But, B’Tselem noted, the results of the Israeli military’s investigations into its own actions in that unprecedented operation in Gaza were “meager”.

B’Tselem noted that during Operation Cast Lead:

“damage to the civilian population in Gaza was colossal: Israeli security forces killed 1,391 Palestinians, at least 759 of whom (including 318 minors under age 18) were civilians who had not been taking part in the hostilities. More than 5,300 Palestinians were injured, at least 350 of them seriously. The operation also caused extensive damage to homes, industrial plants and the agricultural sector, in addition to the electricity, sanitation, water, and health infrastructure that had already been on the brink of collapse due to Israel’s siege on Gaza. According to UN estimates, the military destroyed more than 3,500 homes, leaving some 20,000 persons homeless”.

B’Tselem noted that it had just received its third update from the military on 1 January, although:

“After the operation ended, B’Tselem and other human rights organizations wrote to the attorney general, demanding that he establish an independent body for investigating the military’s actions during the operation. The attorney general rejected the demand, stating that the military had acted in accordance with international humanitarian law. In addition, he stated that military units were holding operational inquiries into incidents in which civilians had been harmed, and that the findings would be forwarded to the military advocate general and to the attorney general for a decision whether to pursuer further action in each case … B’Tselem wrote to the MAG Corps demanding that he order criminal investigations into 20 cases in which the organization’s research indicated suspected breaches of international humanitarian law. In total, these cases involved the killing of 92 Palestinians and the use of three Palestinian civilians as human shields.
No substantive reply was received. However, the Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) contacted B’Tselem to request assistance in advancing its investigations … At the MPIU’s request, B’Tselem helped arrange the arrival of witnesses for questioning in each of the ten cases. The organization also provided investigators with medical reports and other documents relating to the cases. Only in September 2010, more than a year and a half after the operation, did the MPIU request assistance in arranging the questioning of members of the Samuni family, regarding the incident in which 21 members of their family, including children, had been killed. Since then, B’Tselem has received no requests from the MPIU regarding any of the cases. The MAG Corps recently informed B’Tselem that another investigation had been opened, raising the total number of investigations opened into cases researched by the organization to 11 … It was not until 1 January 2012, almost three years after the end of the operation, that the MAG Corps sent B’Tselem an update regarding hundreds of complaints that that organization had submitted over the past decade and more, including those relating to Operation Cast Lead”.

But, B’Tselem wrote, in an information note published here today, said that the “meager results” of the military investigations were not surprising:

“Three years after the end of the operation, the dozens of MPIU [Military Police Investigation Unit] investigations opened into cases of harm to civilians have yet to yield results. The Military Advocate General Corps has created a haze around them, preventing any possibility of examining their effectiveness. The Corps’ responses to B’Tselem, combined with media reports, indicate that three indictments have been filed against soldiers who took part in the operation: for theft of a credit card from a Palestinian civilian, for use of a nine-year-old Palestinian child as a human shield, and for ‘manslaughter of an anonymous person’.

In three other cases, disciplinary action alone was taken. Two officers were disciplined for firing explosive shells that struck an UNRWA facility; three officers were disciplined for shelling the al-Maqadmeh Mosque, in which 15 Palestinians were killed, nine of them civilians; and one officer was disciplined for the use of Palestinian civilian Majdi ‘Abd Rabo as a human shield, after the Adalah organization wrote to the MAG Corps demanding an investigation into the case.

The investigations were all opened at a very late stage – the first, to B’Tselem knowledge, in October 2009, a full ten months after the operation had ended. At present, three years after the operation, there is hardly a chance that investigations will lead to further indictments. There has never been a serious investigation into the suspicions raised by B’Tselem and additional Israeli, Palestinian and international organizations regarding breaches of international humanitarian law by the military during the operation.

Most of B’Tselem’s demands for investigation were not met. The investigations that were opened did not, to B’Tselem’s knowledge, address the responsibility of high-ranking commanders, but rather focused on the conduct of individual soldiers. Israel’s choice to investigate only isolated incidents, and not the military’s conduct as a whole during the operation, gives cause for concern that persons responsible for extremely grave breaches of law have not been questioned. Among the issues that have not been investigated are the following:
The policy that guided the forces during the offensive;
the legality of the orders given to the soldiers;
the choice of targets for bombing;
the means taken to protect the civilian population.
These questions lie at the very heart core of international humanitarian law. Their resolution is vital to examining the legality of the military’s conduct during Operation Cast Lead”.

Bashi wrote that: “In the six years in which Gisha has been providing legal assistance to Palestinians, the High Court justices have yet to deliver a decision that goes against classified material presented by the Internal Security Agency (Shin Bet)“.

She added that “Experience shows that information about security risks can be based on [1] statements made by collaborators trying to please their handlers, and [2] people can be accused as security risks based on non-violent political activism, [3] a refusal to serve as a collaborator for the ISA [Israeli Security Agency], [4] a relative’s actions against the State of Israel, and [5] even because of the mere fact that a relative was injured or killed by the military, rendering the entire family suspect of wanting to seek revenge. And yes, it’s safe to assume that [6] in some cases the classified material does contain concrete evidence of violent actions.“.

One case taken on by GISHA illustrates how this secret evidence is used: a Palestinian man was arrested in 2010, but then, on the basis of secret evidence, was taken out of prison and sent by the military to Gaza — expelled, exiled, deported — an action that was upheld by the Israeli Supreme Court on the basis of secret evidence:

You can’t sell Bakr Haffi’s case to the mainstream media, and you can’t win it in the Israeli High Court of Justice. The 38-year-old Palestinian man, a bee keeper by trade, has not seen his wife and two daughters for two years. It all began when he was arrested in his home in Tulkarem in the northern West Bank on suspicion of being a Hamas activist. After a month of interrogation that yielded no results, a military judge ordered his release. But instead of releasing him back to his home and family in Tulkarem, the military removed him to the Gaza Strip, which is listed as his place of residence in the Israeli-administered Palestinian population registry. Israel refuses to recognize relocation from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, even for people like Bakr, who moved to the West Bank back in 1999 and established a family there”.

So, it appears — and, can it be so? — that although an Israeli military judge in an Israeli military court in the West Bank ordered this man’s release, other military officers ordered the man to be taken to Gaza. In the current circumstances, this is a one-way ticket, with no possibility of return to the West Bank [although, under all the important agreements of the Oslo process, signed by Israel and the P.L.O. in the mid-1990s. the West Bank and Gaza were specifically said to constitute a single political unit ... What happened to change that? Ariel Sharon's unilateral "disengagement" which removed 8,000 Israeli settlers, and the military + security forces protecting them, from Gaza in September 2005...]

What is not entirely clear is whether the military judge knew what was about to happen, or maybe even ordered Bakr’s removal to Gaza as part of his ruling to release him from detention? Or, did another branch of the military take it upon itself to, in effect, make its own ruling on Bakr’s fate, regardless of what the military judge decided.

