A Lack Of Vigilance Before The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

   Faults Underlying Exercise Vigilant GuardStory by: (Author NameStaff Sgt. Raymond Drumsta – 138th Public Affairs Detachment
Dated: Thu, Nov 5, 2009
This map illustrates the earthquake fault lines in Western New York. An earthquake in the region is a likely event, says University of Buffalo Professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.
TONAWANDA, NY — An earthquake in western New York, the scenario that Exercise Vigilant Guard is built around, is not that far-fetched, according to University of Buffalo geology professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.
When asked about earthquakes in the area, Jacobi pulls out a computer-generated state map, cross-hatched with diagonal lines representing geological faults.
The faults show that past earthquakes in the state were not random, and could occur again on the same fault systems, he said.
“In western New York, 6.5 magnitude earthquakes are possible,” he said.
This possibility underlies Exercise Vigilant Guard, a joint training opportunity for National Guard and emergency response organizations to build relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners against a variety of different homeland security threats including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.
The exercise was based on an earthquake scenario, and a rubble pile at the Spaulding Fibre site here was used to simulate a collapsed building. The scenario was chosen as a result of extensive consultations with the earthquake experts at the University of Buffalo’s Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), said Brig. Gen. Mike Swezey, commander of 53rd Troop Command, who visited the site on Monday.
Earthquakes of up to 7 magnitude have occurred in the Northeastern part of the continent, and this scenario was calibrated on the magnitude 5.9 earthquake which occurred in Saguenay, Quebec in 1988, said Jacobi and Professor Andre Filiatrault, MCEER director.
“A 5.9 magnitude earthquake in this area is not an unrealistic scenario,” said Filiatrault.
Closer to home, a 1.9 magnitude earthquake occurred about 2.5 miles from the Spaulding Fibre site within the last decade, Jacobi said. He and other earthquake experts impaneled by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada in 1997 found that there’s a 40 percent chance of 6.5 magnitude earthquake occurring along the Clareden-Linden fault system, which lies about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester, Jacobi added.
Jacobi and Filiatrault said the soft soil of western New York, especially in part of downtown Buffalo, would amplify tremors, causing more damage.
“It’s like jello in a bowl,” said Jacobi.
The area’s old infrastructure is vulnerable because it was built without reinforcing steel, said Filiatrault. Damage to industrial areas could release hazardous materials, he added.
“You’ll have significant damage,” Filiatrault said.
Exercise Vigilant Guard involved an earthquake’s aftermath, including infrastructure damage, injuries, deaths, displaced citizens and hazardous material incidents. All this week, more than 1,300 National Guard troops and hundreds of local and regional emergency response professionals have been training at several sites in western New York to respond these types of incidents.
Jacobi called Exercise Vigilant Guard “important and illuminating.”
“I’m proud of the National Guard for organizing and carrying out such an excellent exercise,” he said.
Training concluded Thursday.

Israel Orders Another Attack Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Israeli Air Force strikes Gaza Strip in response to incendiary balloons

Incendiary balloons launched from the Gaza Strip on Sunday led to multiple fires in the communities near the Gaza border.

The IDF attacked a military camp belonging to Hamas in the southern Gaza Strip, IDF Spokesperson reported on Sunday night.Israeli Air Force fighter jets attacked the military base which contained a number of buildings used by Hamas members. The base was located in a civilian area, close to a school, IDF Spokesperson reported.They also confirmed that the air strikes are in retaliation for incendiary balloons which were launched earlier on Sunday, leading to fires in the Eshkol Regional Council.

This followed a earlier closure of Gazan fishing space from 12 nautical miles to just six.After the resumption of incendiary attacks and a series of situation assessments, the Coordinator of Government Operations in the Territories’ (COGAT) Maj.-Gen. Ghassan Alian announced on Sunday that it was decided to restrict the fishing zone in the Gaza Strip down from 12 to 6 nautical miles. 

