| Revision as of 15:03, 10 June 2008 view sourceTenPoundHammer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers278,870 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Pedrito; It's valid sourced info, don't remove. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:25, 12 June 2008 view source Pedrito (talk | contribs)2,399 edits moved garlasco's re-re-assessment to more appropriate placeNext edit → | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{main|2006 Israel-Gaza conflict}} | {{main|2006 Israel-Gaza conflict}} | ||
| The '''Gaza beach blast'''<ref>Originally the event was known as the ''Gaza beach massacre'', but this title was subsequently overtaken by the current name.</ref> was an event on ], ] in which eight ] were killed — including multiple family members of seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya — and at least thirty others were injured in an explosion on a beach near the municipality of ] in the ].<ref>, '']'', ], 2006</ref> The incident received considerable attention from news media worldwide, with the ] and officials denying |
The '''Gaza beach blast'''<ref>Originally the event was known as the ''Gaza beach massacre'', but this title was subsequently overtaken by the current name.</ref> was an event on ], ] in which eight ] were killed — including multiple family members of seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya — and at least thirty others were injured in an explosion on a beach near the municipality of ] in the ].<ref>, '']'', ], 2006</ref> The incident received considerable attention from news media worldwide, with the ] and officials denying initial reports that Israel was to blame and suggesting it was possibly an explosive that was put on the beach.<ref name=Reuters20060613>, '']'', ], 2006 ()</ref> A subsequent investigation by the ] concluded that Israel did not shell the beach, but that the explosion may have been the result of unexploded Israeli ].<ref name=jpost1/> ]<ref name=HRW20060620/> and ]<ref name=Guardian20060617/> both criticised the investigation which the IDF later admitted was flawed.<ref name=Times20060617/> | ||
| ==Victims== | ==Victims== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| It was initially reported that the blast was caused by an Israeli artillery shell<ref>, ], ] ]</ref> <ref>, ], ], ]</ref> and the ] claimed it was targeting ] launchers, shelling the beach 250 metres away from the blast, ten minutes prior to it. An Israeli military investigation later concluded that the family was not hurt as a result of Israeli shelling.<ref>{{cite news | title=IDF: No details deleted from Gaza blast probe | publisher=] | url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=727951 | accessdate=2006-06-18}}</ref> | It was initially reported that the blast was caused by an Israeli artillery shell<ref>, ], ] ]</ref> <ref>, ], ], ]</ref> and the ] claimed it was targeting ] launchers, shelling the beach 250 metres away from the blast, ten minutes prior to it. An Israeli military investigation later concluded that the family was not hurt as a result of Israeli shelling.<ref>{{cite news | title=IDF: No details deleted from Gaza blast probe | publisher=] | url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=727951 | accessdate=2006-06-18}}</ref> | ||
| ] has expressed doubts regarding the IDF investigation, saying that it was incomplete and called for an independent inquiry into the deaths.<ref></ref> On ] it was reported that Mark Garlasco, a senior military analyst and battle damage assessment expert at ]<ref>, ] Radio, ], ]</ref>, had examined a piece of shrapnel said to have come from the abdomen of a Palestinian boy and had concluded that the shrapnel was part of an artillery fuse.<ref name="tele"></ref> | ] has expressed doubts regarding the IDF investigation, saying that it was incomplete and called for an independent inquiry into the deaths.<ref name=HRW20060620></ref> On ] it was reported that Mark Garlasco, a senior military analyst and battle damage assessment expert at ]<ref>, ] Radio, ], ]</ref>, had examined a piece of shrapnel said to have come from the abdomen of a Palestinian boy and had concluded that the shrapnel was part of an artillery fuse.<ref name="tele"></ref> | ||
| ===Israel Defense Forces=== | ===Israel Defense Forces=== | ||
| An ] investigation into the deaths concluded, on ], ], 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.<ref>, ], ], ]</ref> 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.<ref name="Haaretz Report"> , ], ], ]</ref> | An ] investigation into the deaths concluded, on ], ], 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.<ref>, ], ], ]</ref> 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.<ref name="Haaretz Report"> , ], ], ]</ref> | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| The IDF explained that six ] 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.<ref name="Haaretz Report"/> ] ], IDF ] 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."<ref name="Haaretz Report"/> | The IDF explained that six ] 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.<ref name="Haaretz Report"/> ] ], IDF ] 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."<ref name="Haaretz Report"/> | ||
| On ], the '']'' (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 4.24pm and 4.55pm, around the time of the blast. 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 4.33pm 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 ].<ref>Stephen Farrell, , '']'', ], 2006</ref> | On ], the '']'' (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 4.24pm and 4.55pm, around the time of the blast. 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 4.33pm 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 ].<ref name=Times20060617>Stephen Farrell, , '']'', ], 2006</ref> | ||
| ===Palestinian bomb squad=== | ===Palestinian bomb squad=== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| ===Human Rights Watch=== | ===Human Rights Watch=== | ||