Bashi continued, in her article:

It has been two years since Bakr was removed from his home. He now relies on his brother in Gaza for financial support and hasn’t seen his wife and daughters, now aged 2 and 3.5, for two years. Bakr’s wife and daughters have become dependent on the charity of welfare officials in the West Bank. The girls no longer know who their father is.

Bakr’s case has exhausted every legal procedure that Israel’s occupation bureaucracy has to offer. He requested legal assistance from Gisha, and we contacted the army on his behalf. We demanded and received a hearing at Erez Crossing, where we noted that his release from detention in 2010 was specifically due to lack of evidence. We mentioned a prior arrest, in 2003, for car theft, for which he was charged and convicted, and he served his sentence. We asked that if there is any evidence against him now, let it be presented, so that we can respond. We emphasized that the army apparently recognized Bakr’s residency in the West Bank, because in 2006, after he was previously removed from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip, he was granted a permit to enter Israel in order to return to the West Bank. The permit was valid for a month. We raised questions about the “risk” posed by a man who received a month-long permit to enter Israel, including overnight stay. When the military issued its final refusal, we submitted a petition to the High Court of Justice.

You can’t win Bakr’s case in the High Court of Justice, and there is no chance of getting public support for him through the mainstream media, because the state’s claim – that he is involved in hostile activity against Israel – is backed by secret information that will tip the scales against him … The law allows the army to present the alleged evidence against Bakr and charge him for any alleged crimes. Yet, as in so many other cases, the army prefers to use administrative measures, such as deporting a person and denying his or her return. These measures are based on evidence that never sees the light of day, and as such, cannot be refuted. Bakr’s punishment: the break-up of his family. Bakr’s crime: we’ll never know.”

.

What happened in the most recent effort by GISHA: *Epilogue: On January 4, 2012, the Israeli High Court of Justice heard HCJ 3010/11 Bakr Haffi v. Minister of Defense. After reviewing the classified material, the justices rejected Bakr’s request to return to his family in Tulkarem”.

This man remains exiled in Gaza.

Bashi’s post about this case was translated into English, and published by +972 magazine on 9 January, here.

Thanks to Adam Horowitz of Mondoweiss, who posted this video here.

Here is a summary of some of the significant statements made – about 7 – 8 minutes into the video:

“I came to tell about those people who escaped and did not return to their land … We shot our guns and they fled to Gaza. We surrounded them from all directions Shot in the air or at them and they ran away. They had nothing to defend. They knew they had to go to Gaza. They knew the directions better than we did. We shot our guns and they escaped to Gaza” …

The testimony continued [looser transcript]: The men fled first, the men were running first … and we then expelled the women and children, they went to Gaza … In 1951 Moshe Dayan, IDF Chief of staff, ordered the expulsion of the remaining 2000 Arabs from Ashkelon together with the people of Huj … The people in Gaza wanted to return to their villages some returned at night to tend their grapevines in the dunes north of Gaza … we waited for them and we would shoot at them and kill them … Why did none of your friends not see this? Why only you and a few individuals reached these conclusions, and the others did not? I have no clear answer for that other than that we were praised so highly, so every person who was in the Palmach thought he was a hero, and they got drunk from that. I have no other explanation”.

The 22-day operation was launched at 11:30 am or so, on 27 December 2008. In the first strikes, some 250 Hamas police were mowed down at their police academy graduation ceremony in Gaza City. The debate continues over whether they were legitimate military targets, or not [many international lawyers say no].

Will sirens sound today in the streets of the West Bank, or even of Gaza? Will people stop and get out of their cars, to stand in memory of the lives lost?

And, how will the day be marked in Israel?

Israeli military spokespersons and government officials said that the target of this massive and unprecedented military operation was Hamas.

They say that Hamas was the “address” in the Gaza Strip, the political movement that could be held responsible [following its rout of Fatah/Palestinian Authority Preventive Security Forces in mid-June 2007] for any and all rocket, mortar and missile attacks.

Hamas, it was argued, was in charge of a physical space whose status has been defined [in the wake of Israel's unilateral "disengagement" in September 2005 of some 8,000 settlers and the troops protecting] by leading Israeli experts on international law as a sui generis [of itself / unique to itself] entity — and whose population 0f some 1.5 million people is almost exclusively Palestinian.

More than half of the population of Gaza are children. Some 2/3 to 3/4 of the population are refugees who fled or who were expelled during the fighting that surrounded the creation of the state of Israel in 1948

Operation Cast Lead was carried out on a trapped population with nowhere to flee — all borders were closed.

The dropping of leaflets by Israeli airplanes warning of some of the upcoming strikes did not offer any information about where to seek refuge — they did not even say exactly which areas were about to be attacked. They simply added to the confusion and terror.

In the annals of warfare, the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead was not a war. It was a military operation, with vague aims that were, in the end, not achieved.

In grief and despair at the time, I wrote that it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Gilad Shalit was not released until negotiations with Hamas– which had started well before Operation Cast Lead — were concluded this year.

The firing of rocket, mortar and missile firing from Gaza on surrounding areas of Israeli population and territory continues until this day, though sporadically and diminished — despite the agreement even at a recent Fatah-Hamas reconciliation summit in Cairo in November, in which Hamas signed on to join the popular non-violent resistance being backed by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank [though Abbas did not launch the current non-violent strategy.

The IDF's Operation Cast Lead was ordered by Israel's "political echelon", by popular demand, aided and abetted by the Israeli media.

Operation Cast Lead ended with two parallel cease-fires -- one declared by Israel at the request of Barack Obama who was sworn into office just hours after it went into effect at 2am local time on 18 January 2009, the other one declared by Hamas to allow the Israeli ground troops to withdraw.

Maybe it can be said that one lasting "achievement" of Operation Cast Lead was the recognition of the need to turn to human rights instruments and norms to institute a "real" announced and declared naval blockade of the Gaza Strip on the night of 3-4 January 2009, as the ground phase of Operation Cast Lead got underway.

Another achievement, the growing [though not yet universal] recognition that this kind of massive use of force, against an essentially defenseless population, no matter how deep the enmity, should never be authorized again.

Therefore, I have only read about the relatively new phenomena of Hamas press cards.

I first saw one in Bethlehem on Thursday night: a journalist colleague + friend showed me her one-year Hamas press card [issued, as de rigeur, after a first temporary Hamas press card valid for a couple of months].

It was issued by the Hamas-run Palestinian Ministry of Interior in Gaza.

One of the most striking things about it: it includes a one-year residence permit, in Gaza…

21:15 pm: At least one of the Palestinian prisoners released today, a woman who is now in Gaza, was on the hunger strike that began on 27 September — Wafa al-Bis was hospitalized in Gaza tonight, according to a report by WAFA picked up and posted here. It seems that she was one of the women prisoners who initially refused to be released into Gaza, if I correctly understood earlier Tweet by @dimaeleiwa.

19:05 pm: Just realized, listening to replay of Noam Shalit’s remarks to public in Mitzpe Hila, he said his son Gilad suffers from lack of sunlight [that was kind of obvious today], from after-effects of shrapnel wounds [how did he get these shrapnel wounds?] , and from isolation — including because he did not speak the language and could not communicate with OTHER PRISONERS. What OTHER PRISONERS was Gilad Shalit held with?

