Case Study al Maqadmah Mosque Goldstone Report, The Attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque
| Goldstone Report, The Attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque |
 |
 |
|
The Goldstone Report's analysis of the attack on al Maqadmah mosque. Footnotes in the original are numbered 458-64.  E. The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque, 3 January 2009  1. The facts gathered by the Mission  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.  823. The Mission heard five eyewitnesses who had been in the mosque at the time it was struck. Two of them had been facing the door as the explosion occurred. Three of them had been kneeling facing the opposite direction and had been seriously injured. The Mission also heard from a number of relatives of those who died in the attack and has seen a number of sworn statements signed by them testifying to the facts they witnessed.[1] The Mission also heard again from three witnesses it had interviewed earlier at the public hearings in Gaza. Finally, the Mission reviewed information received from TAWTHEQ.  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.[2] 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.[3] 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.  825. The witnesses indicated that prayers had ended and the sermon was just beginning. At that point there was an explosion in the doorway to the mosque. One of the two wooden doors was blown off its hinges and all the way across the prayer area to the opposite wall.  826. As a result of the explosion at least 15 people died. Almost all were inside the mosque at the time. One of the casualties was a boy who had been sitting at the entrance. His leg was blown off by the missile strike and found afterwards on the roof of the mosque. A large number, around 40, suffered injuries. Many were taken to the Kamal Idwan hospital for treatment.  827. On visiting the mosque, the Mission was able to observe the damage done to it. Its immediate entrance is on a raised level from the external pavement and is reached via a ramp. There are a number of stairs below the doorway, now covered by the raised entrance at the end of the ramp. The stairs underneath the ramp were damaged and the concrete had been pierced. There was a scorch mark on the ground and stairs.  828. The Mission has also viewed a number of photographs taken shortly after the strike and considers them to be reliable. They showed that something had penetrated the concrete (about three inches thick) immediately outside of the mosque doorway and then hit the pavement at the bottom of the stairs below the concrete covering. The ramp and entrance level structure had a wall about one metre high built on its outer side. The part of the wall opposite the mosque door was blown away.  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.  830. Apart from the aforementioned visit to the mosque, the Mission has interviewed its sheikh on three occasions, its imam twice, its muezzin, several members of the sheikh’s family, several of those injured in the blast and a number of the relatives who lost family members and who assisted in the immediate aftermath of the attack. It has seen medical certificates that bear out the nature of those injuries related by the young men it interviewed. The Mission questioned all of the witnesses and sought to clarify any doubts it may have had.  2. The position of the Israeli Government and the Israeli armed forces  831. The Israeli armed forces’ response to the allegations states:  … relating to a strike against the “Maqadme” mosque in Beit-Lahiya on January 3rd, 2009, it was discovered that as opposed to the claims, the mosque was not attacked at all. Furthermore, it was found that the supposed uninvolved civilians who were the casualties of the attack were in fact Hamas operatives killed while fighting against the IDF.[4]  832. Apart from the apparent contradictions it contains, the Mission notes that the statement does not indicate in any way the nature of the inquiry, the source of its information or the reliability and credibility of such sources.  833. In July 2009 the Israeli Government repeated the same position.[5]   3. Factual findings  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 fitted 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.[6]  835. The strike killed at least 15 people attending the mosque for prayers and very seriously injured several others.  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.  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.[7] 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.  4. Legal findings  838. In the absence of any explanation as to the circumstances that led to the missile strike on al-Maqadmah mosque and taking into account the credible and reliable accounts the Mission heard from multiple witnesses, as well as the matters it could review for itself by visiting the site, the Mission concludes that the mosque was intentionally targeted by the Israeli armed forces.  The Mission also takes into account the precision and sophistication of the Israeli armed forces’ munitions in making this finding.  839. The Mission’s finding is strengthened in the face of the unsatisfactory and demonstrably false position of the Israeli Government.  840. It follows that this was an attack on the civilian population as such and not on a military objective.  841. Based on the facts ascertained, the Mission finds that the Israeli armed forces have violated the prohibition under customary international law that the civilian population as such will not be the object of attacks as reflected in article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I.  842. Based on those facts, the violations also constitute a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of wilful killings and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons.  843. The Mission also finds that the State of Israel would be responsible for the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, in relation to article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of those killed. [1] Note, for example, the affidavit of Ismail al-Salawi, brother of the sheikh at the mosque. He recounts how he was on his way to the mosque when his 13-year-old daughter ran towards him screaming that it had been bombed. He rushed in to find a scene of bloody chaos. As an immediate result of the strike his grandson Muhammad (13 years old), his nephews Hani (8years old) and Omar (27 years old) were killed. See also a similar explanation of events by Ayisha Ibrahim, whose husband, Abdul Rahman (46), and son Ra’id were killed in the attack. [2] Sheikh al-Salawi, interviewed on 3 June 2009 and 4 July 2009. [3] See, for example, Sheikh al-Salawi at the public hearing in Gaza on 27 July 2009, available at http://www.realnetworks.com [4] “Conclusions of investigations into central claims and issues in Operation Cast Lead”, 22 April 2009, annex C. The document was approved and authorized by the Chief of the General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. It is available at: http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/opcast/postop/press/2201.htm [5] “The operation in Gaza…” [6] 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 anti- tank (AHEAT) or high-explosive dual-purpose (HEDP). [7] See, for example, statements made by Israel in “The operation in Gaza…”, para. 234.
Comments (9)
Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2
|
I love pretty much anything with studs. If I could wear a wardrobe covered in studs from head to toe I probably would. So of course I did a double take for this Anthro
studded leather bag. Of course I would prefer it in black with silver studs, but now I’m just being picky.
At $528 it is chanel handbags 2009 way out of my
budget, so I think I’ll drag chanel designer
handbags my studded Kooba bag out of the closet for chanel handbag a week or so and hope it helps me forget replica chanel handbags about the Streetslight bag.
Tignanello's Perfect 10 small channel handbags tote
is a smartly styled bag that features replica chanel
supple, pebble leather, a hidden magnetic coach
handbags snap closure, and silver-tone buckle embellishments. coach handbag outlet Double rolled straps and silver-tone hardware coach bag feet on the bottom of the bag coach leather handbag provide added durability. This chic tote is perfect for coach signature handbag everyday use and adds subtle
style to your ...