It's a strange place for anybody to have bombed, to be honest: Too far away from the border for mortars, a couple of statue miles. True, the wall would offer an elevated spot for a missile launcher, but it would stink and be very exposed. It might serve the purpose of attracting very damaging fire from a Israeli plane, but in a really nasty way. (Then again, it's near Netzarim, and I'm sure that the idea of flooding the area formerly known as Netzarim with sewage would appeal to some.)
Then there are the usual "plausibly right but not quite all there" bits: It says there was a bomb crater, but the area's been scrubbed so I can't spot the crater. After all, first a BOOM! that takes out part of an *earthen* retaining wall, then having a massive outrush of sewage in a sandy area ... not just real conducive to preserving a nice inverted funnel or the preservation of shrapnel. The breech's width is due, in large part, to erosion by the wastewater.
Note that the "special resolution" is actually "reduced resolution", less detail than usual, not more.
Then there's this, dated 1/10/2009:
http://www.imemc.org/article/58397"Now, a similar disaster may be about to occur, on top of the military assault that has left over 800 people dead in the last two weeks. Local officials report that both fresh-water pumping systems that provide water to the residents of Gaza, and sewage pumping systems, pumping out human wastewater, are on the verge of collapse in many areas. The biggest wastewater treatment plant, in northern Gaza, was supposed to have been emptied a month ago due to the potential for flooding. Now, the risk of breakage and flooding has reached a crisis, with 10,000 people at risk if a flood does occur."
This plant was just north of Netzarim, south of Gaza city. "The sewage treatment plant in Sheikh Ajleen is Gaza’s largest." It's odd that they were reporting a risk of breakage precisely where it *did* break within a week. The satellite image is dated 1/17/2009. If you were the wastewater treatment plant's manager, wouldn't *you* want there to have been a bomb instead of a breech due to (a) not having emptied the thing earlier and (b) poor maintenance? Much less humiliating. Not that there's any cultural imperative against humiliation or anything.
One can still continue to blame Israel for it, albeit a bit more indirectly, if there wasn't a bomb that created the breech. Israel didn't allow in piping or facilitate maintenance, it knocked out electricity, even if it wasn't an actual bomb that created the breech. But it's less ... is "inflammatory" a good word here? ... if it's not a direct consequence. "A caused B" is understandable; "A created conditions for B to occur" creates a much more diffuse anger and focus for outrage. Ma'an doesn't do "diffuse."
Still, it's horrendous.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