18:15 pm:: Live event in Gaza, address by Hamas’ Ismail Haniyah shouting angrily — apparently in answer to criticism that Hamas has benefitted — by saying that all factions were consulted and involved, Palestinians are one people. Al Jazeera [+ some other TV channels] break away from Haniyeh speech just after he says Chris Bandak, a Palestinian Christian [from Bethlehem] who had been serving three [3] life sentences “is now here with us”. Al Jazeera International goes directly to public remarks being made in Mitzpe Hila in northern Israel by Noam Shalit, Gilad’s father, who mentioned that his son still suffers from shrapnel injuries [shrapnel? Couldn't have been from the operation when he was captured, could it? Was it, instead, from IDF's Operation Cast Lead? -- there were reports he had been injured] and from having been in near-total isolation…

16:30 pm: IDF says Gilad Shalit has completed medical exams and will fly to family home in Mizpe Hila soon. Arrived after 17h00 — holding up well, greeted by crowd waving lots of large Israeli flags. Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister said that 10 released Palestinian prisoners are being flown from Cairo to Turkey — for 5-year stay! UPDATE: Palestinian TV reports on night news that the Turkish FM had a phone conversation today with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

13:30 pm: Wrote too soon: Israeli PM Netanyahu speaking now, somewhere, though I’m sorry I have no idea what he’s saying [in Hebrew] … Glad to learn that Shalit and his family didn’t have to stay to listen!

12:46 pm: I must say, in every appearance, Gilad Shalit looks like a lovely and very likeable person.

This photo is posted by the IDF on their Flickr page, here.

12:30 pm: Thank God, after speeches, etc.. most of it is now over, and release was achieved, at least for some…

11:50 am: Palestinian TV shows Mahmoud Abbas standing in receiving line individually greeting released prisoners who then go in small groups to Arafat’s tomb to pray. Recorded music playing inside Muqata’a grounds, crowd waving flags, clapping or moving with music, but restrained, have not yet seen prisoners…

11:44 am: Released Palestinian prisoners reportedly arrive in Rafah and in Ramallah’s Muqata’a

11:30 am: Apparently, Palestinian prisoners released to West Bank were not seen at Ofer Prison, where friends and families were waiting, but instead taken to the terrible, awful, disgraceful Qalandia checkpoint. Those disappointed at Ofer reacted angrily, were then teargassed [via Twitter sources]

11:15 am: Palestinian TV now showing Egyptian TV interview w/ Gilad Shalit, in civilian clothes. Egyptian woman with British overlay on accent puts questions in English, Shalit answers in Hebrew… When she asks him why he was only allowed to communicate once with his family, he almost loses composure. She says ok, tries to move on… He reportedly says he missed his family and speaking with his friends, and also that in the future he hopes to work for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Then, Palestinian TV again showing split screens of Rafah and the Muqata’a field in Ramallah, Palestinians still waiting for arrival of released Palestinians.

11:09 am: Israeli air activity overhead now, again [heard in north Jerusalem]… not too far from Tel Nof air base…

11:05 am: An IDF soldier now Tweets that Shalit is in Israel — now confirmed by @SachaDratwa.

11:00 am: IDF French-lang. spox @SachaDratwa denies on Twitter that Shalit is on Israeli territory, yet [despite BBC Breaking News report a few minutes earlier...]

10:47 am: Palestinian TV still shows people waiting for arrival of released prisoners. PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is also head of the PLO, was scheduled to greet the prisoners being released into the West Bank at 10:00 — journalists were asked to be in the Muqata’a by 8:30 am, of course – though the notice anticipated that there could be some delay. The NYTimes has just reported here that five empty busses were waiting at Rafah crossing to receive the incoming prisoners [only about half of whom are actually from Gaza], and added that “Atallah Abu al-Sebah, Hamas’s minister of prisoners’ affairs, said the prisoners released in Gaza would first be greeted inside the Rafah crossing by 200 officials and up to four members of each prisoner’s family. There would be a ‘short official reception’, including the Palestinian national anthem. Mr. Sebah said that any prisoners who needed accommodation, including those who did not have families in the strip, would be put up in hotels for one month, irrespective of whether they were associated with Hamas, Fatah or other factions. They would then be moved to apartments being prepared for them around Gaza”…
The press release from Amnesty International mentioned below also says that “While the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are internationally recognised as a single territorial unit under the Oslo Accords and international humanitarian law, the Israeli authorities do not allow Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip access to the West Bank or vice versa. These Palestinians will thus be entirely cut off from their family members with no possibility of visits. Finally, 41 prisoners, including one woman, will be exiled abroad. Most of them are serving life sentences. It is unclear whether they are being exiled permanently or will be allowed to return to their homes in the OPT at some point in the future. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from forcibly transferring or deporting people from an occupied territory. In the event that those prisoners being exiled abroad or transferred to Gaza from the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have not given their consent, Israel would be violating its obligations under international humanitarian law”…

10:34 am: – Palestinian TV still shows crowds waiting for prisoner release. A few minutes ago, IDF spox officially confirmed that “Sgt 1st Class” Shalit has been identified, prisoner exchange to begin. [Shalit was promoted three times by the IDF during his years in captivity, recently to Sgt Major, which must be what Sgt 1st Class means...] A Haaretz photo picked up from Egyptian TV video shows a stressed [understandably] Shalit. In addition to all the other sources of stress, most people involved in today’s events have probably been awake and up all night, perhaps for several days…

10:20 am: The BBC is live-blogging today’s events here, as “Mid-East Prisoner Exchange”. Via Twitter sources: Egypt has reportedly agreed to accept one or both of the Palestinian female prisoners who refused to be sent to Gaza.

10:00 am: A press release from Amnesty International says today’s events cast a “harsh light” on detention practices of all sides involved: “The prisoner exchange involving Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and 477 Palestinian prisoners highlights the need for the humane treatment of all detainees in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), Amnesty International said today … Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Director, said that “more needs to be done to protect the rights of thousands of others who remain in detention. The Israeli authorities, the Hamas de facto administration in Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank must seize this opportunity to ensure respect for the rights of all prisoners and detainees in their custody … International human rights standards and international humanitarian law guarantee every person deprived of liberty the right to humane and dignified conditions of detention, adequate medical care, and regular family visits … Israel, the Hamas de facto administration, and the Palestinian Authority must ensure that all detainees receive fair and prompt trials meeting international standards, and that judicial rulings on the release of detainees are implemented” … Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the Hamas authorities not to treat Gilad Shalit as a hostage and a bargaining chip, in violation of their obligations under international humanitarian law. It has also consistently raised concerns with the Israeli authorities about the prison conditions of Palestinian detainees, and the fact that Israel continues to imprison Palestinians from the OPT inside Israel, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Over 5,200 Palestinians from the West Bank – including East Jerusalem – and the Gaza Strip, which together comprise the OPT [occupied Palestinian territory, the term standardized by the International Court of Justice in its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Israel's Construction of The Wall], are currently detained in facilities run by the Israel Prison Service. The vast majority are detaiined inside Israel”. [Addameer Director Sahar Francis said at a PLO press conference in Ramallah last week that all Palestinian prisoners are held in Israeli jails under Israeli jurisdiction -- she specifically noted that although Ofer military prison is in the West Bank, it is in an area that Israel considers to be part of the Greater Jerusalem Municipality.]

