On the credible testimonies regarding the mosque incident II

This is a follow-up post to the "The Goldstone Report Forgery" post on this blog regarding the written report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict and in it the chapter »The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque, 3 January 2009«.

Time Index 6:16 of the public hearing video regarding the mosque case made in the written
Goldstone report for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Sheikh al-Salawi:
"On the upper floor there were over 300 men. In the basement were plenty of women. My father was on the ground floor and my mother was in the basement. As usual we started the prayer. We prayed a combined prayer."

His mother was "in the basement".

Time Index 16:55 of the public hearing video regarding the mosque case made in the written Goldstone report for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Sabah Al-Silawi:
"I demand and demand and demand the vengance for the lost souls of my sons. Five of them are martyrs and six are wounded. The first of them is [Ibrahim] Mousa Eissa al-Salawi fourtyfive. He has left behind seven daughters and two sons. Second Omar Abdul Hafez al-Salawi. He has left behind three daughters and one who was born after he had gone a martyr. And then we have Ahmed Eissa Ismael al-Salawi. He has left behind two children. He was twenty two. Then we have Mohammed Mousa al-Salawi. He was twelve. After that Hani Mohamed Mousa al-Salawi. He was eight. Then come the wounded. Mutia Mousa al-Salawi. He has one shrapnel in his head. Then Tamir [not audible] al-Salawi. He has a shrapnel in his back till today. Then we have Maher Mohammed al-Salawi. He has a shrapnel near his lever. And then we have Abdel Kareem Mohammed al-Salawi. He has a shrapnel in his shoulder and it is there still now. Then Mohammed Chaleel al-Salawi. He has two shrapnels. One in his head and one in his leg.
Then and I was on the first floor. After I heard the hammering of the rocket I rocket I found people carrying bodies [not audible] wounded people in the ambulances . Then I rushed to the morgue and I saw the drawers of the morgue I saw them I [not audible] them farewell then I just rejoiced
in our local way. And I said Al God is great. God is great. God is great. Eh ten of my people have gone martyrs or wounded. So what what how could you image my condition?"

She "was on the first floor". This is a contradiction to the statement of Mr. al-Salawi who claimed that she was "in the basement".

She names "five" "martyrs" and "six" "wounded" from her family.

She claims that her son [Ibrahim] "Mousa Eissa al-Salawi [...] has left behind seven daughters and two sons"

She claims that her son "Ahmed Eissa Ismael al-Salawi [...] has left behind two children"

She claims that her son "Omar Abdul Hafez al-Salawi [...] has left behind three daughters
and one who was born after he had gone a martyr

She claims that "ten of" her "people have gone martyrs or wounded". Here she contradicts herself.

Time Index 26:22 of the public hearing video regarding the mosque case made in the written
Goldstone report for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Sheikh al-Salawi:
"As we said we have five martyrs. Ibrahim [Mousa Eissa Al Silawi] fourtyfive years. He has left behind 9 school going girls and two sons who are are also school going. Eh then we have Ahmed. He left behind three children. And my nephew Omar was married. And he left behind
five children. And eh he was a salery[?] person. Now these orphans are just waiting for charity from people and institutions."

He claims that Ibrahim [Mousa Eissa Al Silawi] "has left behind 9 school going girls and two sons". This contradicts the testemony of his mother who claims that Ibrahim has left behind 7 girls and 2 boys.

He claims that "Ahmed [...] has left behind three children". This contradicts the testemony of his mother who claims that Ahmed has left behind 2 children.

He claims that "Omar [...] left behind five children". This contradicts the testemony of his mother who claims that Omar has left behind 3 daughters and another daughter.

Looking closely at the testemonies not few contradictions can be observed. How has the Goldstone commission handled these? They apparently haven't noticed or they didn't care.

On the credible testimonies regarding the mosque incident I

This is a follow-up post to the "The Goldstone Report Forgery" post on this blog regarding the written report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict and in it the chapter »The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque, 3 January 2009«.

Time Index 34:18 of the public hearing video regarding the mosque case made in the written
Goldstone report for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Goldstone:
"On what date did you start the compressed the the system of the compressed prayer?"