The decision will take effect immediately and will continue until further notice. Prior to Operation Guardian of the Wall, Gaza’s fishing zone stood at 15 nautical miles.The decision to limit Gaza’s fishing space came after the renewed launch ofincendiary balloons from the Gaza Strip towards Israeli territory after 3 weeks of relative quiet.The decision comes only 12 days after Gaza’s fishing zone was expanded from 9 to 12 nautical miles due to the relative calm which was seen in recent weeks.In a statement, COGAT said that “The terrorist organization Hamas bears responsibility for everything that is done in and out of the Gaza Strip towards the State of Israel, and it will bear the consequences of the violence perpetrated against the citizens of the country.”

Earlier on Sunday, three fires were extinguished in the Eshkol Regional Council, near the Gaza border. The fire investigator determined all three were the result of incendiary balloons.

The Russian Nuclear Horn Has No Big Weakness: Daniel 7

Russia’s Military Has No Big Weakness: No Stealth Bombers (Yet)

Russia’s move to publish photos and weapons of three of its bombers appears to be an overt and deliberate show of massive strength, as the bombers are photographed with an entire identifiable payload laid out in front of them.

Perhaps Russia is trying to show that its force is deeper, more advanced, and more lethal than a U.S. B-1B bomber and B-52. None of the three aircraft shown, the Tu-160 Blackjack, Tu-95MS Bear-H, and Tu22 Backfire-C appear super stealthy per say, and the emerging Russian PAK DA stealth bomber is expectedly not shown. The T-160 Blackjack does look a little stealthy given its slightly rounded or blended wing-body, however it looks much more like a B1-B than a super stealthy bomber. The pictures, released by the Russian Ministry of Defense,  appeared in an interesting report by The Drive

There is no question that, taken together, the display of bombing firepower is quite significant and potentially quite threatening given the expected retirement of the B-1B bomber in coming years. 

Just how threatening are these bombers? Of course, that depends in large measure upon the size of their fleet, however, there are also some interesting additional variables to consider. For example, how might this line-up compare with the U.S. bomber fleet plans. The U.S. Air Force has been quite vocal that the service faces a massive “bomber deficit,” in terms of numbers, yet that is something there are fast-tracked efforts to correct. The overall strategy, Air Force leaders explain, is to incrementally and slowly retire the B-1B and ultimately the B-2 as sufficient numbers of B-21s arrive. The B-21 is extremely significant here, as the program’s success and need for the new bomber are both significant, circumstances which are inspiring a current effort to greatly increase the number planned and also potentially “flex” in terms of accelerating bomber production.  The B-1B, and especially the B-2, are being massively upgraded with new weapons, computing and sensors to ensure that they stay relevant, lethal, and viable for many years to come as part of a deliberate and clear effort to sustain an extremely capable and lethal fleet until large numbers of B-21s are here.  While originally part of an Air Force plan to acquire 100 new B-21 bombers, that plan may now be massively expanding up to a total of 150 or more. 

Then there is the question of the B-52, a huge factor weighing upon the power and impact on the U.S. bombing fleet. Yes, the B-52 is an old airframe, which might someday be fully replaced by an entirely new large-bomber platform. However, it is important to bear in mind that the prevailing assessment among senior Air Force and Pentagon weapons developers is that the B-52 airframes themselves are extremely viable and sustainable for decades into the future. Added to this factor is the reality that virtually everything else about the B-52 is entirely different and new compared with the earlier days of the bomber. Of course, it is getting new, high-tech precision weaponry, but they will go into an entirely revamped internal weapons bay which massively increases the B-52 payload capacity. The B-52 is also being re-engined and has digital avionics along with a new communications system for real-time intelligence gathering. 

Given all this, there are clear grounds upon which to question any Russian claim of bomber superiority, when considering both the current and anticipated future U.S. bomber fleet. 

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

Save the Oil and the Wine: Revelation 6:6

US Mulls Crackdown on Chinese Imports of Iranian Oil

Asharq Al-Awsat 

Saturday, 24 July, 2021 – 04:15 

A gas flare on an oil production platform is seen alongside an Iranian flag in the Gulf July 25, 2005. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi/File Photo

The United States is considering cracking down on Iranian oil sales to China as it braces for the possibility that Tehran may not return to nuclear talks or may adopt a harder line whenever it does, a US official said.

