At this point, the IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an IED by Palestinians.. Today: ^ 'Palestinians killed on Gaza beach' , BBC Online , June 9, 2006 "Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say.".
Measured, not asserted. Every count, date and revision on this page was taken from Wikipedia's own history and checked against the live article. The words quoted are theirs.
Machine-checked against the full current article on 2026-08-03.
We saved snapshots of this article over twenty years; you are reading the October 6, 2023 one. Red dashes: removed from Wikipedia since.Pale dots: rewritten; the numbered note shows what it says now.Red text: written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot.1 tap a number or a side note to jump between them
The opening as it read in October 6, 2023
2006 Israel-Gaza conflict On June 9, 2006, an explosion on the beach near the Gaza Strip municipality of Beit Lahia killed eight Palestinians . At least thirty others were injured. The aftermath of the incident was captured on video and showed a distressed eleven-year-old girl, Huda Ghaliya, reacting to the loss of family members, most of whom were killed in the incident. The footage of Ghaliya, which received considerable media attention, was broadcast on news networks around the world, making her a symbol of Palestinian suffering. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage. On 9 June 2006, between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m., Israeli artillery and a navy gunboat fired 8 artillery shells at the beach, with two shells landing 200 meters away from the family. The Israeli army and Israeli officials initially took responsibility. A subsequent investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that the explosion was not caused by the shelling of the beach and blamed it on a Palestinian land mine. This investigation was criticized by Human Rights Watch and The Guardian . The IDF acknowledged a flaw in the report in that it omitted mention of two 76mm naval shells, the IDF maintains had landed too far away to have caused the explosion. At this point, the IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an improvised explosive device (IED) by Palestinians. The Human Rights Watch final report published in July 2007 provided a detailed analysis as to why the revised IDF conclusion involving an IED was the least likely of three scenarios. HRW concluded "The availability of significant evidence that the IDF has not examined or taken into account casts serious doubt on its conclusions and underscores the need for an independent investigation of the incident." The Palestinian authorities supported this proposal. The Israeli government declined to take part. The head of an IDF investigative committee into the beach deaths, Major General Meir Kalifi, reported that the security establishment had received information that Ilham Ghalia said that “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion”. The IDF viewed her alleged statement as supporting its contention that an IDF shell was not the cause of the deaths. The next day Haaretz reported that the information was of unclear reliability and unsubstantiated. The IDF shelved the claim. 'Palestinians killed on Gaza beach' , BBC Online , June 9, 2006 "Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say." Human Rights Watch , Indiscriminate Fire , June 19, 2006 'Different views of Gaza deaths' , BBC , June 19, 2006 "German paper doubts Gaza beach reports" . ynet . PM: No int'l inquiry into Gaza blast * Human Rights Watch [1] , June 19, 2006 - "Maj. Meir Kalifi, head of the IDF's investigative team, reported that the IDF fired six artillery shells plus two naval shells at a beach in northern Gaza between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m. According to hospital logbooks, the first patient arrived at Kamal `Udwan Hospital at 5:05 p.m. Given that it takes about twenty minutes to drive from the hospital to the beach and back, the blast likely occurred within the timeframe of the Israeli shelling.
This is Wikipedia's own text, saved in our repository. Their copy of it is revision 1175189101.
The opening as it stood in 2010
The aftermath of the incident was captured on video and showed a distressed eleven year old girl, Huda Ghaliya, mourning the loss of family members, most of whom were killed in the incident. The footage of Ghaliya's grief, which received considerable media attention, was broadcast on news networks around the world, making her a symbol of Palestinian suffering. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage. On 9 June 2009, between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m., Israeli artillery and a navy gunboat fired 8 artillery shells at the beach, with two shells landing 200 meters away from the family. The Israeli army and Israeli officials initially took responsibility. A subsequent investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that the explosion was not caused by the shelling of the beach and blamed it on a Palestinian land mine. This investigation was criticized by Human Rights Watch and The Guardian . The IDF acknowledged a flaw in the report in that it omitted mention of two 76mm naval shells, the IDF maintains had landed too far away to have caused the explosion. At this point, the IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an IED by Palestinians. Huda Ghaliya's sister Ilham was reported in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz as saying her father caused the lethal explosion when he handled unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident, , however other sources list her as one of the immediate victims of the explosion. Her brother Ayham, in an interview with the same newspaper, said the explosion was caused by an incoming shell. 'Palestinians killed on Gaza beach' , BBC Online , June 9, 2006 "Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say." Human Rights Watch , Indiscriminate Fire , June 19, 2006 'Different views of Gaza deaths' , BBC , June 19, 2006 German paper doubts Gaza beach reports PM: No int'l inquiry into Gaza blast Human Rights Watch [1] , June 19, 2006 - "Maj. Meir Kalifi, head of the IDF's investigative team, reported that the IDF fired six artillery shells plus two naval shells at a beach in northern Gaza between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m. According to hospital log books, the first patient arrived at Kamal `Udwan Hospital at 5:05 p.m. Given that it takes about twenty minutes to drive from the hospital to the beach and back, the blast likely occurred within the timeframe of the Israeli shelling.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 369409296.
