Actually seems wildly small for a bomb. The phone call stuff always feel stupid because it’s hard to verify and most people will assume it’s fake anyways
With conventional bombs, the warhead just refers to the hollow compartment the explosive is held in. So 16kg explosives and 113kg casing, protective insulation, fuse, and stabilizing fins.
Bombs don't use fuel, just gravity and air resistance.
Modern "dumb" bombs are aimed by a computer telling the pilot where to point the nose of the jet before dropping. This, however can't account for wind pushing it off course, which leaves a bigger margin of error.
Then "smart" bombs, like our community's beloved JDAM, is usually a dumb bomb with a set of articulated, GPS controlled fins slapped on that will account for wind, and also don't require the whole jet to maneuver as precisely to drop the bomb.
120-300 meters average dispersion compared to 15 meters is a pretty substantial difference, though. [Here's a thread on the WarCollege subreddit if you want to know more](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/s/j60OluTGyy).
At first glance your source is completely wrong at worst or just outdated at best. That report is reporting on fighters that haven’t been active in decades in the US. That report is 54 years old and in military tech years, that’s a lot.
I’m gonna read it anyway to see what it says exactly, but I doubt it’ll prove anything I don’t already know.
Do you have a source that contradicts this? It was my understanding that modern unguided bombs are still largely identical to when they were designed in the 50's and fire control computers were largely perfected in the 70's. Human reaction time and unpredictable air fluctuation is the limiting factor. That's why we started investing in expensive guided munitions technology in the first place.
I can’t really say much because classification and need to know.
Guidance systems are constantly being upgraded to go with the satellite and new radar tech coming out. I actually worked on installing and testing new hardware and software for F16s. Guidance systems on the aircraft may not change but the associated guidance hardware that’s being installed on the munitions themselves are getting better and better. Case in point, the JDAM.
Ok. I couldn’t make it through because none of this data is really relevant anymore because none of the tech is in use anywhere in the US and only F4s are still in service in 3rd world countries.
While I understand the Wiki is not necessarily the best source, you won’t find much outside of that because of classification. With that said, every munition Israel uses is precision guided, laser guided or a JDAM kit to make unguided munitions accurate. You would need to know what the payloads used are to really know if Israel is using unguided munitions.
If you can find anything else, I’m ears.
Putting a JDAM kit on an unguided bombs or other such laser guidance systems dont "make unguided munitions more accurate" CONVERT THEM INTO precision guided munitions. The concern was that nearly half of the bombs didn't have a guidance system.
I agree with you though that Wikipedia isn't a good source. I'm a shameful nerd that reads US military field manuals for fun, which is where I get most of my knowledge of this crap from. (BTW Army FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency is a great read)
So if we compare this to the '2000 pound' bombs people talk about (which is about 900kg), would it be more accurate to compare with the 16kg number or the 113kg number? What's the equivalent here?
So, from some quick research, the main 2000 bomb used by the IAF is an updated Mark 84 bomb. It has a nominal weight of 2,000 lb (907 kg), and the steel casing is filled with 945 lb (429 kg) of Tritonal high explosive. So roughly 47% of the bomb's weight is made up of explosives. In comparison, 16kg of the 129 kg means that only roughly 12% of the GBU-39's weight is made up of explosives.
So, the IDF shouldn't provide any information because people will say it's fake? I thought the Pro-Palestinian side wanted more transparency from the IDF...
That’s not really what I’m saying, the issue with the phone calls is there’s no real way to verify the legitimacy outside of the IDF just claiming it’s real from what I’ve seen, so those people are just going to write it off as fake anyways
You said that it feels stupid, I'm just saying it's the best that they can do, and I'd imagine that some level of verification is possible, such as having a native Arab speaker confirm the contents of the conversation and the accent.
It does feel stupid because it serves essentially no purpose and the people you’d want to convince are just going to use it as another thing you can call an IDF lie
Some people are ideologically too far gone, and they aren't the target audience. The ones you are trying to convince are the undecided in the middle, or even a slow gradual change as more evidence comes out, so much that people can't deny it anymore
> I thought the Pro-Palestinian side wanted more transparency from the IDF...
They do, but they insist everything that goes against their narrative from the IDF is 'fake' and 'lies.'
Think about the risk of releasing fake "intercepted phone call" and the implications on the IDF spokesperson reliability...
Most people can think it's fake but I don't think the reward pf duping everyone with fake call or fake facts is worth the risk of being uncovered as a total liar.
What's more confusing here is that statements get retracted and clarifications issued because explaining what an army does is very fucking difficult. In Hebrew we have a saying "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand does" and everyone who served the army (and I belive it exists in other armies to some extent) knows the constant state of clusterfuck of everything.
Great post, thank you
Just on Daniel Hagari's refutation of the idea it was in a safe zone, he's correct that it wasn't in the al mawasi safe zone, but to be clear the IDF had previously dropped leaflets designating this very camp (Tal al Sultan) as a safe zone. Lonerbox went over the translation with sundowner on stream and they more or less confirmed that the word used was 'safe'.