Washington told Beijing earlier this year its main aim was to revive compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and, assuming a timely return, there was no need to punish Chinese firms violating US sanctions by buying Iranian crude, the official said.

That stance is evolving given uncertainty about when Iran may resume indirect talks in Vienna and whether incoming Iranian President-elect Ebrahim Raisi is willing to pick up where the talks ended on June 20 or demands a fresh start.

The US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Iran – which has said it will not resume talks until Raisi takes over – has been “very murky” about its intentions.

“If we are back in the JCPOA, then there’s no reason to sanction companies that are importing Iranian oil,” the official told Reuters this week, referring to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under which Iran curbed its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions.

“If we are in a world in which the prospect of an imminent return to the JCPOA seems to be vanishing, then that posture will have to adjust,” the official added.

The Wall Street Journal first reported Washington was considering tightening enforcement of its Iran sanctions, notably against China.

Chinese refiners are the biggest importers of Iranian oil. China’s imports of Iranian crude have averaged between 400,000 and 650,000 barrels per day this year on a monthly basis, according to data intelligence firm Kpler, with May volumes spiking to nearly 1 million bpd.

Reuters reported on Thursday that the Chinese logistics firm China Concord Petroleum Co has emerged as a central player in the supply of sanctioned oil from Iran and Venezuela.

That US officials are hinting at a possible crackdown may be a veiled threat that Washington has ways to exact a price from Tehran, said Brookings Institution analyst Robert Einhorn.

“It’s probably to send a signal to Raisi that if the Iranians are not serious about coming back to the JCPOA, the US has options and there will be costs,” Einhorn said.

How Beijing, whose relations with Washington are strained over issues from human rights to the South China Sea, might react will depend on whether it blames Iran or the United States for the impasse in the talks, Einhorn said.

One Iranian official said it was up to Iran’s supreme leader when talks resume, suggesting this could happen when Raisi takes over on Aug. 5 or a few weeks later. He also said it was unclear if Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araqchi, would remain.

“We should wait for the new president to take office and decide whether he wants to change the nuclear team or not. It seems that Dr. Araqchi will not be changed, at least during the handover period,” this official said on condition of anonymity.

A second Iranian official said Raisi and his nuclear team insist on starting from scratch and refuse to pick up the talks where they ended in June.

“They want their own terms and conditions and they have more demands like keeping the 60% enrichment or chain of advanced centrifuges and not dismantling them as demanded by Washington,” the second Iranian official said.

The uncertainty is forcing the United States to examine new approaches, even though US and European officials have said there are no good options to reviving the JCPOA. 

“If … we were to conclude that the talks are dragging on for too long and we don’t have a sense of whether they are going to reach a positive outcome, then of course we would have to take a fresh look at our sanctions enforcement, including on Chinese entities that were purchasing Iranian oil,” the US official said, declining to predict the timing of any decision.

“It’s not … black and white,” he said. “We’ll make it based on the time it’s taking for Iran to come back and the posture they will take if and when they do come back

The First Nuclear War is Guaranteed: Revelation 8

South Asia nuclear

South Asia’s nuclear stability: What are the chances of war?

24 July 2021

Kashaf Sohail holds an optimistic view regarding the nuclearization of South Asia. According to her, the presence of nuclear weapons in the region has maintained strategic stability. Nuclear weapons do pose a threat, however, an all-out war is very unlikely to happen.

The nuclearization of South Asia started in 1974 when India made its first nuclear test under the name ‘Smiling Buddha’. Although India started its program to become a regional hegemon, its initial stance was that its nuclear capability is for peaceful means. Yet Pakistan being the next-door neighbor fell into a security dilemma and perceived threat from India.