The opening as it stood in 2015 1 passage from the previous snapshot no longer appear
At least thirty others were injured. The aftermath of the incident was captured on video and showed a distressed eleven-year-old girl, Huda Ghaliya, reacting to the loss of family members, most of whom were killed in the incident. The footage of Ghaliya, which received considerable media attention, was broadcast on news networks around the world, making her a symbol of Palestinian suffering. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage. On 9 June 2006, between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m., Israeli artillery and a navy gunboat fired 8 artillery shells at the beach, with two shells landing 200 metres away from the family. The Israeli army and Israeli officials initially took responsibility. A subsequent investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that the explosion was not caused by the shelling of the beach and blamed it on a Palestinian land mine. This investigation was criticized by Human Rights Watch and The Guardian . The IDF acknowledged a flaw in the report in that it omitted mention of two 76mm naval shells, the IDF maintains had landed too far away to have caused the explosion. At this point, the IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an improvised explosive device (IED) by Palestinians. The Human Rights Watch final report published in July 2007 provided a detailed analysis as to why the revised IDF conclusion involving an IED was the least likely of three scenarios.HRW concluded "The availability of significant evidence that the IDF has not examined or taken into account casts serious doubt on its conclusions and underscores the need for an independent investigation of the incident." The Palestinian authorities supported this proposal.The Israeli government declined to take part.The head of an IDF investigative committee into the beach deaths, Major General Meir Kalifi, reported that the security establishment had received information that Ilham Ghalia said that “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion”.The IDF viewed her alleged statement as supporting its contention that an IDF shell was not the cause of the deaths.The next day Haaretz reported that the information was of unclear reliability and unsubstantiated. The IDF shelved the claim. 'Palestinians killed on Gaza beach' , BBC Online , June 9, 2006 "Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say." Human Rights Watch , Indiscriminate Fire , June 19, 2006 'Different views of Gaza deaths' , BBC , June 19, 2006 "German paper doubts Gaza beach reports" . ynet . PM: No int'l inquiry into Gaza blast Human Rights Watch [1] , June 19, 2006 - "Maj. Meir Kalifi, head of the IDF's investigative team, reported that the IDF fired six artillery shells plus two naval shells at a beach in northern Gaza between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m. According to hospital log books, the first patient arrived at Kamal `Udwan Hospital at 5:05 p.m. Given that it takes about twenty minutes to drive from the hospital to the beach and back, the blast likely occurred within the timeframe of the Israeli shelling.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 666127655.
The opening as it stood in 2020
At least thirty others were injured. The aftermath of the incident was captured on video and showed a distressed eleven-year-old girl, Huda Ghaliya, reacting to the loss of family members, most of whom were killed in the incident. The footage of Ghaliya, which received considerable media attention, was broadcast on news networks around the world, making her a symbol of Palestinian suffering. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage. On 9 June 2006, between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m., Israeli artillery and a navy gunboat fired 8 artillery shells at the beach, with two shells landing 200 metres away from the family. The Israeli army and Israeli officials initially took responsibility. A subsequent investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that the explosion was not caused by the shelling of the beach and blamed it on a Palestinian land mine. This investigation was criticized by Human Rights Watch and The Guardian . The IDF acknowledged a flaw in the report in that it omitted mention of two 76mm naval shells, the IDF maintains had landed too far away to have caused the explosion. At this point, the IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an improvised explosive device (IED) by Palestinians. The Human Rights Watch final report published in July 2007 provided a detailed analysis as to why the revised IDF conclusion involving an IED was the least likely of three scenarios. HRW concluded "The availability of significant evidence that the IDF has not examined or taken into account casts serious doubt on its conclusions and underscores the need for an independent investigation of the incident." The Palestinian authorities supported this proposal. The Israeli government declined to take part. The head of an IDF investigative committee into the beach deaths, Major General Meir Kalifi, reported that the security establishment had received information that Ilham Ghalia said that “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion”. The IDF viewed her alleged statement as supporting its contention that an IDF shell was not the cause of the deaths. The next day Haaretz reported that the information was of unclear reliability and unsubstantiated. The IDF shelved the claim. 'Palestinians killed on Gaza beach' , BBC Online , June 9, 2006 "Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say." Human Rights Watch , Indiscriminate Fire , June 19, 2006 'Different views of Gaza deaths' , BBC , June 19, 2006 "German paper doubts Gaza beach reports" . ynet . PM: No int'l inquiry into Gaza blast * Human Rights Watch [1] , June 19, 2006 - "Maj. Meir Kalifi, head of the IDF's investigative team, reported that the IDF fired six artillery shells plus two naval shells at a beach in northern Gaza between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m. According to hospital log books, the first patient arrived at Kamal `Udwan Hospital at 5:05 p.m. Given that it takes about twenty minutes to drive from the hospital to the beach and back, the blast likely occurred within the timeframe of the Israeli shelling.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 960047813.