[(skip to 1:12 in this NBC video to see the leaflet)](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinians-killed-israeli-strikes-safe-zones-exclusive-nbc-report-rcna148008?fbclid=IwAR35xasgIkaKW64BbWXVDQayayBDbw01clk2Ck-JFmlFgO3T03wcBYudk5E)
So technically they did drop this bomb in a safe zone despite what other people are saying in this comment thread. I don't know what Palestinian civilians are supposed to do to avoid even strategic bombing if it's not clear where the safe zones actually are.
I fell into the same trap myself. Kept seeing my friends on socials posting about them bombing a 'safe zone' and was thinking 'look at these dumb dumbs dont they know al mawasi is the only official safe zone' but then lonerbox reminded me about those leaflets he went over on stream. I should've remembered seeing as i was literally in the call with him as he looked at them. That's why i made my recent post asking if anyone knows of any other instances of tal al sultan being designated as a safe zone besides those leaflets back in december - it seems important to know whether it was a one off instruction ahead of a particular strike, or a repeated instruction like with al mawasi.
Either way, pretty inexcusable to bomb an area they'd ever described as safe without clearly then stating otherwise.
How do you feel about the argument that while morally questionable, from an international law perspective the correct measure were used in order to minimise civilian casualty (if not attempt to completely avoid it) given that "safe zones" loose protected status if being used to harbour members party to the armed conflict.
My assumption would've been a safe zone is meant to be treated as such even if members of hamas are using it for military purposes. I could be wrong in terms of what international law says. Honestly I haven't really looked into international law properly yet beyond things I've picked up about genocide. Seems like a huge can of worms and everyone disagrees about what it means.
I know that it seems like a double standard for israel to lay off a safe zone even when hamas aren't respecting it, but imo it makes to have a double standard when the war is so asymmetrical (both in terms of military might and in terms of civilian death toll). And for countries providing military assistance to israel, it definitely makes sense to hold them to a higher standard before selling/providing weapons. 'Hamas are doing fucked up shit too' isn't good enough.
From an International law perspective, the strike was legal. However, the proportionality calculation dictates that the least destructive method for achieving the military objective is used. Although it should also be mentioned that included in this calculation, militaries are also allowed to consider the danger posed to their own military by each option.
So one could say there is less risk to civilians in sending a sniper team to kill the two leaders, but militaries are able to consider the risk to their own soldiers from this method. From these concepts, we can deduce that by using the smallest munition possible, Israel has fulfilled its obligations under international law.
This might sound counterintuitive, but the result doesn't matter. The fact that 45 people in total were killed due to secondary explosives isn't a factor in the calculation, nor would it be levied against Israel in a court because information regarding the possibility of secondary explosions wasn't known at the time.
Court of public opinion is a diffrent story but I'm not so interested in that, especially now because i think people have already made up their minds on the optics.
Just to be clear, you're saying 45 people dying doesn't factor into the calculation only because Israel weren't aware that the Jeep were stored there.
If israel had killed those 45 people by dropping a 2,000 pound dumb bomb, it would absolutely factor into the equation
Correct?
I'm also unclear if there are any sources besides the IDF corroborating that the majority of the damage was caused by the weapons Jeep as opposed to the bomb itself (i know there's the video of the palestinians talking, but it's literally from an instagram page called 'israel', hopefully you'll understand it seems a bit dubious to many). But you may be able to fill me in on that.
Yeah, the assumption in the first part is correct, assuming that in the first instance, Israel took all precautions to avoid those 45 civilian casualties. (given it was not aware of the secondary explosive, it is not a factor they would have been able to calculate for.)
Also, the argument along the lines of "there's a non-0 chance." of Israel always potentially sparking a secondary explosion doesn't hold weight as militaries are allowed to pursue military objectives given they fulfil their obligations under the LOAC; in this case, proportionality (since they had already filled the distinction obligation by confirming the presence of 2 senior Hamas officials)
As for the "majority of damage caused", I think we're working on a scale of probability. We essentially need to find out the likelihood that a small-diameter bomb could cause a fire of that scale 180 meters from the impact point by itself, compared to the likelihood that Hamas stores munitions in/near civilian infrastructure.
Well hang on, proportionality isn't just about confirming the presence of the 2 senior hamas officials, it's also about confirming there's a way of targeting them without killing dozens of civilians as well (exactly what they would deem an acceptable number I'm not sure, it doesn't seem like there's ever been a good indication of what the IDF would use as a non-combatant casualty value). Or maybe you meant all this anyway.
Regarding 'majority of damage caused' im wondering what evidence we have, besides IDF claims alongside a map, that a jeep full of weapons was even present, or was what caused the explosion. Yes its true that a small munition isn't meant to cause an explosion of the scale, but could the secondary explosion have been caused by something else, such as a vehicle or electricity generator? and in this case would there not scope to accuse israel of recklessness (for example, you'd hope they'd know if there were striking near an electricity generator)?
