On the heels of international rushes to judgment of Israel’s strike in Rafah, new evidence has revealed the following:
1) The strike was outside of the safe zone Israel designated, on a building outside of the tent area. The tents were at least 40 meters away.
2) The strike used a tiny munition—two bombs, each with 17kg of explosives (around 37 pounds)—that could not have possibly caused the fire, explosion, and deaths.
3) The strike targeted two senior Hamas commanders responsible for terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza, who appear to have been using the tent area as nearby cover.
4) The strike may have ignited Palestinian rockets or ammunition, or a fuel tank, or all of the above. That would be the most likely explanation for the deaths and large fire, because the tiny munitions could not have done so.
For those curious at what a 37 pound bomb looks like, [this is a good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYXoD3HS-s). It couldn’t possibly have caused what we saw in Rafah. And bomb fragments were found that showed these are what was used.
Once again we see quick reactions and eventual additional information disputing the instinctual reaction, in what is ultimately an information war. One might hope states and analysts would learn from prior such incidents, like the Al Ahli Hospital explosion, but it appears they have not or don’t want to. Which raises an interesting question: why is there such a default rush to believe an unverified version of events when it is anti-Israel, but so rarely do we see states going the other way? Why did media outlets once again uncritically report on “Gaza ministry officials” claims, without noting they were Hamas (AP, ABC, etc. did this) and why did they report Israel struck “tents housing displaced persons” without waiting for Israel’s own information on where the strike hit or who it targeted?
1 Comment
On the heels of international rushes to judgment of Israel’s strike in Rafah, new evidence has revealed the following:
1) The strike was outside of the safe zone Israel designated, on a building outside of the tent area. The tents were at least 40 meters away.
2) The strike used a tiny munition—two bombs, each with 17kg of explosives (around 37 pounds)—that could not have possibly caused the fire, explosion, and deaths.
3) The strike targeted two senior Hamas commanders responsible for terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza, who appear to have been using the tent area as nearby cover.
4) The strike may have ignited Palestinian rockets or ammunition, or a fuel tank, or all of the above. That would be the most likely explanation for the deaths and large fire, because the tiny munitions could not have done so.
For those curious at what a 37 pound bomb looks like, [this is a good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYXoD3HS-s). It couldn’t possibly have caused what we saw in Rafah. And bomb fragments were found that showed these are what was used.
Once again we see quick reactions and eventual additional information disputing the instinctual reaction, in what is ultimately an information war. One might hope states and analysts would learn from prior such incidents, like the Al Ahli Hospital explosion, but it appears they have not or don’t want to. Which raises an interesting question: why is there such a default rush to believe an unverified version of events when it is anti-Israel, but so rarely do we see states going the other way? Why did media outlets once again uncritically report on “Gaza ministry officials” claims, without noting they were Hamas (AP, ABC, etc. did this) and why did they report Israel struck “tents housing displaced persons” without waiting for Israel’s own information on where the strike hit or who it targeted?