Rafah bombings (Edited by Mumsnet)

Part of the issue imho, is that the new reports by Israeli sources on the war have to be approved by a military censor. I do see evidence of subtle language use that tends to discredit third party sources or fail to mention them in order to cast IDF in a good light.

To add on: many countries at war do this to bolster public support for the war. Think on the BBC reports on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They glossed over or avoided discussing any war crimes or errors that caused civilians to die unnecessarily, often horrifically. I don’t think they ever published anything on the mass rapes that the coalition troops did to Iraqi and Afghan women.

@PeasfullPerson I have though the same. Where are these orphaned kids going to go? They don't have any hope left.

I haven't added anything on this subject for a while. I read the posts but have felt unable to comment without anger but the images we have seen this week coming out of Rafah are horrendous. I look through some of the posts and am shocked that people are still justifying Israel's attacks on the Palestinians as their right to defend.

All we hear is "Israel said"/"Israel report" - why is anyone believing anything coming out of Israel right now? They have sold mistruths to the world for months and months. Nothing can justify this current attack on Rafah. Nothing.

I thought this too - that if they had enough local intelligence to know the two Hamas people were there, they’d likely know every other detail about buildings, weapons storage etc.

They seemed to keep adapting and adjusting the way they told the story too, beyond what might naturally be the case from new facts coming to light bit by bit out of chaos.

@SummerFeverVenice thanks for your analysis and the links provided. Very interesting. Their lies and victim blaming are pathetic. And those useful idiots who lap it up just because it allows them to feel better that these children were blown to bits and burned alive "legally". Pathetic.

I wonder how many new recruits Hamas gained after this? What do these people have left to lose anymore? Where is their hope for a better future? The day after plan needed to be sorted out yesterday.

Even if the IDF strike caused an explosion in a second location due to the storage of whatever, I should imagine they would be smart enough to know what was in the area they were hitting.

You can see the UN markings too. :(

Here is the link to the CNN analysis, the Al Jazeera one came back with same conclusion. The weapons experts were
Cobb-Smith, former British Army artillery officer.
Trevor Ball, former US Army senior explosive ordnance disposal team member
Richard Weir, senior crisis and conflict researcher at Human Rights Watch, and Chris Lincoln-Jones, a former British Army artillery officer and weapons and targeting expert
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/28/middleeast/gaza-us-munitions-rafah-strike-analysis-intl-hnk/index.html

In the before and after- you can see two IDF strikes both happened.

x-post

That's obviously a 'before' pic there's also an 'after' one which shows the much larger camp [bottom left] completely incinerated apart from the white rectangular areas in the middle but unable to copy - they are on AJ from the same independent source

https://tw.tv.yahoo.com/satellite-imagery-shows-damage-tel-211054832.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFR176LiE0ZF0l5iUVWLuZil0fCwxt_r16OBYaxFW5vusBvJlO2HcItrLE9wWQJ_prSrzzpWRu-22BaUQsrukBkjzhNCyYyWv0gsKogN8rduiBu6-3wt8mFO6LVi04x2DxF3eFY-tyK2xmZJBJRuDZKqImJKUYEOcHFGY_H5345x

That is same info graphic as the Times of Israel one.

By using ‘area Hamas claims was struck” for where the tents actually were struck and then pointing to another area that says ‘IDF strike’ they are casting doubt on the tent strike happening at all. They have also drawn the white line for the evacuation camp incorrectly to exclude the area that was struck.

Here is the IDF tweet

https://x.com/IDF/status/1795487775598231990

Interesting. Do you have a link?

Ive just found a report of an ‘intercepted phone call’ where alleged Hamas say that the “Jewish bomb” hit a “munitions warehouse” and “bags of money went flying” and “lots of explosions went off” sounds as credible as the IDF ‘intercepted phone call’ about the Ali Arab hospital courtyard bombing that was later proven to be faked.

https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/hamas-israel-war-24/briefings-by-idf-spokesperson-rear-admiral-daniel-hagari/may-24-press-briefings/press-briefing-about-recent-events-in-rafah-by-idf-spokesperson-radm-daniel-hagari-may-28-2024/

and
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-hidden-store-of-terror-munitions-may-have-caused-deadly-rafah-blaze/

(on the satellite map it has a before picture for “area Hamas claims IDF hit” when we know it WAS hit from satellite photos.)

There are now new satellite photos of the wider area - with a second much more extensive encampment totally incinerated in the after views which IDF are claiming was due to a Hamas jeep carrying ammunition exploding after a direct hit

A 'developing story' indeed

Correction- 2m of reinforced concrete /5ft.
I had a typo

I think it is the crux of the problem.

CNN and Al Jazeera have had weapons experts examine the footage and they identified a GBU-39/B bomb in the debris of the tents. This is actually a 250lb bomb, but the warhead is the 37lb/17kilos of munitions that IDF reported.