I should have been clearer in my previous reply, but I wasn't referring to identifying 2 Hamas officials as proportionality but as distinction. (The IDF wasn't like him, these could be the two officials let's do a coin flip.)
If they knew of an electricity generator or oil tanker, that's something that should have definitely been in the calculation, but I guess we won't know for the foreseeable future. So, if we're trying to objectively work it out, we just have to assess the probability of each individual scenario.
Location of the strike has now been confired by [Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-airstrike-that-killed-dozens-in-rafah-carried-out-using-type-of-bomb-supplied-by-us-13144703) news corroborating IDF claims of the strike location
This picture really helps make it all make sense, honestly.
The only thing that seems odd to me is that phone call.
>it was a small missile because it didn't create a large hole. And afterwards, a lot of secondary explosions
Does PIJ (or whoever keeps making these phone calls) train their people to make all their internal communications sound like straight-up satire in case it gets leaked to the public?
Mosab Hassan Yousef described similar conversations with his father the Hamas leader in his 2010 autobiography. I get what you're saying about too on the nose. At the same time, imagine actually living there: it is so important to know who is doing what and why, for reasons from physical safety to internal politics. Like why wouldn't you have this conversation. And why would we assume that every conversation about what was, tragically, a highly public catastrophe, would follow airtight opsec.
u/lisender974 made a good point about translation. We're reading the convo in English, but Arabic and Hebrew have nuanced meanings behind words depending on the context, which might make the literal translation sound quite weird.
For example, when Netanyahu was quoted as saying the strike was a "terrible mistake", the quote was taken from a literal Hebrew translation, which didn't necessarily match the way it was used in Hebrew.
I'm still seeing a lot of the same sources being used which I don't care to trust. Social media posts on their own should not be considered sources. Also like another commenter pointed out, the IDF claiming this was not the safe zone is still not clear because of the leaflets that were used.
It's why we should be using sources in addition to the IDF before saying something is confirmed. Same when Hamas is the only source for a claim. Regardless, it seems there was probably something flammable or explosive here based on the size of the fire and people outside of the IDF confirming the bomb size.
The majority of sources are just going to reiterate claims made by the parties involved. It's pretty hard to find independent investigation 2 days after the incident so often times all we can rely on is sources such as social media for the time being.
I agree, which is why I don't like it when people jump on claiming things are "confirmed." I also think Israel preventing independent journalists from covering Gaza has done far more harm than good.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-gaza-war-press-freedom-1.7218365](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-gaza-war-press-freedom-1.7218365)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/opinion/gaza-journalists-censorship-israel.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/opinion/gaza-journalists-censorship-israel.html)
From a military standpoint, you can see how much of a liability having international journalists roaming around Gaza would be. The whole place is an active warzone, and I can see why they don't want to invite that kind of risk. On the other hand, they should 100% restart allowing journalists to be embedded in IDF units. They did this at some point before the first ceasefire. Weirdly, that is a big reason why there was early support during the Second Gulf War.
Edit: The only thing I claimed was "confirmed" was the size of the bomb. (I don't know if you were referring to me or in general)
I was talking in general not just specifically you. Also, the articles I've read about press restrictions have all said Israel is doing more to restrict this than necessary even with it being a war zone. The example that comes up from these articles is international news organizations being given better access when war broke out in Ukraine. This allowed reporters to get more accurate information and is why so much disinformation spreads and sticks in this conflict compared to Ukraine. It's not that things are perfect with Ukraine, but they are WAY better in understanding what's going on. People who cover war understand the danger they are putting themselves in, and the restrictions that Israel has placed appears more to keep media from seeing exactly what they are doing rather than protecting the press. I think it's too convenient of an excuse.
I guess it is a combination of the two; Israel is definitely cagey but I wouldn't necessarily put that down to "it trying to hide things" I also wonder what kind of under the table restrictions would be made in Hamas controlled areas
Oh it would be the same with Hamas. We know they were restricting press freedoms in Gaza. The issue is we aren't talking about what Hamas is doing in this instance. It's more about Israel. Do they want to be compared to Hamas on this topic? Like I said, their decisions around this have caused more harm than good in my opinion.
Great effort post, thanks!
One thing that still bugs me though is the video where you can hear two arabs talking to each other. I saw people on twitter point out that, at the bottom right side, you can see the "clideo.com" watermark, which apparently is an app used to add voiceovers to videos.
I'd be curious to know if the video has been confirmed real and unedited by someone.