9:50 am: Shalit reportedly spoke fluent Arabic to Egyptian officials during transfer — good for him! This is reported in various places, including on +972 Magazine’s live blog of today’s events, here … BBC reports that Shalit has also just spoken to his parents [in Hebrew, for sure] on the phone…

9:34 am: Air activity overhead for past half-hour or so, heard one helicopter, several heavier planes. Palestinian TV showing split screen with live shots of people waiting at Rafah [Gaza] and Beitunia [West Bank].

9:29 am: Israeli TV reportedly informs its viewers that 2 female Palestinian prisoners are refusing to enter Gaza from the Kerem Shalom crossing. [[But three female names were given: Mariam al-Tarabeen [al-Arabiya] and “amna el saadi and qahera el saadat” [via Twitter sources] … later updated by @dimaeleiwa as follows: “Only wafaa el bis will come to #Gaza and mariam el tarabini will go to the #WB”… the fog of transfer…]] Also reported by Haaretz, here — the ICRC, as part of its role — and all sides have been using the ICRC this morning — must ask those slated for deportation/exile if they agree to this. If the Palestinian prisoners refuse to agree, it’s not clear what will happen…

9:10 am: Everything has gone silent for about 30 minutes. Latest message says Shalit reportedly now in Israeli Army uniform. Richard Silverstein writes here on his blog, Tikkun Olam: “what’s missing from this picture? The fact that Israel, thanks to its superior military power, can apprehend those who kill its soldiers and civilians, throw them in jail and then release them if it chooses. Palestine has no such power to arrest Israeli settlers and soldiers who’ve killed Palestinian civilians. And until now, no international tribunal has been willing to do this either. There are as many or more Israelis with Palestinian blood on their hands as there are Palestinians with Israeli blood. The former, however, are not held accountable … The obsession with two Israeli prisoners to the exclusion of all else further displays the ethnocentrism of the world media. We care about Israelis facing such predicaments. Arabs, not so much. We care about Israeli victims of Palestinian terror. Palestinian victims of Israeli terror, not so much. If we care about terror and its victims, as we should, we must care about victims on both sides”. [But, ethnocentrism? Is that what it is?]

8:31 am: Shalit is still in Kerem Shalom undergoing Israeli evaluation, despite IDF spox email sent 15 minutes earlier in error saying he had left Kerem Shalom for reunion with his family at Tel Nof Airbase near Jerusalem.

7:59 am: “Now that Shalit is in Egypt, Israel releases Palestinian prisoners to ICRC custody”.

7:42: 16 Palestinian prisoners who will be released to East Jerusalem are on their way in heavily guarded convoy from Ofer Prison — “to Metzudat Adumim, for release at that point” — apparently this is “a police station near Maale Adumim, according to the Haaretz live blog of the swap, here, which also reports that “with this, the role of the Israel Prisons Service has ended”. But, has it? The Haaretz live blog also notes that “One prisoner will be moved taken to the Katzrin police [n.b. - this is in the Golan Heights, will someone be transferred by the ICRC through Israel-Syrian lines here, perhaps on the way to Jordan? If so, why not across the Allenby Bridge? No, someone must be going to Syria or some other place, perhaps Turkey?]; two prisoners will arrive at Ayalon Prison and will be released in Lod, and three prisoners that were moved to Megido Prison are residents of Wadi Ara” … The Haaretz live blog adds that “Female Palestinian terrorist Amna Muna, who was supposed to be deported abroad as part of prisoner exchange deal, will instead be deported to Gaza” — perhaps she told the ICRC that she did not agree to leave the oPt???

7:33 am: After many conflicting reports from various media and Hamas + Egyptian officials, Israel Radio confirms that Gilad Shalit is at Kerem Shalom “in Egyptian hands – out of Hamas captivity”.

6:44 am: report that International Committee of the Red Cross has confirmed that identification process for all prisoners slated for release has been completed.

A photo from Orten Zvi of Activestills is posted on Flickr, here. A Tweet says that an Israeli soldier inside Ofer Prison is telling the waiting Palestinian family and friends of prisoners being released that if they don’t take down the Palestinian flag they have put on the prison fence, the busses with prisoners will not leave the prison…

6:20 am: one or more busses of Palestinian prisoners waiting at Kerem Shalom crossing [at the Israeli-Egyptian Sinai border just south of Gaza, near where IDF soldier Gilad Shalit was captured in June 2006]. Others are at Ofer Prison + Army base near Beitunia, just south-west of Ramallah [this is clearly in the West Bank, but it is right on Israel's Road 443, and Israel considers it to be in the Greater Jerusalem Municipal area...]

At 4:15 am, the first message arrived: Palestinian prisoners heading to West Bank release, other prisoners preparing.

Earalier, Haaretz reported in another story that “the spokesperson for the military wing of Hamas, Abu Obeida, said on Monday that Israeli and Egyptian representatives would meet once a year in order to estimate the status of the 40 prisoners due to be deported overseas. Abu Obeida said that, according to the deal’s terms, some of the deportees will return to the West Bank following several years abroad. He also said that Israel at first demanded that 260 Palestinian prisoners be deported, a number which Hamas narrowed down to the final 40. The Hamas official also claimed that each and every of those scheduled to be deported has agreed to the move, as well as their respective families. He claimed Hamas was successful in receiving 90% of its demands”. This is reported here.

However, Ma’an News Agency reported here that “In a statement relayed by his lawyer Elias Sabagh, [prominent Fatah prisoner Marwan] Barghouti said he had learned of the deal from media reports. Prison leaders — including Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine secretary-general Ahmad Saadat — were not involved in negotiations, Barghouti said. Further, prisoners who will be exiled under the agreement were not informed of the decision. Over 200 prisoners will not be released to their homes, but will be deported to Gaza or abroad”.

The list of Palestinian prisoners who are being released in this first installment of the two-part deal to free a total of 1027 Palestinians, in exchange for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, is posted on the website of the Israeli Prison Service, here.

The Israeli Prison Service website notes that:
- “Prisoners number 1 to 131 on the list will return to their home in the Gaza Strip.
- Prisoners 132 to 186 will return to their home in Judea & Samaria [the West Bank] or in East Jerusalem.
- Prisoners 187 to 241 will return to their home in Judea & Samaria [the West Bank] or in East Jerusalem subject to restrictions, as specified in the agreement.
- Prisoners 242 to 281 will be sent abroad.
- Prisoners 282 to 299 will be sent to the Gaza Strip for three years.
- Prisoners 300 to 444 will be sent to the Gaza Strip.
- Prisoners 445 to 450 will return to their home in Israel.
- Prisoners (female) 451 to 477 will return to their home in Judea & Samaria, in the Gaza Strip and in East Jerusalem, except prisoner 473, who will be sent to Jordan, and prisoner 474, who will be sent to the Gaza Strip”.

