Staff Reports
Over the weekend, the Israeli Defense Forces carried out a precise strike on two Hamas leaders in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. Afterward, there was a fire which spread to a refugee tent, leading some in the global media and the “international community” to claim that the IDF purposely bombed a safe zone for civilians, resulting in the deaths of many women and children.
However, after further investigation, it seems that this claim may not be accurate. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks were incorrectly translated, leading to a misunderstanding. He actually referred to a tragic fault or incident, not a deliberate mistake. This suggests that the unintended loss of innocent lives was indeed tragic, but not intentional.
Another Big Lie About Israel Just Spread Like Wildfire
https://t.co/tyeZ4LD6Up— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 30, 2024
In fact, evidence indicates that the fire was caused by Hamas storing munitions next to the humanitarian tents. The Israeli airstrike did not hit the shelter, and the munitions used were precision-guided with small payloads. It is likely that the fire was caused by secondary explosions from the nearby Hamas weaponry, rather than the Israeli airstrike itself.
This new information raises questions about the initial reporting on the incident, which may have been based on false information put out by Hamas. Despite this, some media outlets and leaders continue to trust the Hamas narrative without waiting for a thorough investigation to conclude.
The White House has hinted at the possibility that there was no deliberate strike on the camp and urged reporters to wait for the investigation to be completed. However, some Western media and leaders have once again jumped to trust the Hamas narrative, despite past instances of blatant lies from the group.
The evidence suggests that the Israeli Defense Forces took precautionary measures to avoid civilian casualties, and that the fire was a tragic result of Hamas storing weapons near the targeted area. This new information challenges the initial claims made about the incident, highlighting the importance of waiting for a thorough investigation before drawing conclusions.