In 1998 India tested weaponized nuclear warheads in its which meant that India is now a nuclear weapon state. Shortly after India’s tests, Pakistan also conducted nuclear tests in 1998 declaring itself as a nuclear-weapon state too.

The nature of the conflict between the two states is territorial mostly and they have already fought three major wars and multiple minor conflicts due to geographic proximity.

Arguments on nuclear weapons

India is the first South Asian state to acquire nuclear weapons and Pakistan is the only Muslim state to acquire nuclear weapons. But are their nuclear weapons for better or for worse?

There are two arguments, nuclear pessimism, and nuclear optimism. According to pessimists, since both the states have acquired nuclear weapons it has increased the threat of a nuclear war instead of maintaining strategic stability. On contrary, the optimists claim that both the states have decades-old enmity so possessing nuclear weapons actually ensures strategic stability.

Credible nuclear deterrence is ensured when a state can maintain three things; prevention of Preventive War; development of second-strike capability; and avoidance of accidental war.

Preventive war is an offensive action to end a developing threat before it creates trouble in the future. For optimists, the threat of preventive war existed when Pakistan was making a nuclear weapon but now it does not persist. But for pessimists, the military organizational behavior in India and Pakistan is making the threat of preventive war stand.

The optimists argue that it was impossible for Pakistan to compete with India conventionally because the latter is economically and militarily stronger so it was necessary for Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons. Now both states can equally compete on a strategic level but this is very less likely to happen as maintaining strategic stability is a priority.

The pessimists are skeptical about Pakistan’s tendency to attack with preventive war because of how its military command and control are under the greater influence of armed forces, unlike India. Optimists contend that deterrence does not depend upon who is deterring who.

The character or leadership of a state does not matter when a state has nuclear weapons. Even if the leadership has an aggressive and irrational mindset, everyone is aware of the destructive consequences so an irrational leader will also act rationally.

India’s destabilizing military strategy

Pessimists contend that India is always trying to provoke Pakistan which could be seen during 1986-87 when Indira Gandhi was in government and lost her domestic support because the military was in control. This resulted in a brass-tack crisis which was purely a military decision. Around 250,000 troops undertook massive military exercises at Rajasthan along with 1500 tanks.

Although India claims that it was just a military exercise but Cold Start or Sundar Ji doctrine reveals India’s intention of initiating a comprehensive attack on Pakistan. Lt. Gen P.N. Hoon of the Indian Army revealed in his book, “Brasstacks was the army’s preparation for a war against Pakistan and not a military exercise.”

The optimists assert that when South Asia was not nuclearized, the military deterrence was very low, resulting in three conventional wars, but now India and Pakistan will not end up in an all-out conflict. However, the optimists do partially agree with the pessimist argument of the threat to South Asian stability but in terms of tactical instability.

After the acquisition of nuclear weapons, strategic stability is ensured but it brought tactical instability in the region which was substantial before. Now border skirmishes occur frequently, leaving thousands of civilians and soldiers at risk on both sides.

The missile defense system is the greatest threat to the strategic stability of South Asia because if India fully develops the capability then Pakistan’s nuclear warheads will become irrelevant and the concept of mutually assured destruction will also be of no use. This in turn will give India the margin to start a preventive war by using its first-strike capability. It will also hamper Pakistan’s second-strike nuclear capability thus affecting South Asia’s nuclear deterrence.

The geographic proximity is a considerable reason that accidental war is very likely to happen e.g. if Pakistan is testing its missile then India might perceive it as a threat of preparation of attack and might as well launch a missile to retaliate. Any false intelligence report can also initiate an accidental war leaving states with no time to exchange messages.

In my opinion, the arguments posed by nuclear optimists are much more relevant. Pessimists’ explanation about the threat to strategic stability is mostly tilted towards Pakistan and its weaknesses. However, optimism maintains a balance between the two nuclear-weapon states in cultivating the strategic stability of South Asia.

We all are aware of the Indian extremist motives and the dream of Akhand Bharat which pretty much predicts that any future war would be initiated from India and less likely from Pakistan.

