| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| This is why the Air Force did not bomb the scene of the Gaza disaster |
| 2024-01-24 |
| [Ynet] We woke up Tuesday morning to one of the hardest events we have known during the Gaza war. Twenty-one soldiers; Our good sons, were killed fighting in Gaza in the most difficult incident since the beginning of the war. It goes without saying that in such an event the public is looking for answers to the breakdown that led to it and how it could have been avoided. But precisely in such difficult times, it is important to separate the truth from all kinds of stories that get mixed in. Let's start with the essence of the operation: Since October 7 the IDF has been working to establish a buffer zone in the Gaza Strip. Of all the tasks the IDF is doing, this is perhaps the most important and the one that should prevent a situation where the events of the surprise attack by Hamas will be repeated. As part of the activity, the IDF forces are exposing the area of ground and underground terrorist infrastructure along the entire border area. Monday's activity, for example, was on the first line in front of Kissufim — a community where dozens of terrorists arrived from the same areas in which the IDF was operating. The activity there is difficult, Sisyphean, and requires a redesign of hundreds of meters of the border. Without it, it will not be possible to return the residents of the Gaza border communities home. This is the mission on which the soldiers were killed and there is nothing more valuable and important than it. It is important to say, that the soldiers were killed during a battle, and all indications so far point to the fact that the explosion occurred as a result of Hamas anti-tank fire. This is not a safety issue but a battle with disastrous results. The first question that arose after the event was why not attack those houses from the air. We will explain: Exposing buildings is a job for the engineers' corps, for D9 bulldozers in the case of low buildings or mines in other cases. The bulldozers were damaged in the war as a result of the destruction of houses, especially when they were operating against high-rises, so the IDF decided to switch some of the demolitions to mines, which are more effective but also more dangerous. |
| Posted by:Grom the Reflective |
| #10 You don't use 20+ people teams to rig explosives. Story I heard was the jihadis attacked with RPGs while the demolition charges were being set. I've never deliberately blown up a building but... I'm thinking half a dozen guys to keep watch and the rest split into 2 man teams. The goal is to get done and get gone as quick as possible. Is 20 really that many for a multi-story building? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2024-01-24 16:09 |
| #9 Dumb Cement Bombs dropped from 30K-50K feet are quite destructive to structures, especially non-military. Then a nice bulldoze into the sea... Horrible. They were clearing boobytrap mines from a building, Then Palestinians with RPGs ambushed and got a win. Took out a tank. And scored a lucky shot: RPG hit a mine in the building jews were clearing and the building collapsed on the platoon. |
| Posted by: mossomo 2024-01-24 15:36 |
| #8 Again, likely a left-hand not knowing what the right-hand is doing scenario. Setting charges is a hazardous undertaking on a good day. I was invited to observe bomb runs at the Udari Range years ago. I declined. Never regretted it. A sickening loss of young soldiers. I hope procedures are tightened up. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2024-01-24 14:07 |
| #7 ^You don't use 20+ people teams to rig explosives. |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2024-01-24 13:57 |
| #6 Yesterday I read it as they were still wiring the demolition explosives when they were attacked, but perhaps I was wrong. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2024-01-24 13:49 |
| #5 The main question here is "What the f@ck 20+ soldiers were doing in a building schedued for demolition?". Most probable explanation, sheltering from rain. |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2024-01-24 09:51 |
| #4 Could be they are running low on US supplied aerial munitions. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2024-01-24 08:07 |
| #3 "Aerial destruction is possible and is used in some places, but it is not always complete. It is very expensive and takes resources from places that need them. If we bomb all the houses in the area from the air to destruction, there will be no weapons left to attack terrorists while the forces are maneuvering, and certainly not in the northern arena. This is true for the Israeli Air Force, but also for any other country." My bet is AF ego. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-01-24 07:32 |
| #2 A tragic communications failure. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2024-01-24 07:27 |
| #1 I apparently am missing something. Why did the IAF not bomb the building in question? The article so far seems like a rambling cluster of words not getting to the point of the headline. I suspect the original article was in another language abd something got lost in translation? I'll ask again, Why did the IAF not bomb the building in question? |
| Posted by: Seeking Cure For Ignorance 2024-01-24 07:24 |