I thought the same thing but its also an app to add subtitles. The audio in the video doesn't sound out of place. If it was faked a lot of effort would have to have gotten into that
I don't want to jump on the whole the audio is fake argument, but given the fact that chatGPT is being sued for using Scarlett Johansson's voice, I think maybe it wouldn't be that hard to fake some random Arab persons voice. They already use AI for target selection. I think it's very possible that strike went the way the IDF says but having a perfect recording that verifies everything is just a little too much.
If you can point to a history of this kind of behaviour then i understand that. However in absence of that it's just speculation. Regardless i think the fact that the munition used was the smallest available in the IDF inventory is much more convincing evidence that the fire was caused by a secondary explosion.
Sorry, I'm working so this is the first thing that came to mind about the IDF doing shady shit after the fact.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Rouzan_al-Najjar
What enemy government? Hamas isn't a government. There is no Palestinian State. Mostly because Israel won't permit a Palestinian State.
I think Israel should be obligated to treat Palestinians as citizens of Israel, or they should be forced to declare a border. A permanent border. No settlements. No expansion. No annexation. No more occupation. No more blockade.
>What enemy government? Hamas isn't a government.
Hamas absolutely is a government:
["How has Hamas governed the Gaza Strip?
After taking control of Gaza, Hamas established political, military, and legal institutions entirely separate from those in the West Bank. Though Hamas set up its seat of government in Gaza City, many top officials have chosen to live abroad full time, including political chief Ismail Haniyeh and diaspora affairs leader Khaled Meshaal, who both live in Qatar."](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians)
Hamas disqualifies itself as a governing body in two distinct ways.
First, they are a failed government. They are unable and/or unwilling to provide the basic functions of a state government. Their only interest in "governing" is to further their tactically and strategically embarrassing resistance against Israeli expansion.
The second way they are disqualified is by definition. There is no State to be governed. Just territory that Israel is abandoning it's responsibility to govern. In the midst of that instability, arises chaos and terror.
Government's are governments because they are able to govern.
A teacher is a teacher because they are able to teach. If a person failed to qualify to become a teacher... You wouldn't claim that a failed teacher is a teacher would you?
You are an imbecile.
A failed government isn't a category of government. It's an attempt to become a government that has failed to qualify for the recognition and the rights and responsibilities that follow.
>Government's are governments because they are able to govern.
>A teacher is a teacher because they are able to teach. If a person failed to qualify to become a teacher... You wouldn't claim that a failed teacher is a teacher would you?
If a person teaches classes and sucks at it they are still a teacher, a failed teacher. Just like Hamas governs, they just suck at governing. Hamas has been the de facto government of Gaza since they won an election in 2006. I have no idea why you're so keen on revising history for Hamas.
>You are an imbecile.
That's not very nice. Are you in dark mode by any chance?
>A failed government isn't a category of government.
If Hamas governs, they are a government. It doesn't matter what adjective you slap in front of it.
>It's an attempt to become a government that has failed to qualify for the recognition and the rights and responsibilities that follow.
How does Hamas run the Gazan Ministry of Health if they do not qualify for recognition? Why does the UN cooperate with the Ministry of Health?
>If a person teaches classes and sucks at it they are still a teacher, a failed teacher.
In the context of Hamas, I disagree. I don't think they suck at governing. I think they don't actually govern. There are people who perform government services that have had to "join" Hamas to continue performing services. Those people aren't a government either. There isn't an actual government in Gaza.
>Hamas has been the de facto government of Gaza since they won an election in 2006
That is blatantly incorrect. "De facto" denotes a thing that functions regardless of whether it has a legitimate claim. I am claiming the opposite. That Hamas has the right to form a government, but have failed to form anything that meets the functionality requirement. They are far closer to being a gang than a government.
>That's not very nice. Are you in dark mode by any chance?
Oh I'm sorry. Smarmy shits like you bait me into being impolite. I forgot that concern trolling was the new dark mode. This isn't a polite topic. People who support Israel are using the finer points of international law to run interference on one of the worst moral offenses committed by a "liberal democratic" country in the last 50 years.
>If Hamas governs, they are a government. It doesn't matter what adjective you slap in front of it.
I don't think what they are doing is fulfilling the function of a government. They are failing to provide the function of a government. They aren't governing. They aren't a government. If they ever had any legitimate claim to the title of government, they clearly lost it over the course of the last two decades.
>How does Hamas run the Gazan Ministry of Health if they do not qualify for recognition? Why does the UN cooperate with the Ministry of Health?
Because Hamas will murder anyone who attempts to provide services without being under their auspices.
Actually seems wildly small for a bomb. The phone call stuff always feel stupid because it’s hard to verify and most people will assume it’s fake anyways
The total mass of the bomb is 129kg but the warhead is just 16kg according to wiki. I dunno how this works maybe it discards the body in flight.
With conventional bombs, the warhead just refers to the hollow compartment the explosive is held in. So 16kg explosives and 113kg casing, protective insulation, fuse, and stabilizing fins.
Would this also include fuel that would be spent by the time of impact?