Only 27 out of some 35 or so female prisoners are being released.

The Defence for Children International [DCI] organization noted here, that no children, none, are being released in this first installment — contrary to initial reports and expectations. According to DCI-Palestine, there are 164 Palestinian children now in Israeli jails [and notes that "seventy-six of these children have been sentenced, whilst 88 children are being held in pre-trial detention"], while ADDAMEER has listed 176 Palestinian child prisoners.

The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem lists its statistics here.

Two Palestinian human rights organizations issued a statement Tuesday to highlight their concerns and condemn those aspects of the deal that are fundamentally at odds with international law”.

Sahar Francis, Director of one of the groups, the Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, noted that “of the first 477 prisoners to be released, 205 of them will not be reunited with their families as their release has been made contingent on their deportation or transfer, both of which are in violation of international law. Of the West Bank prisoners, including East Jerusalemites, 18 will be transferred to the Gaza Strip for a period of three years while an additional 146 will be forcibly relocated there on a permanent basis. A further 41 prisoners, including one woman, will be deported outside of the oPt, to as-of-yet unknown third countries”.

She said that this exile, whether in Gaza or in other countries, “effectively serves as an extension of their previous isolation from their homeland and families and in many cases can be seen as a second prison sentence”, and added that “These terms violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits forcible transfers and deportations of protected persons, a proscription that is part of customary international humanitarian law. Unlawful deportation or transfer also constitutes a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) and qualifies as one of the most serious war crimes. Given the stark asymmetry in power, resulting from the belligerent occupation, between the Palestinian and Israeli parties involved, neither the potential ‘consent’ of the prisoners nor the fact that the deal was negotiated by a Palestinian authority can serve as justification for the deportations as this contravenes the spirit of articles 7, 8 and 47 of the GC IV concerning the inviolability of the protections afforded by the Convention”.

The statement, also signed by Shawan Jabarin, Director of Al-Haq, added that “These political prisoners—arrested on the basis of Israeli military orders that criminalize any form of opposition to the occupation; tried by Israeli military tribunals that do not conform to international due process standards or held in administrative detention without charge or trial; and imprisoned in harsh and illegal detention conditions that have recently led them to launch an open-ended hunger strike—are entitled to justice. Before the attention they have received as a result of the exchange deal wanes, it is imperative to demand a fair and permanent resolution to their plight, in the form of unconditional release, in compliance with international humanitarian law”.

What will happen if the ICRC interviews these released prisoner who are supposed to be sent into exile, and asks them if they agree — but they say No? Will they be returned to prison?

Deportation is also a very grave violation of Phase One of the Road Map, adopted in 2003 by the Quartet [U.S., E.U., Russia, and the UN] which both Israel and the Palestinians are [or were] supposed to fulfill…

But Hamas has not accepted the Road Map.

There has been no independent medical visit — and no lawyers visits, either — to the Palestinian hunger-striking prisoners, who are now in their 20th day of an open-ended fast.

This is entering the danger zone. By the 21st day, a hunger strike can be life-threatening.

UPDATE TWO: Ma’an reports Tuesday here that prisoners gathered in one Israeli prison had only suspended their hunger strike for 3 days. An SMS from Ma’an just reported that although PFLP leader Ahmad Saadat was moved out of isolation into a regular cell at Ramle prison, he is continuing his hunger strike. Earlier reports, yesterday, were that Ahmad Saadat was moved to the Ramle prison hospital…

UPDATE: This evening [Monday], the Palestinian Authority Minister for Prisoner Affairs, Issa Qaraqaa, reportedly announced that the hunger strike was ending, as the Israelis have agreed to end the policy of solitary confinement… On Sunday, one of the more senior Palestinian prisoners, PFLP leader Ahmad Saadat, was moved to a prison hospital as his health reportedly deteriorated. Reuters reported that Qaraqaa “said that inmates not being released had ended a hunger strike as part of the deal after Israel agreed to return their conditions to what they were prior to Shalit’s abduction”. This is reported here.

A PLO briefing about the Palestinian prisoner’s hunger strike was held last week, in response to public restiveness over the hunger strike, which has barely, if at all, made it into the Israeli or mainstream Western media.

At this PLO briefing, the mainstream media (2 or 3 French journalists, actually) only wanted to know whether Hamas won and Abbas lost, in the prisoner exchange deal that is expected to bring Shalit back home to Israel.

In his five+ years in captivity (Shalit was 19 when he was seized), he has had no visit from any independent outside observer, including the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC], and had only two long-delayed exchanges of letters with his family.

Haaretz reported this evening here that “Shalit, now 25, was captured in 2006 by militants who tunneled into Israel from the Gaza Strip and surprised his tank crew, killing two of his comrades … Israel’s Prison Service has bused the 477 Palestinian prisoners under heavy guard to two holding facilities ahead of their release. On Tuesday, some of the Palestinians will be brought to Egypt’s Sinai desert, where the exchange for Shalit will take place. Some of those prisoners will be taken to the Gaza Strip and others will be exiled abroad. Shalit will be flown to an air base in Israel to be reunited with his family. A smaller group of prisoners on the release roster will be taken from Israel to the West Bank, where they will be welcomed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Hamas rival, and their families. In the second stage, expected to take place in about two months, the remaining 550 Palestinian prisoners will be freed, officials said”.

At the PLO press conference in Ramallah last week, Palestinian human rights attorney Sahar Francis [Director of ADDAMEER] said that since a deal has been made to release Gilad Shalit, there is no reason for Israel to continue the punitive reprisal measures instituted in recent months against Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails (instituted as retaliation for Shalit’s isolation and continued captivity).

Sahar Francis said that the ICRC should in principle have access — but she added that the ICRC has told ADDAMEER that they have only one — one! — medical doctor here, who can hardly visit all 22 prisons in Israel where Palestinians are being held.

So far, Sahar said, the ICRC doctor has only gone to the medical offices at the Israeli prisons where Palestinian hunger-strikers are being held, and merely reviewed the medical records provided by the Israeli Prison Service, without any physical examination — or even seeing the patients… On top of that, the ICRC has not revealed what it found, on the basis of its usual practice of “confidentiality”, which helps the Swiss organization to maintain its neutrality, and [it believes] its access.

Some prisoners have been moved to formerly empty prisons, to isolate them during their hunger strike, she added.