Sheikh al-Salawi:
"Combining prayers started when the incursion started the land incursion because before that there was some air bombardment there was no real fear but when land incursion started and the tanks were approaching and that's why we started combining sunset and [not audible ]"

Goldstone:
"Sir sir the days of the incident, the 3rd of January was ww was that the first day you had compressed prayers or were there previous days also the same procedure?"

Sheikh al-Salawi:
"We started combining before that date eh that has started several days. But it was intermittant. It was intermittant contigent on the degree of fear. Whenever we expected another assault we started combining for noon and late afternoon and for unset and evening. And on that day combined sunset and evening prayers."

The Israeli ground incursion started on the 3rd of January 2009. So the witness on the one hand implicitly claims that there had not been any combined prayers before that day because before the ground incursion "there was no real fear". On the other hand he explicitly claims that the prayers had been combined "for several days" before that incident.

How do the mission members handle this obvious contradiction?

"824. On the evening of 3 January 2009, between 5 and 6 p.m., a large number of people had gathered in the mosque for evening prayers. Witnesses indicate that between 200 and 300 men had gathered on the first floor.459 A number of women had also congregated in the basement at that time. Witnesses explained that in time of fear or emergency it was the tradition to combine sunset and evening prayers.460 In addition, the Mission heard that, while some time normally elapses between the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer and the prayers beginning, at this time it was the practice to begin prayers almost immediately."

"459 Sheikh al-Salawi, interviewed on 3 June 2009 and 4 July 2009."

They don't care and resolve it.

Spinning the Story - Justice Goldstone and the Mosque Case

This is a follow-up post to the "The Goldstone Report Forgery" post on this blog regarding the written report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict and in it the chapter »The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque, 3 January 2009«.

Revisiting the facts according to the written mission report (PDF):

"822. The al-Maqadmah mosque is situated near the north-west outskirts of Jabaliyah camp, close to Beit Lahia. It is located less than 100 metres from the Kamal Idwan hospital, in the al- Alami housing project. At least 15 people were killed and around 40 injured – many seriously – when the Israeli armed forces struck the entrance of the mosque with a missile."

The mosque was struck "with a missile" fired by the Israelis.

"829. The Mission observed that the interior walls of the mosque and part of the exterior wall around the doorway appeared to have suffered significant damage as a result of a spray of small metal cubes. A good number of these were lodged in the wall even at the time of the Mission’s visit to the site in June 2009. Several of these were retrieved and the Mission could see how deeply embedded they were in the concrete walls."

"834. The Mission has established that the Israeli armed forces fired a missile that struck near the doorway of the mosque. The penetration pattern witnessed on the concrete ramp and stairs underneath is consistent with that which would be expected of a shrapnel fragmentation sleeve
fitte onto an air-to-ground missile. Shrapnel cubes that the Mission retrieved from the rear inside wall of the mosque are consistent with what would be expected to be discharged by a missile of this nature.463"

footnote "463 The Mission considers it possible in analysing the information available that the missile in question may have been a modified high-explosive anti-tank missile, sometimes referred to as either augmented high-explosive antitank (AHEAT) or high-explosive dual-purpose (HEDP)."

The mission assumes that it was an anti-tank-missile fitted with something which seemed to be a "shrapnel fragmentation sleeve" that can be "fitted onto an air-to-ground missile". Here the mission suggests that it could have been an air-to ground missile and therefore the alleged attack an air strike.

"836. The Mission is not in a position to say from which kind of aircraft or air-launch platform the missile was fired. It believes the testimony of the witnesses regarding the circumstances of the attack, finding it plausible and consistent not only with the other witnesses, but also with the physical evidence at the scene. The Mission also notes that a number of local organizations sent representatives to the site of the attack very shortly after it occurred and they witnessed the scene for themselves. The Mission has also spoken with them and notes that their accounts are consistent with the testimony provided by the witnesses it heard."

Although the mission says that it is not able to determine the TYPE of aircraft which the projectile was fired from, it clearly makes the claim that it had in fact been an air-launched missile and therefore an air-strike on that mosque.

"837. There has been no suggestion that the al-Maqadmah mosque was being used at that time to launch rockets, store weapons or shelter combatants.464 Since it does not appear from the testimonies of the incident or the inspection of the site that any other damage was done in the area at that time, the Mission concludes that what occurred was an isolated strike and not in connection with an ongoing battle or exchange of fire."