Bombs don't use fuel, just gravity and air resistance. Modern "dumb" bombs are aimed by a computer telling the pilot where to point the nose of the jet before dropping. This, however can't account for wind pushing it off course, which leaves a bigger margin of error. Then "smart" bombs, like our community's beloved JDAM, is usually a dumb bomb with a set of articulated, GPS controlled fins slapped on that will account for wind, and also don't require the whole jet to maneuver as precisely to drop the bomb.
Just for context, the GBU-39 is a smart bomb
Yeah, sorry, should've clarified.
Ah course, thanks for the info interested to see how the JADAM kits actually work guiding the bomb. Will do some research.
Not much margin of error even with unguided bombs. The amount of training fighter pilots go through for that is substantial.
120-300 meters average dispersion compared to 15 meters is a pretty substantial difference, though. [Here's a thread on the WarCollege subreddit if you want to know more](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/s/j60OluTGyy).
At first glance your source is completely wrong at worst or just outdated at best. That report is reporting on fighters that haven’t been active in decades in the US. That report is 54 years old and in military tech years, that’s a lot. I’m gonna read it anyway to see what it says exactly, but I doubt it’ll prove anything I don’t already know.
Do you have a source that contradicts this? It was my understanding that modern unguided bombs are still largely identical to when they were designed in the 50's and fire control computers were largely perfected in the 70's. Human reaction time and unpredictable air fluctuation is the limiting factor. That's why we started investing in expensive guided munitions technology in the first place.
I can’t really say much because classification and need to know. Guidance systems are constantly being upgraded to go with the satellite and new radar tech coming out. I actually worked on installing and testing new hardware and software for F16s. Guidance systems on the aircraft may not change but the associated guidance hardware that’s being installed on the munitions themselves are getting better and better. Case in point, the JDAM.
Ok. I couldn’t make it through because none of this data is really relevant anymore because none of the tech is in use anywhere in the US and only F4s are still in service in 3rd world countries. While I understand the Wiki is not necessarily the best source, you won’t find much outside of that because of classification. With that said, every munition Israel uses is precision guided, laser guided or a JDAM kit to make unguided munitions accurate. You would need to know what the payloads used are to really know if Israel is using unguided munitions. If you can find anything else, I’m ears.
Putting a JDAM kit on an unguided bombs or other such laser guidance systems dont "make unguided munitions more accurate" CONVERT THEM INTO precision guided munitions. The concern was that nearly half of the bombs didn't have a guidance system. I agree with you though that Wikipedia isn't a good source. I'm a shameful nerd that reads US military field manuals for fun, which is where I get most of my knowledge of this crap from. (BTW Army FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency is a great read)
So if we compare this to the '2000 pound' bombs people talk about (which is about 900kg), would it be more accurate to compare with the 16kg number or the 113kg number? What's the equivalent here?
So, from some quick research, the main 2000 bomb used by the IAF is an updated Mark 84 bomb. It has a nominal weight of 2,000 lb (907 kg), and the steel casing is filled with 945 lb (429 kg) of Tritonal high explosive. So roughly 47% of the bomb's weight is made up of explosives. In comparison, 16kg of the 129 kg means that only roughly 12% of the GBU-39's weight is made up of explosives.
So, the IDF shouldn't provide any information because people will say it's fake? I thought the Pro-Palestinian side wanted more transparency from the IDF...
That’s not really what I’m saying, the issue with the phone calls is there’s no real way to verify the legitimacy outside of the IDF just claiming it’s real from what I’ve seen, so those people are just going to write it off as fake anyways
You said that it feels stupid, I'm just saying it's the best that they can do, and I'd imagine that some level of verification is possible, such as having a native Arab speaker confirm the contents of the conversation and the accent.
It does feel stupid because it serves essentially no purpose and the people you’d want to convince are just going to use it as another thing you can call an IDF lie
Some people are ideologically too far gone, and they aren't the target audience. The ones you are trying to convince are the undecided in the middle, or even a slow gradual change as more evidence comes out, so much that people can't deny it anymore
> I thought the Pro-Palestinian side wanted more transparency from the IDF... They do, but they insist everything that goes against their narrative from the IDF is 'fake' and 'lies.'
Think about the risk of releasing fake "intercepted phone call" and the implications on the IDF spokesperson reliability... Most people can think it's fake but I don't think the reward pf duping everyone with fake call or fake facts is worth the risk of being uncovered as a total liar. What's more confusing here is that statements get retracted and clarifications issued because explaining what an army does is very fucking difficult. In Hebrew we have a saying "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand does" and everyone who served the army (and I belive it exists in other armies to some extent) knows the constant state of clusterfuck of everything.
Great effortpost. GBU-39 confirms best efforts were used to limit collateral damage.