A day later, ADDAMEER issued a statement of extreme concern about the condition of Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike during 3-day shut-down from Thursday 13 October, for Jewish holiday of Sukkot + Jewish Shabbat weekend, saying that “until at least Sunday 16 Oct, there will be no independent monitoring of, or contact with, hunger striking prisoners”, and that until Sunday at the earliest “it will be impossible to verify if salt has been returned to prisoners”. ADDAMEER therefore urged “the ICRC to intervene with the Israeli Prison Service to allow them to visit prisons during the Sukkot holidays”. That apparently did not happen.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel said they had tried without success to make medical visits to Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli jails, and that 26 Israeli physicians + 16 interpreters volunteered to examine Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike, but their formal request [submitted 4 October] to enter prisons was denied [on 11 October] — but will be resubmitted. “We call on the Israeli Prison Service [IPS] to refrain from causing further harm to prisoners participating in hunger strike” + closely monitor their medical conditions. PHR-Israel said that the Israeli Prison Service should provide professional medical assistance to hunger-strike prisoners “as needed + as agreed by the individual”. According to PHR-Israel: over 300 Palestinian prisoners are now on open hunger strike with no fixed end date, who will continue “until demands are met or lives are lost”.

These are strong and dire warnings from ADDAMEER and from Physicians for Human Rights-Israel about the situation of Palestinian prisoners now on hunger strike in Israeli jails.

PHR-Israel noted that hunger strikes bring ethical dilemmas, including the issue of force-feeding shackled prisoners, and dual loyalty of physicians employed by the Prisons Service. Dr. Ruhama Marton, who founded PHR-Isr, said the organization was trying to ensure there won’t be force-feeding of Pal prisoners on hunger strikes. She added that “Though hunger strikes contrarary to our principles as MDs dedicated to saving lives, we respect patients will”…

Yesterday (Sunday), the first day of the Israeli work week, PHR-Israel said they were still being denied access to the Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike.

The demands of the Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike were for a repeal to the punitive reprisal measures, in particular an end to solitary confinement, strip searches, use of force [including tear gas and beatings] against prisoners, and a return of the prior conditions (meaning to be allowed again to pursue educational studies, have books and reading materials, etc.)

The UN Report states that all nine appeared to have been unarmed.

The UN report, which the NYTimes posted on its website today here, says that “The events of 31 May 2010 should never have taken place as they did”.

It also says that “The incident and its outcomes were not intended by either Turkey or Israel … But more could have been done to warn the flotilla participants of the potential risks involved and to dissuade them from their actions”.

Gaza was allocated a maritime space for fishing and economic activities by agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], and a map defining this space as extending 20 nautical miles straight out into the Mediterranean is attached to 1994 and 1995 agreements signed under the Oslo process. The map is signed by Israel’s late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and by the PLO’s late leader Yasser Arafat — and it is also signed by the U.S. Secretary of State and by the Russian Foreign Minister, as well as a high-ranking member of the Egyptian military. And, plans for the construction of a deep sea port in Gaza were pointedly endorsed in a November 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access brokered by U.S. then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

But, despite the Israeli “disengagement” of its settlers and the military forces protecting them in September 2005, Israel has not loosened its military control over Gaza’s external boundaries, particularly Gazan air and sea space.

Israel tightened its imposition of sanctions after the surprise Hamas victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006, and the capture of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit from Kerem Shalom in late June 2006. then the Hamas rout of Fatah-led Palestinian Preventive Security Forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007. In September 2007, the Israeli Government declared Gaza an enemy entity, or hostile territory, and the Israeli military was given the task of devising a regime that would allow into Gaza only the bare minimum of humanitarian necessities –and it went into effect in late October 2007.

Throughout, there has been sporadic but indiscriminate firing by various militant groups from Gaza of mortars, rockets, and other projectiles onto surrounding Israeli territory. Over the years, there have been thousands of these projectile attacks on Israel, which Palestinians have explained as natural responses to Israeli strikes on Gaza, but which the UN as well as human rights bodies have denounced as war crimes. Though Hamas has not claimed responsibility for several years, and has many times acted to try to control these attacks, Israel maintains that Hamas is now running Gaza, and is the ultimate “address”.

The Free Gaza movement launched its first expedition by sea to Gaza in August 2008, with the aim of “breaking the siege”.

Israel explained that it decided to allow the ship to pass, in order to deny the activists on board a “propaganda victory”. But, several expeditions later, by December 2008, Israel threatened and indeed did use force, once badly damaging a vessel by ramming, in order to block passage.

Then, on the night of 3-4 January 2009, halfway through the Israeli military’s Operation Cast Lead — a massive three-week assault of overwhelming force on targets said to be related to Hamas — Israel declared its formal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The UN report states that “The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability…In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States”.

Specifically, the UN panel said it reviewed “statements from 93 individuals that were appended to the Turkish report, and excerpts of statements by IDF personnel engaged in the incident that were included in the Israeli report. In this regard, we stress again that the Panel is not a court. We have not personally heard the witnesses whose statements we have read. Nor are we able to make definite findings on each statement’s reliability and credibility. They are more plausible on some aspects than others. But in certain areas, when viewed as a whole, we regard them as useful material for the purposes of the Inquiry”.

The Panel said that it could not “make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view”.

On Israel’s formal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, where 1.5 million people are virtually sealed inside a small strip of land from which Israel unilaterally “disengaged” in September 2005, and on which Israel maintains a tight military control, the UN report says:

“The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law…[However]…Bearing in mind its consequences and the fundamental importance of the freedom of navigation on the high seas, Israel should keep the naval blockade under regular review, in order to assess whether it continues to be necessary…”
“All States should act with prudence and caution in relation to the imposition and enforcement of a naval blockade. The established norms of customary international law must be respected and complied with by all relevant parties…”
“The imposition of a naval blockade as an action in self-defence should be reported to the Security Council under the procedures set out under Article 51 of the Charter…”
“States maintaining a naval blockade must abide by their obligations with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance…”
“States enforcing a naval blockade against non-military vessels, especially where large numbers of civilian passengers are involved, should be cautious in the use of force. Efforts should first be made to stop the vessels by non-violent means. In particular, they should not use force except when absolutely necessary and then should only use the minimum level of force necessary to achieve the lawful objective of maintaining the blockade. They must provide clear and express warnings so that the vessels are aware if force is to be used against them…”

But, Sari Bashi, the Director of the Israeli human rights organization GISHA, which led a group of ten Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations in an unsuccessful effort to get Israel’s Supreme Court to stop the collective punishment involved in the Israeli military-imposed sanctions against the Gaza Strip, issued a statement this evening saying: “In a failed attempt to achieve political compromise, the Palmer Report squandered an opportunity to evaluate the overall Gaza closure policy, still in place today. Stopping ships to Gaza for reasons of security is legal – the civilian closure of Gaza is not”.

Bashi said that “Gisha shares the position of the Palmer Commission that international law allows Israel to stop ships on their way to Gaza for the purposes of security. Nonetheless, Gisha recalls that, in parallel, the law requires Israel to allow freedom of movement for people and civilian goods to and from the Strip, subject only to individual security inspections. The Palmer Commission did not review Israel’s overall closure of the Gaza Strip, still in place today. For it to conform to the principles of international law, Israel must remove the sweeping restrictions on export of goods, movement of people between Gaza and the West Bank and entrance of construction materials”.