This bomb is designed to go through 1m of soil and then 3m of steel reinforced concrete. It has a blast radius of 26ft/8m.

It does in fact ignite. I found these photos of tests where they sent one of these GBU-39 small diameter bombs through a concrete bridge to blow up a parked plane.
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html

Imagine the same bomb going through a thin layer of plastic and then igniting the plastic, the bedding, any cookstoves and fuel…Keep in mind a lot of the blast of fire is contained by the concrete bridge- it would rip through plastic sheeting.

IDF can’t really investigate as they are not on the ground.
I looked at satellite photos again and you can clearly see it was an evacuation camp fenced in, with UN markings.

There is no fuel tank, there is no warehouse. So the speculation that the bomb hit something else that kicked off the fire doesn’t make sense- especially since these weapons experts identified the bits of the bomb in the remains of the tents meaning it was a direct hit on the tents.

Even small bombs like the IDF report using have a large blast and kill radius in the open. They aren’t precise when used on tents- which are no different from in the open.

It’s not like using them on a concrete, reinforced with steel walled or brick house

Thinking about what you say here @SummerFeverVenice this may be the crux of the error/mishap/mistake?

For months the IDF have been bombing robust walled buildings with precision and dumb bombs - AFAIC there have been no strikes directly targeting tents [people have been killed in tents but the actual target was a nearby building]

Now however they are in Rafah with it's acres and acres of flimsy flammable tents [450k people and 4 battalions of Hamas] and they don't really have the experience/?skill required to make precision strikes on tents without causing a big conflagration all around the strike target

Another strike this afternoon went the same way - tho' thankfully with less loss of life in the resulting blaze

.

Scrolling leaves is right, as are you, as am I and Ecfasen-the issue is that the IDF are putting out multiple stories only hours apart to different news outlets. The question is why? Investigations are always same bits of info they do know gradually added to. Not multiple different stories hours apart.

The fuel container theory said there was a fuel tank 150m from the airstrike, but you can see no fuel tanks in the satellite imagery.

IDF has also claimed “there were no tents in the area” of the airstrike when they put this story out but the satellite imagery disproved this.

It doesn't look like that on the satellite images - the story has moved on since then

And what about the 2nd missile? Is it one or 2 missiles?

That doesn’t appear to be what it’s saying. AFAIK the guided munition blast sent shrapnel which exploded the fuel container which caused the blaze. They didn’t expect to harm civilians because the fire happened a fair way from the actual blast zone (around 100m I believe). I suppose things like this are why they don’t say “we guarantee zero uninvolved civilian casualties”.

Haaretz yesterday

GAZA: Overnight into Monday, the IDF said it struck senior Hamas members in the southern Gazan city of Rafah "according to international law, using precise munitions, and based on prior intelligence indicating the use of the area by Hamas." The strike ignited a blaze in a tent camp for displaced people that killed at least 45 Palestinian civilians, Hamas' Health Ministry reported. An Israeli government spokesperson said an initial probe of the incident showed that the airstrike set off the fire which killed the civilians.

The IDF said that prior to the strike, "many steps were taken to reduce the chances of harm to uninvolved people, including a visual aerial inspection, the use of precision weaponry, and the use of additional intelligence information – on the basis of which it was estimated that harm to uninvolved civilians was not expected."

’Based on prior intelligence’. Either they had very poor intelligence or knew.

A lot of the bodies are charred beyond recognition so it would be harder to discern if any Hamas were there or not. Even if two Hamas were there, I don’t agree that it is acceptable collateral damage. Even small bombs like the IDF report using have a large blast and kill radius in the open. They aren’t precise when used on tents- which are no different from in the open.

It’s not like using them on a concrete, reinforced with steel walled or brick house.

And after the strike was 4 or 5 completely charred tents in the bottom left hand corner - made me think it could have been so much worse

The CNN account just raises more questions

@Efacsen
initially it was the nearby 'Hamas compound' but than was blown out of the water by the publication of the independent satellite imagery [posted on the other thread]

Yes, good point. I too saw the satellite imagery from only hours before the attack. It was all tents.

According to CNN, Israel told Biden another different scenario to explain the deadly blaze:

So instead of 2 precision munitions, 1 was used and instead of a possible weapons dump, a nearby fuel tank caused the blaze.

”A US official told CNN Monday that Israel had told the Biden administration it used a precision munition to hit a target in Rafah, but that the explosion from the strike ignited a fuel tank nearby and started a fire that engulfed a camp for displaced Palestinians and led to dozens of deaths.
“We can’t confirm that but it’s what Israel shared with us,” the official said, “and we assume we will learn more once Israel completes its investigation.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/27/middleeast/gaza-rafah-displaced-people-camp-israel-strike-mime-intl/index.html

You would think the first thing they would know for sure in the investigation is how many bombs they dropped.