In the current scenario, there are clear intentions of Indian BJP, hijacked by RSS of which the present PM himself is a fundamentalist member. The in terms of Kashmir did agitate Pakistan a lot but the reaction could not be very aggressive because now it is difficult to wage a war due to the destructive consequences.

So it could be concluded that the presence of nuclear weapons in the South Asian region has maintained strategic stability as proposed by nuclear optimism. The pessimist argument that nuclear weapons are posing a threat is significant but a proper war is very unlikely to happen, at least not until the missile defense system is acquired by India. Deterrence does not mean war cannot break out but it does mean that it is least likely to happen. In the current scenario, the strategic stability of South Asia is guarded.

The author is a columnist based in Islamabad. Her area of interests are terrorism and nuclear studies. She can be reached at kashafsohail26@icloud.com. The views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.

The Asian Horns continue to grow their Nuclear Warheads

India, China, Pakistan appear to grow their Nuclear Warheads

25/07/2021

Neeraj Singh Manhas
(Stockholm, Sweden, April 26, 2021) Global military spending totalled $1981 billion last year, a 2.6 percent rise in real terms over the previous year, according to new figures released today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The United States, China, India, Russia, and the United Kingdom were the top five spenders in 2020, accounting for 62% of worldwide military expenditure. China increased military spending for the 26th consecutive year. This article will talk about the SIPRI report numbers and analyse it with respect to India, China and Pakistan.
As of January this year, China, Pakistan, and India each have 350, 165, and 156 nuclear warheads, respectively, and the three nations seemed to be building their nuclear arsenals, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).Additionally, it stated that Russia and the US combined own over 90% of the world’s estimated 13,080 nuclear weapons.
China, Pakistan, and India each possessed 320, 160, and 150 nuclear weapons in January of
last year, according to SIPRI research released. There are nine nuclear-weapon states globally: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. “China is undergoing a massive modernization and development of its nuclear arsenal, while India and Pakistan look to be doing the same,” the paper stated.
It has been more than a year since the military stalemate between India’s and China’s forces erupted in eastern Ladakh on May 5, 2020, resulting in the first casualties on both sides in 45 years.India and China have made some headway toward disengagement in the Pangong lake area, but discussions on comparable measures at other flashpoints have stalled.India and Pakistan issued a joint statement on February 25 this year proclaiming a truce along the Line of Control following discussions between their respective Directors General of Military Operations.
The SIPRI report also discussed the countries’ fissile raw material inventories for nuclear weapons. “Fissile material, either highly enriched uranium (HEU) or separated plutonium, is the primary material for nuclear bombs… India and Israel have mainly generated plutonium, while Pakistan has primarily created HEU but is developing its capacity to generate plutonium, the report stated.According to the report, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all created HEU and plutonium for nuclear bombs.
“While India and Pakistan’s governments make announcements about some of their missile tests, they release no information regarding the condition or quantity of their (nuclear) arsenals,” the report added.Around 2,000 of the world’s 13,080 nuclear weapons are “kept on high operational alert,” according to research cited in the SIPRI Yearbook 2021.Additionally, Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, Australia, and China were the world’s top five importers of significant weaponry between 2016 and 2020.Saudi Arabia accounted for 11% of world imports of significant weaponry during this period, while India accounted for 9.5%.
Total spending increased in 2020 will be primarily determined by consumption trends in the United States and China (first and second largest spenders respectively).India’s spending of USD 72.9 billion in 2020, a rise of 2.1 percent, placed it as the world’s third largest spender.
SIPRI identified 164 nations as significant weapons importers between 2016 and 2020.Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, Australia, and China were the top five arms importers, accounting for 36 percent of overall arms imports.Asia and Oceania got the most substantial arms shipments in 2016-20, accounting for 42 percent of the world total, followed by the Middle East, which received 33 percent.
Treaties Preventing Nuclear Proliferation and Testing
* The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
* The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, Outer Space, and Under Water, sometimes referred to as the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT).
* The Treaty on the Comprehensive Ban on Nuclear Tests (CTBT) was signed in 1996 but has not yet entered into force.
* The Nuclear Weapons Treaty (TPNW), which will enter into force on 22nd January 2021.
The Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, and the Wassenaar Arrangement all fall under this category.India conducted its first nuclear test in May 1974 and remains a signatory to neither the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).However, India has an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for facility-specific safeguards and a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) allowing it to engage in global civilian nuclear technology commerce.In 2016, it was accepted to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Australia Group.India’s official commitment to non-first-use of nuclear weapons remains unbroken.
IISS Report
In a May report titled ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Stability in South Asia: Perceptions and Reality,’ the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London stated that chance played a significant ameliorative role in the India-Pakistan crisis of February 2019 and that the two countries “risk stumbling into using their nuclear weapons through miscalculation or misinterpretation in a future crisis.”
“India and Pakistan are pursuing new technology and capabilities that might jeopardize one other’s nuclear deterrent. Whatever they learn from previous crises, the uncharted territory they are now exploring requires informed judgement about their doctrines, nuclear and conventional capabilities, and the unpredictable consequences of future crises,” according to the report’s lead author, Antoine Levesque’s, an IISS Research Fellow. China’s rising reputation as a nuclear weapons state, it warned, was exacerbating India’s security difficulties. “Yet, control of the drivers of the India-Pakistan nuclear-deterrence and stability equation remains virtually solely in the hands of New Delhi and Islamabad leaders,” the report concluded.It found that a robust, credible, dependable, and deniable back channel between the leaders is the most promising approach for India and Pakistan to achieve more robust strategic and nuclear deterrent stability.
(The author is a Doctoral Scholar in International Relations at Sardar Patel University, Gujarat)