Here the mission is claiming that no other damage had been done in that area at that time and that it had been an isolated strike on that mosque with no other IDF units especially no ground units involved or operating in that area. This is in accordance with the oral testemonies in the public hearing regarding this incident (RealMovie-video at the UN site) . None of the witnesses is suggesting that ground troops were operating in that area.

In the previous post "The Goldstone Report Forgery" it has been shown how justice Goldstone on several occasions has modified this story of a missile air strike on that mosque towards the story of a mortar shell flying through the main door of the mosque on a presumably unusual flat trajectory.

Here the debate between Goldstone and Gold held at the Brandeis University on November the 5th, 2009 with regard to this incident shall be examined. In the Q&A section of that debate Goldstone again laid out the mosque case:

(Index 6:27 of 45:34 The www.goldstonereport.org video edition Q&A):

"But the one attack that certainly affected me was an attack on a mosque in Gaza city. A three year old mosque during a service. Where over three hundred people attending the combined morning and evening service that were combined because of the war. And they were attacked by a missile fired presumably from from eh well not presumably from IDF ground forces. The the missile came through the front door of the mosque killed killed some 21 people and injured and injured many more. There were no questions there was no question at all of any secondary explosions which indicated that there was no question of ammunition being kept there. But even if it was. There is no basis in law that you can eh assuming in favour of the attackers that there were that there was ammunition being stored there. You don't you don't mortar shell it during a service."

There are some notable points here: The number of casulties has risen from 15 (written report, interview, lecture and press conference) to 21. This is not impossible. Or has Goldstone upped the numbers here?

There is this strange "There were no questions..." sequence in this transcription which is not directly understandable. The author regards this sequence to be valuable material for a in-depth analysis which will not be done here and now though.

But most importantly the mortar shell from the interview/lecture/press conference has turned back into a missile "fired presumably from from eh well not presumably from IDF ground forces". Not presumably but with certainty this missile was fired from Israeli ground forces - according to Goldstone in this debate. Anti-tank / anti-building missiles fired by ground forces usually need - at least for launching them - a line of sight to the target and their effective range is limited. This implies that these ground forces were operating in that area in close proximity to the mosque. Depending on the buildings surrounding the mosque it could have been necessary for such ground troops to be positioned directly in front of the mosque. This completely contradicts the written report according to which no ground forces were in that area and to which it was an air strike. And it completely contradicts the oral testemonies from the public hearing in which no ground troops have been mentioned. Presumably from ground troops ? "Well not presumably". Goldstone is very sure about this. Luckily missiles launched by ground forces can indeed travel on a flat trajectory through a front door something he is claiming in the subsequent sentence. One can say that within these two sentences Goldstone has his facts straight. But some sentences later the missile again has turned into a mortar shell.

When confronted by Gold on this issue who claims in this debate that that mosque had not been attacked by the IDF at all (Index 14:00), Goldstone claims that tungsten cubes had been extracted from the mosque walls:

Index 17:35 "We found the reminents of the Israeli ammunition. And tungsten squares that were pulled out the wall in my presence..."

This interestingly has not found its way into the written report although it would have been strong evidence for an Israeli involvement. They forgot to incorporate their best argument into the written report? That seems unlikely.

The written report claims that it had been an isolated air strike unrelated to any ground operations and fire fights and explicitly claims that apparently no ground forces were in that area during that incident. Lateron the air-to-ground missile has turned into a mortar shell which does not contain any tungsten and can not be fired precisely at a mosque door and would not have allowed to make such a case of an Israeli strike because the origin of such a mortar shell would remain unclear. Now this mortar shell has turned back into a missile which is claimed to be - with certainty - a ground-to-ground missile fired by ground troops who - which is implied in it - would had been operating in the closest proximity of that mosque not mentioned by anyone in the testemonies or by the written report. And suddenly - for countering Gold's claims that the mosque had not been attacked by the IDF - Goldstone adds some tungsten shrapnels which are not mentioned in the written report with regard to this incident.

Goldstone is (or along with him the other mission members are) obviously modifying the story when he/they deem(s) it necessary.

Something persons who are genuinely interested in finding facts wouldn't do.