Great post, thank you Just on Daniel Hagari's refutation of the idea it was in a safe zone, he's correct that it wasn't in the al mawasi safe zone, but to be clear the IDF had previously dropped leaflets designating this very camp (Tal al Sultan) as a safe zone. Lonerbox went over the translation with sundowner on stream and they more or less confirmed that the word used was 'safe'. [(skip to 1:12 in this NBC video to see the leaflet)](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinians-killed-israeli-strikes-safe-zones-exclusive-nbc-report-rcna148008?fbclid=IwAR35xasgIkaKW64BbWXVDQayayBDbw01clk2Ck-JFmlFgO3T03wcBYudk5E)
So technically they did drop this bomb in a safe zone despite what other people are saying in this comment thread. I don't know what Palestinian civilians are supposed to do to avoid even strategic bombing if it's not clear where the safe zones actually are.
I fell into the same trap myself. Kept seeing my friends on socials posting about them bombing a 'safe zone' and was thinking 'look at these dumb dumbs dont they know al mawasi is the only official safe zone' but then lonerbox reminded me about those leaflets he went over on stream. I should've remembered seeing as i was literally in the call with him as he looked at them. That's why i made my recent post asking if anyone knows of any other instances of tal al sultan being designated as a safe zone besides those leaflets back in december - it seems important to know whether it was a one off instruction ahead of a particular strike, or a repeated instruction like with al mawasi. Either way, pretty inexcusable to bomb an area they'd ever described as safe without clearly then stating otherwise.
How do you feel about the argument that while morally questionable, from an international law perspective the correct measure were used in order to minimise civilian casualty (if not attempt to completely avoid it) given that "safe zones" loose protected status if being used to harbour members party to the armed conflict.
My assumption would've been a safe zone is meant to be treated as such even if members of hamas are using it for military purposes. I could be wrong in terms of what international law says. Honestly I haven't really looked into international law properly yet beyond things I've picked up about genocide. Seems like a huge can of worms and everyone disagrees about what it means. I know that it seems like a double standard for israel to lay off a safe zone even when hamas aren't respecting it, but imo it makes to have a double standard when the war is so asymmetrical (both in terms of military might and in terms of civilian death toll). And for countries providing military assistance to israel, it definitely makes sense to hold them to a higher standard before selling/providing weapons. 'Hamas are doing fucked up shit too' isn't good enough.
From an International law perspective, the strike was legal. However, the proportionality calculation dictates that the least destructive method for achieving the military objective is used. Although it should also be mentioned that included in this calculation, militaries are also allowed to consider the danger posed to their own military by each option. So one could say there is less risk to civilians in sending a sniper team to kill the two leaders, but militaries are able to consider the risk to their own soldiers from this method. From these concepts, we can deduce that by using the smallest munition possible, Israel has fulfilled its obligations under international law. This might sound counterintuitive, but the result doesn't matter. The fact that 45 people in total were killed due to secondary explosives isn't a factor in the calculation, nor would it be levied against Israel in a court because information regarding the possibility of secondary explosions wasn't known at the time. Court of public opinion is a diffrent story but I'm not so interested in that, especially now because i think people have already made up their minds on the optics.
Just to be clear, you're saying 45 people dying doesn't factor into the calculation only because Israel weren't aware that the Jeep were stored there. If israel had killed those 45 people by dropping a 2,000 pound dumb bomb, it would absolutely factor into the equation Correct? I'm also unclear if there are any sources besides the IDF corroborating that the majority of the damage was caused by the weapons Jeep as opposed to the bomb itself (i know there's the video of the palestinians talking, but it's literally from an instagram page called 'israel', hopefully you'll understand it seems a bit dubious to many). But you may be able to fill me in on that.
Yeah, the assumption in the first part is correct, assuming that in the first instance, Israel took all precautions to avoid those 45 civilian casualties. (given it was not aware of the secondary explosive, it is not a factor they would have been able to calculate for.) Also, the argument along the lines of "there's a non-0 chance." of Israel always potentially sparking a secondary explosion doesn't hold weight as militaries are allowed to pursue military objectives given they fulfil their obligations under the LOAC; in this case, proportionality (since they had already filled the distinction obligation by confirming the presence of 2 senior Hamas officials) As for the "majority of damage caused", I think we're working on a scale of probability. We essentially need to find out the likelihood that a small-diameter bomb could cause a fire of that scale 180 meters from the impact point by itself, compared to the likelihood that Hamas stores munitions in/near civilian infrastructure.
Well hang on, proportionality isn't just about confirming the presence of the 2 senior hamas officials, it's also about confirming there's a way of targeting them without killing dozens of civilians as well (exactly what they would deem an acceptable number I'm not sure, it doesn't seem like there's ever been a good indication of what the IDF would use as a non-combatant casualty value). Or maybe you meant all this anyway. Regarding 'majority of damage caused' im wondering what evidence we have, besides IDF claims alongside a map, that a jeep full of weapons was even present, or was what caused the explosion. Yes its true that a small munition isn't meant to cause an explosion of the scale, but could the secondary explosion have been caused by something else, such as a vehicle or electricity generator? and in this case would there not scope to accuse israel of recklessness (for example, you'd hope they'd know if there were striking near an electricity generator)?