Palestinians accuse Hamas of storing weapons in residents outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Palestinians accuse Hamas of storing weapons in residential areas

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip said that the explosion that killed 1 and injured 14 on Thursday took place in a warehouse used by Hamas for storing weapons.

Palestinian factions and human rights organizations have called on Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups to stop  storing weapons in residential areas following another explosion, which killed one person and injured 14 others on Thursday.They also demanded a thorough investigation into the explosion in order to hold those responsible accountable.

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip said that the explosion took place in a warehouse used by Hamas for storing weapons.

Hamas said it has launched an investigation, but has not provided any details.

Thursday’s explosion occurred shortly after 8 a.m. in a house located in the Al-Zawiya market area in the center of Gaza City. Palestinian sources said that 69-year-old Atta Ahmed Saqallah died and 14 civilians were injured, including six children.

Medical sources at Shifa Hospital described the wounds of one of them as critical, according to the Palestinian Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights. The three-story house was partially destroyed, while neighboring houses and shops were partially damaged, the center said in a statement. According to eyewitnesses, a fire had broken out in the house before the explosion.

“Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza views the explosion incident with grave seriousness, as there have been repeated incidents of internal explosions in houses in overcrowded residential neighborhoods for various reasons in the past, which resulted in the killing of a number of civilians and the destruction of homes and public and private properties,” the statement read.

“Accordingly, Al-Mezan reiterates its call for a comprehensive and serious investigation into this incident and other similar events, to publish the results of the investigation publicly, and to take the necessary measures to ensure that it does not recur in order to preserve the lives and property of citizens.”

The Palestinian NGO Network, an umbrella organization comprising 133 member organizations, also called for a “serious and transparent” investigation into the explosion. “The Network stresses the need to expedite the provision of all forms of assistance and support to those affected,” the group said. “It also stresses the need to announce the results of the investigation and to take serious measures to prevent such explosions from happening again.”

Palestinian writer Fadel Al-Manasfeh said it was clear that Hamas chooses popular markets as a safe place for its ammunition warehouses because it knows that Israel does not target such places. He said that Hamas was “confused” by the explosion because one of its weapons warehouses had been discovered. He also pointed out that a similar explosion took place in an open market in the Nuseirat refugee camp last year, killing more than 10 Palestinians and injuring dozens others.