| Mark Garlasco,<ref>, ] Radio, ], ]</ref> the senior military analyst and battle damage assessment expert at ], initially said that the nature of the injuries was "not consistent" with the Israeli explanation of an explosion originating from a buried object,<ref name="hrw1">, ], ] ]</ref> and claimed in his report to have found shrapnel 10–12cm in diameter scattered in an area of 90 meters around the explosion sites, some stamped with the number "55" and the word "mm".<ref name="australian"/> | Mark Garlasco,<ref>, ] Radio, ], ]</ref> the senior military analyst and battle damage assessment expert at ], initially said that the nature of the injuries was "not consistent" with the Israeli explanation of an explosion originating from a buried object,<ref name="hrw1">, ], ] ]</ref> and claimed in his report to have found shrapnel 10–12cm in diameter scattered in an area of 90 meters around the explosion sites, some stamped with the number "55" and the word "mm".<ref name="australian"/> | ||
| <ref name="channel10">, ], ], 2006</ref> 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.<ref name="tele"></ref> Following a meeting with Major General Klifi on ] 2006 however, Garlasco praised the IDF's efforts to avoid civilian casualties and their professional investigation of the blast, saying he had " to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause was unexploded Israeli ordnance".<ref name="jpost1">, '']'', ], 2006</ref> HRW itself however, while conceding that it was ''possible'' for unexploded ordnance to have caused the deaths, cited a digitally dated and time-stamped blood test and hand-written records from the Gazan hospital that provided treatment<ref>, '']'', ], 2006</ref> to persist in its claim that the explosion actually took place at the time of the IDF artillery fire, and continued to call for an independent investigation.<ref> '']'', ], 2006 </ref> | <ref name="channel10">, ], ], 2006</ref> 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.<ref name="tele"></ref> Following a meeting with Major General Klifi on ] 2006 however, Garlasco praised the IDF's efforts to avoid civilian casualties and their professional investigation of the blast, saying he had " to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause was unexploded Israeli ordnance".<ref name="jpost1">, '']'', ], 2006</ref> HRW itself however, while conceding that it was ''possible'' for unexploded ordnance to have caused the deaths, cited a digitally dated and time-stamped blood test and hand-written records from the Gazan hospital that provided treatment<ref>, '']'', ], 2006</ref> to persist in its claim that the explosion actually took place at the time of the IDF artillery fire, and continued to call for an independent investigation.<ref> '']'', ], 2006 </ref> | ||
| ⚫ | In apparent contradiction to the earlier praise of the IDF investigation, in a later press release issued by Human Rights Watch Garlasco declared the IDF investigation not credible, citing the IDF's refusal to consider Palestinian and HRW provided evidence. Garlasco said “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 press release states that it is possible for the cause of deaths to have been unexploded ordnance, but maintained that Klifi's investigation was incomplete.<ref>{{cite web| publisher=] | url=http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595.htm | title=Israel: Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence | date=], ] | accessdate=2006-06-20}}</ref> | ||
| ==Media reports== | ==Media reports== | ||
| ===Guardian report=== | ===Guardian report=== | ||
| On ] ] published the findings of their own investigation into the incident.<ref></ref> The report included interviews with some of the people that were on the beach that day and concluded with the following statements from ]'s Mark 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 ]' 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." | On ] ] published the findings of their own investigation into the incident, casting doubt on Israeli claim that army was not to blame.<ref name=Guardian20060617></ref> The report included interviews with some of the people that were on the beach that day and concluded with the following statements from ]'s Mark 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 ]' 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." | ||
| ⚫ | In apparent contradiction to the earlier praise of the IDF investigation, in |
||
| ===Süddeutsche Zeitung report=== | ===Süddeutsche Zeitung report=== | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| ===Israeli reaction=== | ===Israeli reaction=== | ||
| Following the conclusion of the Israeli investigation, defense minister Peretz said, "We showed the necessary restraint in light … of the international uproar that resulted, but it's over." In addition, the IDF have rescinded their temporary halt of shelling and airstrikes in the Gaza strip.<ref>]'', ], 2006]</ref> Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed condolences for the deaths, but did not accept responsibility for the casualties. ] ] agreed and suggested that "There is a situation in which maybe … this was an explosive that was put on the beach for future attacks on Israel."<ref |
Following the conclusion of the Israeli investigation, defense minister Peretz said, "We showed the necessary restraint in light … of the international uproar that resulted, but it's over." In addition, the IDF have rescinded their temporary halt of shelling and airstrikes in the Gaza strip.<ref>]'', ], 2006]</ref> Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed condolences for the deaths, but did not accept responsibility for the casualties. ] ] agreed and suggested that "There is a situation in which maybe … this was an explosive that was put on the beach for future attacks on Israel."<ref name=Reuters20060613/> | ||
| IDF Statement: | |||
| ==Aftermath== | ==Aftermath== | ||
Revision as of 07:25, 12 June 2008
Main article: 2006 Israel-Gaza conflictThe Gaza beach blast was an event on June 9, 2006 in which eight Palestinians were killed — including multiple family members of seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya — and at least thirty others were injured in an explosion on a beach near the municipality of Beit Lahia in the Gaza Strip. The incident received considerable attention from news media worldwide, with the Israeli army and officials denying initial reports that Israel was to blame and suggesting it was possibly an explosive that was put on the beach. A subsequent investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that Israel did not shell the beach, but that the explosion may have been the result of unexploded Israeli ordnance. Human Rights Watch and The Guardian both criticised the investigation which the IDF later admitted was flawed.