In a separate fact sheet on the UN Report, posted here, GISHA argues that in its view the formal Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is not lawful: “In our opinion, the legality of the maritime closure must be considered in the context of the overall closure of the Gaza Strip, which is also enforced by air and land. In this context, Israel has failed to meet its legal obligations. It is a fundamental principle of international law that with control comes responsibility; this in order to avoid a situation where no side takes responsibility for the protection of civilians during wartime or in situations of occupation. Accordingly, the substantial control Israel exercises over the crossings into the Gaza Strip imposes an equally substantial responsibility to permit the movement of people and goods at the level required in order to maintain the proper functioning of the economy, the health and education systems, and other aspects of civilian life. Israel is permitted to prevent the passage of merchandise or people only if there is a concrete security reason for doing so, and even then it must strike a balance between its security needs and its obligation to maintain normal life in the occupied territory. By preventing the passage of civilians and goods of a civilian nature to and from the Gaza Strip, Israel has paralyzed the economy of the area and caused substantial damage to key aspects of civilian life. In so doing, it has violated its obligations under international law, rendering its policy of closure – including the maritime closure – unlawful”.

The UN report makes several points of specific and pointed criticism about the use of force, and resistance, during the Israeli naval interception — which, the report notes, took place 72 nautical miles off the coast, well outside of Israeli territorial waters [or Gaza's maritime space]:

“Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable … Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance…[and]…The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent…”
“Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded…”
“The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel…”
“There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance…”

Paul Woodward wrote, on his War in Context blog, a post entitled “How Israel got away with Murder on the Mavi Marmara”, in which he noted: “But just a minute. The panel — even if it’s conclusion amounted to saying, can’t you all just learn to get along — did actually note that Israel provided no information whatsoever on the circumstances in which nine men were killed. And had those deaths not occurred, there would have been no inquiry. Let’s repeat that … Israel provided no information whatsoever on the circumstances in which each of these deaths occurred”.

Woodward cites the UN report itself which says that “No evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons. Video footage shows one passenger holding only an open fire hose being killed by a single shot to the head or throat fired from a speedboat”.  This is posted here.

Back to the UN report — on the Freedom Flotilla, which was organized by a loose alliance of European and American advocates of Palestinian rights joined, for the first time by the Turkish humanitarian relief organization IHH [which Israelis have called "terrorist"] and a Malaysian NGO/charity, the report states:

“Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation”.
“All humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority…”
“Humanitarian missions must act in accordance with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity and respect any security measures in place. Humanitarian vessels should allow inspection and stop or change course when requested…”

Then, the UN report says that “An appropriate statement of regret should be made by Israel in respect of the incident in light of its consequences” and “Israel should offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families, to be administered by the two governments through a joint trust fund of a sufficient amount to be decided by them”.

According to an article published in the New York times this afternoon, here, “The Foreign Ministries in Turkey and Israel declined to comment publicly on the report, saying they preferred to wait for its official release. No one was available to comment in the office of the United Nations spokesman”.

But, at a briefing for journalists today at the Mishkenot Shaananim center in Jerusalem, organized at rather short notice. former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Haloutz said: “Yes, we are sorry people were killed during the operation, very sorry”. Haloutz added: “I believe there were some innocent ones among those nine, but…that mission was not so innocent”.

Is that an official apology?

Haloutz was IDF Chief of Staff from 2005-2007, and was previously commander of the Israeli Air Force, and he said today that he made many trips to Turkey in his professional capacity. But, Haloutz is now retired from active military service, having been severely criticized for Israel’s military performance during the Second Lebanon War — and dabbled in business before joining, just eight months ago, the opposition Kadima party led by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni [who ran a hard-fought campaign against the current Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu in the last Israeli general elections in February 2009, and she continues to be very critical of Netanyahu's conduct of office].

Haloutz’s profile is perfect for making an unofficial [yet somehow official] apology.

The timing and purpose of the press briefing would otherwise seem…vague. And, he appeared at the press briefing in the company of a professional Public Relations man.

Haloutz told the journalists at the press briefing that the “The word apology is too strong…because Israel was doing a legal action to prevent [a violation] of the siege we imposed”.  And,  Haloutz added: “Our soldiers were under a live threat”.

Yes, it looks like Haloutz had already been briefed about what was in the UN report, and yes, it sure looks like a finessed Israeli apology.

After his meeting with journalists, Haloutz smoked a quick cigarette in the sunshine outside, then turned and quickly bounded up three flights of stone stairs, taking the whole rise two steps at a time. The PR man, also in as good [military-grade] shape, followed one step behind.

Not too long afterwards, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu went on Israeli television and told his country and the world that the PRC, a small resistance group in Gaza, was responsible — and that Popular Resistance Committee [PRC] leaders [who Netanyahu said had ordered the attack] were “no longer among the living”. Further Israeli attacks killed more PRC leaders in continuing attacks on Thursday night, and civilians were also killed, including several children.

The Israeli attacks are continuing, as is retaliatory firing of projectiles from Gaza onto surrounding Israeli communities.

On Saturday morning, the IDF Spokesperson, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich [@AvitalLeibovich] sent out a Tweet with a link to a photo that she described this way: “Here is what one of the terrorist that killed Israelis on Thursday, carried upon his body: http://t.co/Wcdg0LS”

The link led to this photo:

OK.

The IDF photo is posted on a Flickr site.  [note - Flickr takes the info automatically from the original photos - unless, of course, they are copied, and the coding is then changed...]

The caption material read:

Explosives from the 18/8/11 Multi-Pronged Terror Attack

August 19, 2011
“Explosive materials and weapons found on the bodies of the terrorists who carried out a multi-pronged terror attack that targeted Israeli civilians on August 18, 2011. The terror attack left eight people dead and about 40 injured.
“In a premeditated attack, terrorists targeted Israeli civilians, who were on their way to Eilat, a popular tourist destination for summer vacations. All of the incidents took place near the Israel-Egypt border. According to Israeli intelligence, the terrorists originated from Gaza”.

Then, I happened to notice the information written to the right side of the photo.

It read [at least it did, this morning]:
By Israel Defense Forces
This photo was taken, on January 27, 2008 using a Nikon D700.
117 views

When I went back to Twitter, I noticed that @AvitalLeibovich had Tweeted to @MargieInTelAviv that the explosives found on body in Eilat attack are from Gaza: same type used during CastLead Op.

The IDF’s Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in Gaza was conducted from 27 December 2008 until 18 January 2009…

OK.

I then Tweeted to @AvitalLeibovich:
“Wait. @AvitalLeibovich, why does note on this page re 18 Aug attack say ‘This photo was taken on January 27, 2008 using a Nikon D700′??”

She replied:
“@Marianhouk The photo was taken yesterday as was the briefing i gave. Approx. 10 journalists attended the briefing”.

Then, she retweeted something sent out by the generic @IDFSpokesperson Twitter account. which showed a photo of her standing in front of a table containing some similiar if not identical materials, at the briefing for journalists she mentioned.