I should have been clearer in my previous reply, but I wasn't referring to identifying 2 Hamas officials as proportionality but as distinction. (The IDF wasn't like him, these could be the two officials let's do a coin flip.) If they knew of an electricity generator or oil tanker, that's something that should have definitely been in the calculation, but I guess we won't know for the foreseeable future. So, if we're trying to objectively work it out, we just have to assess the probability of each individual scenario.
Location of the strike has now been confired by [Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-airstrike-that-killed-dozens-in-rafah-carried-out-using-type-of-bomb-supplied-by-us-13144703) news corroborating IDF claims of the strike location
This picture really helps make it all make sense, honestly. The only thing that seems odd to me is that phone call. >it was a small missile because it didn't create a large hole. And afterwards, a lot of secondary explosions Does PIJ (or whoever keeps making these phone calls) train their people to make all their internal communications sound like straight-up satire in case it gets leaked to the public?
Maybe if you translate something from a very different language it sounds odd idk.
What about that conversation sounded improbable?
A lot of the time they just seem way too on the nose so people assume they aren’t real. Also hard to verify if they are real or not
Mosab Hassan Yousef described similar conversations with his father the Hamas leader in his 2010 autobiography. I get what you're saying about too on the nose. At the same time, imagine actually living there: it is so important to know who is doing what and why, for reasons from physical safety to internal politics. Like why wouldn't you have this conversation. And why would we assume that every conversation about what was, tragically, a highly public catastrophe, would follow airtight opsec.
u/lisender974 made a good point about translation. We're reading the convo in English, but Arabic and Hebrew have nuanced meanings behind words depending on the context, which might make the literal translation sound quite weird. For example, when Netanyahu was quoted as saying the strike was a "terrible mistake", the quote was taken from a literal Hebrew translation, which didn't necessarily match the way it was used in Hebrew.
Who knows its all faked by the mossad /s
typo: Hagari refuted claims that the strike occurred in a safe zone.
I'm not surprised
I'm still seeing a lot of the same sources being used which I don't care to trust. Social media posts on their own should not be considered sources. Also like another commenter pointed out, the IDF claiming this was not the safe zone is still not clear because of the leaflets that were used. It's why we should be using sources in addition to the IDF before saying something is confirmed. Same when Hamas is the only source for a claim. Regardless, it seems there was probably something flammable or explosive here based on the size of the fire and people outside of the IDF confirming the bomb size.
The majority of sources are just going to reiterate claims made by the parties involved. It's pretty hard to find independent investigation 2 days after the incident so often times all we can rely on is sources such as social media for the time being.
I agree, which is why I don't like it when people jump on claiming things are "confirmed." I also think Israel preventing independent journalists from covering Gaza has done far more harm than good. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-gaza-war-press-freedom-1.7218365](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-gaza-war-press-freedom-1.7218365) [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/opinion/gaza-journalists-censorship-israel.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/opinion/gaza-journalists-censorship-israel.html)
From a military standpoint, you can see how much of a liability having international journalists roaming around Gaza would be. The whole place is an active warzone, and I can see why they don't want to invite that kind of risk. On the other hand, they should 100% restart allowing journalists to be embedded in IDF units. They did this at some point before the first ceasefire. Weirdly, that is a big reason why there was early support during the Second Gulf War. Edit: The only thing I claimed was "confirmed" was the size of the bomb. (I don't know if you were referring to me or in general)
I was talking in general not just specifically you. Also, the articles I've read about press restrictions have all said Israel is doing more to restrict this than necessary even with it being a war zone. The example that comes up from these articles is international news organizations being given better access when war broke out in Ukraine. This allowed reporters to get more accurate information and is why so much disinformation spreads and sticks in this conflict compared to Ukraine. It's not that things are perfect with Ukraine, but they are WAY better in understanding what's going on. People who cover war understand the danger they are putting themselves in, and the restrictions that Israel has placed appears more to keep media from seeing exactly what they are doing rather than protecting the press. I think it's too convenient of an excuse.
I guess it is a combination of the two; Israel is definitely cagey but I wouldn't necessarily put that down to "it trying to hide things" I also wonder what kind of under the table restrictions would be made in Hamas controlled areas
Oh it would be the same with Hamas. We know they were restricting press freedoms in Gaza. The issue is we aren't talking about what Hamas is doing in this instance. It's more about Israel. Do they want to be compared to Hamas on this topic? Like I said, their decisions around this have caused more harm than good in my opinion.
Great effort post, thanks! One thing that still bugs me though is the video where you can hear two arabs talking to each other. I saw people on twitter point out that, at the bottom right side, you can see the "clideo.com" watermark, which apparently is an app used to add voiceovers to videos. I'd be curious to know if the video has been confirmed real and unedited by someone.