Victims
Seven members of the Ghaliya family — Ali, 43; Raisa, 36; Alia, 24; Ilham, 17; Sabrin, 7; Hanadi, 2; and Haytham, 8 months — were killed by the blast. Along with 7-year old Huda, survivors included her mother, Hamdia, and an elder sister. Adham Ghaliya was injured by shrapnel and had to seek medical attention in the United States. One other Palestinian civilian was also killed.
Investigations
It was initially reported that the blast was caused by an Israeli artillery shell and the Israeli army claimed it was targeting Qassam rocket launchers, shelling the beach 250 metres away from the blast, ten minutes prior to it. An Israeli military investigation later concluded that the family was not hurt as a result of Israeli shelling.
Human Rights Watch has expressed doubts regarding the IDF investigation, saying that it was incomplete and called for an independent inquiry into the deaths. On June 16 it was reported that Mark Garlasco, a senior military analyst and battle damage assessment expert at Human Rights Watch, had examined a piece of shrapnel said to have come from the abdomen of a Palestinian boy and had concluded that the shrapnel was part of an artillery fuse.
Israel Defense Forces
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. 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.
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. 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."
On 17 June, the 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 4.24pm and 4.55pm, around the time of the blast. 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 4.33pm 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.
Palestinian bomb squad
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." Colonel Saleh Abu Alozom of the Palestinian bomb squad claims to have recovered from the beach 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.
Shrapnel removal
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. Representatives of the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center said that Palestinian doctors at 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."
Human Rights Watch
Mark Garlasco, the senior military analyst and battle damage assessment expert at Human Rights Watch, initially said that the nature of the injuries was "not consistent" with the Israeli explanation of an explosion originating from a buried object, and claimed in his report to have found shrapnel 10–12cm in diameter scattered in an area of 90 meters around the explosion sites, some stamped with the number "55" and the word "mm". 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. Following a meeting with Major General Klifi on 19 June 2006 however, Garlasco praised the IDF's efforts to avoid civilian casualties and their professional investigation of the blast, saying he had " to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause was unexploded Israeli ordnance". HRW itself however, while conceding that it was possible for unexploded ordnance to have caused the deaths, cited a digitally dated and time-stamped blood test and hand-written records from the Gazan hospital that provided treatment to persist in its claim that the explosion actually took place at the time of the IDF artillery fire, and continued to call for an independent investigation.
In apparent contradiction to the earlier praise of the IDF investigation, in a later press release issued by Human Rights Watch Garlasco declared the IDF investigation not credible, citing the IDF's refusal to consider Palestinian and HRW provided evidence. Garlasco said “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 press release states that it is possible for the cause of deaths to have been unexploded ordnance, but maintained that Klifi's investigation was incomplete.
Media reports
Guardian report
On 17 June The Guardian published the findings of their own investigation into the incident, casting doubt on Israeli claim that army was not to blame. 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 Mark 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."
Süddeutsche Zeitung report
On 16 June German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has reported that the Israeli Army had assured that fragmentation found in one of the treated patients cannot match any weapon used by the Israeli army. It also questioned the reliability of the video footage following the incident, arguing among else that one of the dead bodies next to Huda's father is later seen alive and carrying a gun. Citing other cases of Pallywood, the report suggests that both the video footage and the site of the blast may have been manipulated.