Here is that photo:

The Tweet that announced this photo reads:
@IDFSpokesperson
#Photo: @AvitalLeibovich displays detonated explosives found on #terrorists from ystrdy’s attack http://ow.ly/67vVk #IsraelUnderFire #IDF

OK.

Another Tweeter took issue with the assertion that “detonated explosives” were displayed:
@CitizenWald
No, they are NOT “detonated” !! RT @IDFSpokesperson: #Photo: @AvitalLeibovich displays detonated explosives fo… (cont) http://t.co/7xBN3dj

He is right. The IDF announced that sappers had detonated the explosives on the site of the attacks, 20 km north of Eilat.
However, the first photo above, of just the stuff, shows unexploded material, and a detonator, in addition to a rifle and bullet cartridges etc. While the photo of Avital Leibovich briefing shows no unexploded material [I guess that would improve safety at the briefing...]

He complained again:
@CitizenWald
@AvitalLeibovich Yes, agreed–but they aren’t “detonated” (=already blown up) explosives; & why didn’t caption describe other weapons?

Then, in response to @CitizenWald’s request, Avital Leibovic then explains exactly what is in the photo:
@CitizenWald It’s simple:in the picture you can see a flack jacket with 4 grenades,a stabbing knife,explosive belt;this was on the ter. body

But, my point is that, of course, just because Avital Leibovich gave a briefing to journalists on 19 August, with similar material piled on the table in front of her, does not exclude or rule out the possibility that the IDF took a picture of the very same or similar stuff [as if it were just a prop] on 27 January 2008 — as the information on the page initially read.
I did mention this in a Tweet:
Surely, @IDFSpokesperson, @AvitalLeibovich, u can see page shows AL w/ stuff on Fri, but doesn’t prove IDF didn’t photo same stuff Jan 2008

The head of the IDF New Media Desk, @SachaDratwa, had retweeted Avital Leibovich’s link to the first photo [which was originally marked as taken on January 27, 2008]. A while later, he responded to me [in French]:
@Marianhouk C’est une erreur sur Flickr, les photos ont été prise hier. [Translation: "It's a mistake on Flikr, the photos were taken yesterday"].

I actually first thought that it was some kind of mistake, at first — some mistake in not filling out the template on the Flikr page or something — and I even Tweeted that it needed correction.

First, the Flikr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/idfonline/6061579626/in/photostream/ was changed — and it was “corrected” to read as follows:
AFTER: This photo was taken on August 19, 2011 using a Nikon D700. 338 views

Whereas BEFORE, it read: This photo was taken on January 27, 2008 using a Nikon D700. 117 views

Then, as I looked around on Flikr and on the IDF Spokespersons’ web pages, I saw that the first picture was included in not just one, but two — yes, two — Flikr “sets”:
(1) one set was this: Terror in the South, 18.08.2011-(Set: 12), but
(2) the other set was from the archives, on a page labelled photos taken on January 27, 2008, and posted on this page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/idfonline/archives/date-taken/2008/01/27/.

They couldn’t have just mistakenly created this page, yesterday or today, and then mistakenly put the first photo above on that page.

No, it wasn’t just a mistake on Flikr — and it does indeed seem that the first photo was indeed in the archives, and had apparently indeed been taken on the date indicated.

Soon enough, within a couple of hours, that page was then deleted. What remains is this:

Israel Defense Forces’ photostream

Archives / Taken in / 2008 / January / 27th (0 items)
There’s nothing available to you in this view of Israel Defense Forces’ archive.
This is probably because:
•Israel Defense Forces didn’t take any photos or video on 27th January 2008,
•The dates have been changed,
•Content has been deleted, or,
•You clicked on a ‘posted on’ date link from something private that you can only see because it is in the pool of a group that you belong to. (Private things don’t show up in people’s archives, except when you’re looking at your own.)

Finally, a new photo was added to the IDF photostreams on Flikr, which showed the material that was on the table during Friday’s briefing [it looks newer, cleaner, and there is no explosive material, or for that matter no rifle]:

Then, to complete our understanding of the real picture, I came upon this from Real News Network, an interview with Lt Col Avital Leibovich by Lia Tarachansky for Real News Network. The interview was clearly recorded just after Avital’s briefing on Friday.

It was remarked upon by numerous other Tweeters and bloggers.
@DidiRemez
Amazing: @AvitalLeibovich of @IDFSpokesperson goes on record saying no evidence for Gaza connection to Eilat attacks | http://t.co/g5O7bpv |

Didi Remez’s link leads to this post: “Israeli army hasn’t the faintest idea who launched the Eilat attacks” — which is rather more polite than some others wrote. It was written by Paul Woodward on August 20, 2011 and published here, and it contains a partial transcript of the interview itself [clearly, Avital was already tired by the time the interview was recorded...]

Tarachansky: On what are you basing your conclusion that this group [the Popular Resistance Committees] is responsible for the terror attacks?

IDF Spokesperson: We did not say that this group was responsible for the terror attack. We based this on intelligence information as well as some facts that [we] actually presented an hour ago to some wires and journalists. Some of the findings that were from the bodies of the terrorists, and they are using for example Kalashnikov bullets and Kalashnikov rifles are very common in Gaza –

Paul Woodward then commented: “So, the IDF says it ‘knows’ the gunmen came from Gaza because they were using Kalashnikovs … The Kalashnikov is the most widely available weapon on the planet. According to Jane’s Infantry Weapons 2009/2010 this rifle is in use in over 70 countries”…

And, by Saturday evening, other Tweeters, such as @HybridStates, were exploring the apparent contradictions between the Israeli Prime Minister’s accusations (conviction and sentencing as well) of the PRC, while the IDF takes the position that Hamas is ultimately responsible…

UPDATE: Just to put this in a bit of context, see Sami Kishawi’s blog post today questioning other IDF photo evidence here and one other post Kishawi links to, Ibn Kafka’s blog post on 2 June 2010, with evidence attributed to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, here.
And now, thanks to the crikey.com.au link kindly supplied by nikkor1, below, there are also these — with the caution that this is not an exhaustive list: here and here, as well as here, and here.
On top of that, I can also add one more, from my own personal knowledge [in which Ali Abunimah notes "Thanks to Marian Houk (http://twitter.com/MarianHouk ), I have learned that the Israeli army originally uploaded a video (below) in which the same naval officer in the video above has an innocuous conversation with a ship in which the only reply from the ship is 'Negative, Negative, our destination is Gaza'. There is no 'anti-Semitism' or anything that paints the Flotilla passengers as raving bigots"...] : here…

OBSERVATION: False evidence, and falsifying evidence, is never convincing. Israel has cause for complaint about indiscriminate firing of rockets, mortars and missiles from Gaza onto surrounding Israeli civilian areas. But when and how Israel orders reprisals gives rise to real and legitimate questions. The questioning of criticism of over-eager, fake, sloppy or falsified evidence does not only not answer the real and legitimate questions — it is just propaganda. And, this raises even more real and legitimate questions about Israel’s policy. A professional military leaves propaganda to others, nowadays.