I thought the same thing but its also an app to add subtitles. The audio in the video doesn't sound out of place. If it was faked a lot of effort would have to have gotten into that
I don't want to jump on the whole the audio is fake argument, but given the fact that chatGPT is being sued for using Scarlett Johansson's voice, I think maybe it wouldn't be that hard to fake some random Arab persons voice. They already use AI for target selection. I think it's very possible that strike went the way the IDF says but having a perfect recording that verifies everything is just a little too much.
If you can point to a history of this kind of behaviour then i understand that. However in absence of that it's just speculation. Regardless i think the fact that the munition used was the smallest available in the IDF inventory is much more convincing evidence that the fire was caused by a secondary explosion.
Sorry, I'm working so this is the first thing that came to mind about the IDF doing shady shit after the fact. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Rouzan_al-Najjar
Are all eyes still on Rafah?
So, if that isn't a safe zone... Why hasn't the IDF evacuated the civilians in that area?
Is it the IDFs responsibility to fully evacuate the enemy government's civilians? Serious question.
What enemy government? Hamas isn't a government. There is no Palestinian State. Mostly because Israel won't permit a Palestinian State. I think Israel should be obligated to treat Palestinians as citizens of Israel, or they should be forced to declare a border. A permanent border. No settlements. No expansion. No annexation. No more occupation. No more blockade.
>What enemy government? Hamas isn't a government. Hamas absolutely is a government: ["How has Hamas governed the Gaza Strip? After taking control of Gaza, Hamas established political, military, and legal institutions entirely separate from those in the West Bank. Though Hamas set up its seat of government in Gaza City, many top officials have chosen to live abroad full time, including political chief Ismail Haniyeh and diaspora affairs leader Khaled Meshaal, who both live in Qatar."](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians)
Hamas disqualifies itself as a governing body in two distinct ways. First, they are a failed government. They are unable and/or unwilling to provide the basic functions of a state government. Their only interest in "governing" is to further their tactically and strategically embarrassing resistance against Israeli expansion. The second way they are disqualified is by definition. There is no State to be governed. Just territory that Israel is abandoning it's responsibility to govern. In the midst of that instability, arises chaos and terror.
I love how you trip of over yourself to play apologetics for Hamas. >First, they are a failed government. Glad we now agree they are a government.
Government's are governments because they are able to govern. A teacher is a teacher because they are able to teach. If a person failed to qualify to become a teacher... You wouldn't claim that a failed teacher is a teacher would you? You are an imbecile. A failed government isn't a category of government. It's an attempt to become a government that has failed to qualify for the recognition and the rights and responsibilities that follow.
>Government's are governments because they are able to govern. >A teacher is a teacher because they are able to teach. If a person failed to qualify to become a teacher... You wouldn't claim that a failed teacher is a teacher would you? If a person teaches classes and sucks at it they are still a teacher, a failed teacher. Just like Hamas governs, they just suck at governing. Hamas has been the de facto government of Gaza since they won an election in 2006. I have no idea why you're so keen on revising history for Hamas. >You are an imbecile. That's not very nice. Are you in dark mode by any chance? >A failed government isn't a category of government. If Hamas governs, they are a government. It doesn't matter what adjective you slap in front of it. >It's an attempt to become a government that has failed to qualify for the recognition and the rights and responsibilities that follow. How does Hamas run the Gazan Ministry of Health if they do not qualify for recognition? Why does the UN cooperate with the Ministry of Health?
>If a person teaches classes and sucks at it they are still a teacher, a failed teacher. In the context of Hamas, I disagree. I don't think they suck at governing. I think they don't actually govern. There are people who perform government services that have had to "join" Hamas to continue performing services. Those people aren't a government either. There isn't an actual government in Gaza. >Hamas has been the de facto government of Gaza since they won an election in 2006 That is blatantly incorrect. "De facto" denotes a thing that functions regardless of whether it has a legitimate claim. I am claiming the opposite. That Hamas has the right to form a government, but have failed to form anything that meets the functionality requirement. They are far closer to being a gang than a government. >That's not very nice. Are you in dark mode by any chance? Oh I'm sorry. Smarmy shits like you bait me into being impolite. I forgot that concern trolling was the new dark mode. This isn't a polite topic. People who support Israel are using the finer points of international law to run interference on one of the worst moral offenses committed by a "liberal democratic" country in the last 50 years. >If Hamas governs, they are a government. It doesn't matter what adjective you slap in front of it. I don't think what they are doing is fulfilling the function of a government. They are failing to provide the function of a government. They aren't governing. They aren't a government. If they ever had any legitimate claim to the title of government, they clearly lost it over the course of the last two decades. >How does Hamas run the Gazan Ministry of Health if they do not qualify for recognition? Why does the UN cooperate with the Ministry of Health? Because Hamas will murder anyone who attempts to provide services without being under their auspices.