The opening as it stood in 2025
Israeli artillery strike on civilians Main article: 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict On June 9, 2006, an explosion on the beach near the Gaza Strip municipality of Beit Lahia killed eight Palestinians . At least thirty others were injured. The aftermath of the incident was captured on video and showed a distressed 11-year-old girl, Huda Ghaliya, reacting to the loss of family members, most of whom were killed in the incident. The footage of Ghaliya, which received considerable media attention, was broadcast on news networks around the world, making her a symbol of Palestinian suffering. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung questioned the reliability of the video footage. On 9 June 2006, between 4:31 and 4:50 pm, Israeli artillery and a navy gunboat fired 8 artillery shells at the beach, with two shells landing 200 meters away from the family. The Israeli army and Israeli officials initially took responsibility. A subsequent investigation by the Israeli Defence Forces concluded that the explosion was not caused by the shelling of the beach and blamed it on a Palestinian land mine. This investigation was criticized by Human Rights Watch and The Guardian . The IDF acknowledged a flaw in the report in that it omitted mention of two 76mm naval shells, the IDF maintains had landed too far away to have caused the explosion. At this point, the IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an improvised explosive device (IED) by Palestinians. The Human Rights Watch final report published in July 2007 provided a detailed analysis as to why the revised IDF conclusion involving an IED was the least likely of three scenarios. HRW concluded "The availability of significant evidence that the IDF has not examined or taken into account casts serious doubt on its conclusions and underscores the need for an independent investigation of the incident." The Palestinian authorities supported this proposal. The Israeli government declined to take part. The head of an IDF investigative committee into the beach deaths, Major General Meir Kalifi, reported that the security establishment had received information that Ilham Ghalia said that “Daddy touched something and then there was an explosion”. The IDF viewed her alleged statement as supporting its contention that an IDF shell was not the cause of the deaths. The next day Haaretz reported that the information was of unclear reliability and unsubstantiated. The IDF shelved the claim. 'Palestinians killed on Gaza beach' , BBC Online , June 9, 2006 "Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say." Human Rights Watch , Indiscriminate Fire , June 19, 2006 'Different views of Gaza deaths' , BBC , June 19, 2006 "German paper doubts Gaza beach reports" . ynet . PM: No int'l inquiry into Gaza blast * Human Rights Watch [1] , June 19, 2006 - "Maj. Meir Kalifi, head of the IDF's investigative team, reported that the IDF fired six artillery shells plus two naval shells at a beach in northern Gaza between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m. According to hospital logbooks, the first patient arrived at Kamal `Udwan Hospital at 5:05 p.m. Given that it takes about twenty minutes to drive from the hospital to the beach and back, the blast likely occurred within the timeframe of the Israeli shelling.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 1286468770. This is our newest snapshot; the live article may have moved again since.
Today
At this point, the IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an IED by Palestinians.. Today: ^ 'Palestinians killed on Gaza beach' , BBC Online , June 9, 2006 "Seven people, including three children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say.". Read the current article and compare.
2010
2015
2020
Oct '23
2025
Counts in the opening at each snapshot. Green: the word gained ground. Red: it was cut. Grey: no change.
Struck red text is no longer in the article; dotted amber text was rewritten. Every revision id links to Wikipedia's copy; the text shown is our own saved copy. Data: /data. Wikipedia text is CC BY-SA; quoted for the record; not affiliated with Wikipedia.