are simply preaching to the converted.

Most reasonable people can conclude that any Israeli footage taken from a drone that shows people sunbathing on a beach is unlikely to have been taken whilst that beach was, according to Israel's own timeline, being shelled.

Likewise, most of us can conclude that if people have been killed and the Israelis are unable to account for where one of their shells fell, then that missing shell must become prime suspect in any investigation that seeks to find out the truth, rather than one aiming at simply exonerating the IDF.

The problem with the IDF explanation is that the missing shell is simply left hanging in the air.

That's why their explanation looks like, sounds like, and simply is; a whitewash.

Two sides of the story

* WHAT THE ISRAELIS SAY:

4.48: Last shell fired at beach.

4.54-4.57: Normal activity on beach.

5.12: Palestinians ask Israelis to stop shelling the beach because of medical emergency.

5.15: First ambulance arrives on beach.

*WHAT THE PALESTINIANS SAY:

4.45-4.46: Palestinian paramedic Khaled Abu Sada receives emergency call.

4.50: Abu Sada leaves for the beach.

5.00: His ambulance arrives.

5.05: Victims arrive at the hospital in first ambulance.

Click title for full article.

Related articles:

Hospital casts doubt on Israel's version of attack that killed seven Palestinians

Tags: Beit Lahia beach, Israel, shelling, Palestinian, family, killed, Israeli,