Channel 10 report
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".
Reaction
Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, initially referred to the event as a "bloody massacre" and demanded international intervention. The Defense Minister of Israel Amir Peretz sent the Palestinian leader a letter of condolence, but Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected any calls for an international investigation into the tragedy, and Ha'aretz have reported current UNSC president Ellen Margrethe Løj refusing to convene the council to discuss the incident unless Palestinian attacks on Israel were also considered, arguing that the blast did not occur in a void and that Israel was responding to terror instigated by others.
Israeli reaction
Following the conclusion of the Israeli investigation, defense minister Peretz said, "We showed the necessary restraint in light … of the international uproar that resulted, but it's over." In addition, the IDF have rescinded their temporary halt of shelling and airstrikes in the Gaza strip. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed condolences for the deaths, but did not accept responsibility for the casualties. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni agreed and suggested that "There is a situation in which maybe … this was an explosive that was put on the beach for future attacks on Israel."
Aftermath
Hamas officially withdrew from its 16 month old truce and began taking responsibility for Qassam Rockets launched into Israel. According to Israel, the former has been regularly violating it by firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets and other attacks
See also
References
- Originally the event was known as the Gaza beach massacre, but this title was subsequently overtaken by the current name.
- Hamas militants vow to end truce, BBC Online, 10 June, 2006
- ^ Israel set to deny role in Gaza beach killings", Reuters, 13 June, 2006 (mirror)
- ^ Gaza beach blast victim wakes, Jerusalem Post, June 20, 2006
- ^ "Israel: Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence"
- ^ The battle of Huda Ghalia - who really killed girl's family on Gaza beach?
- ^ Stephen Farrell, Israel admits shell report flaws, Times Online, 17 June, 2006
- "Palestinian girl keeps a painful secret" by NBC News correspondent Martin Fletcher, June 19, 2006
- Al Jazeera English - News - Caught On The Wrong Side
- Palestinians killed on Gaza beach, BBC, June 9 2006
- Eyewitness: Gaza Beach Shelling, BBC, 9 June, 2006
- "IDF: No details deleted from Gaza blast probe". Ha'aretz. Retrieved 2006-06-18.
- Bio of Human Rights Watch's Mark Garlasco, Mother Jones Radio, October 2, 2005
- ^ Shrapnel clue to Gaza beach shelling
- Peretz: Friday's Gaza beach shelling 'not our doing' , Jerusalem Post, June 13, 2006
- ^ IDF probe: Gaza beach blast not caused by wayward army shell, Ha'aretz, June 13, 2006
- ^ Martin Chulov, Shrapnel "proves shell was Israeli", The Australian, 16 June, 2006
- Gaza beach blast: Possible scenarios, 11 June, 2006
- Siegel-Itzkovich, Judy (June 21, 2006). "PA doctors cut victim needlessly". Retrieved 2006-06-21.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Bio of Human Rights Watch's Mark Garlasco, Mother Jones Radio, October 2, 2005
- Israel: Investigate Gaza Beach Killings, Human Rights Watch, 13 June 2006
- Israeli Channel 10: Shrapnel of Israeli Shell in Body of Injured in "Gaza Beach Massacre", International Press Centre, 20 June, 2006
- Israel: More Evidence on Beach Killings Implicates IDF, Human Rights News, 15 June, 2006
- HRW: We can't contradict IDF findings Jerusalem Post, 19 June, 2006
- "Israel: Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence". Human Rights Watch. June 20, 2006. Retrieved 2006-06-20.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Der Krieg der Bilder, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 16 June, 2006
- IDF rejects as "lie" new report linking shelling, Gaza beach deaths, Ha'aretz, 20 June, 2006
- Death on the beach: seven Palestinians killed as Israeli shells hit family picnic, The Guardian, 10 June, 2006
- Abu Mazen convoca un referéndum sobre la creación de un Estado Palestino mientras su pueblo clama venganza contra Israel, Diario ABC, 10 June, 2006 (in Spanish)
- Olmert rejects international probe into Gaza beach deaths, AFP, 18 June, 2006
- Shlomo Shamir, , Ha'aretz (in Hebrew)
- Hamas "mined Gaza beach", The Australian, 14 June, 2006
- Hamas breaks truce with rockets, BBC Online, 10 June, 2006
- Hamas behind Qassam attack on Sderot, YnetNews, June 1, 2006
External links
- "Palestinian girl keeps a painful secret" Video of report by NBC News correspondent Martin Fletcher, June 19, 2006.
- "Gaza beach tragedy" conclusive video