What statements or investigations have the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) publicly released about the January 29, 2024 Tel al‑Hawa incident?
Executive summary
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) publicly framed its January 29, 2024 operations in Gaza as part of a wider campaign against Hamas infrastructure in Shati and Tel al‑Hawa, issuing statements about reaching tunnel shafts and conducting targeted raids; at the same time some IDF communications and Israeli official briefings reportedly denied that ground troops were present at the precise site where Hind Rajab and family were killed, a claim contested by independent investigations and media analyses [1] [2] [3]. Public IDF messaging emphasized tactical gains and the hazards of “active combat zones,” while independent forensic and journalistic inquiries have presented contradictory evidence about tank presence and the source of fire [3] [4] [2].
1. IDF operational statements: tunnel shafts, raids and “eliminating terrorists”
In its English‑language press material the IDF described operations in the Shati and Tel al‑Hawa areas as division‑level raids that located tunnel shafts and destroyed “terrorist infrastructure,” claiming substantial militant losses and captures of weapons caches during late January operations [3] [5]. CNN quoted IDF statements that troops had “reached a tunnel shaft located near a school operated by UNRWA” during the same operational push that included Shati and Tel al‑Hawa, language the IDF used to situate its activity on January 29 [1] [4].
2. IDF public position on troops’ presence at the incident site
Contradictory signals emerged between Israeli official briefings and independent reporting: Israeli officials, cited by the Times of Israel and summarized by Al Jazeera, said an initial Israeli investigation showed troops were not present in Tel al‑Hawa on January 29 at the time Hind Rajab and others were killed, a statement the IDF public posture allowed to circulate as part of its official communications [2]. Simultaneously, IDF briefings maintained broader claims of entry into western Gaza on January 29 and of operations in the same neighborhoods, creating a gap between the army’s account of area operations and specific denials about units at the car’s exact location [5] [1].
3. IDF framing: active combat zone, risks, and refusal-to-acknowledge specific strikes
When confronted in media reporting about the incident, the IDF emphasized the general hazards of “remaining in an active combat zone” and in at least one media-sourced exchange said it was “not aware of any strikes at these coordinates,” a public line that frames responsibility as uncertain amid ongoing exchanges of fire [4]. That framing dovetails with IDF public messaging which prioritizes describing tactical objectives and the presence of enemy combatants, rather than detailed admissions about specific civilian casualties in rapidly evolving battlefields [3] [1].
4. Independent inquiries that directly challenge IDF claims
Investigations by Al Jazeera, Sky News and research partners including Forensic Architecture produced satellite, audio and visual analyses placing Israeli armored vehicles and tanks within several hundred metres of the family’s car and concluding that heavy and direct fire struck the vehicles and the ambulance sent to help, findings that conflict with Israeli official claims about the absence of troops at that location [2] [6]. These independent probes, and later activist legal filings to the ICC and human‑rights groups, cite mapped vehicle positions, satellite imagery and forensic reconstructions to argue the killing was caused by IDF fire—material the IDF has not publicly reconciled with its operational statements [6] [7].
5. What the IDF has publicly not done and outstanding gaps
Public IDF releases in late January and February emphasized operational achievements but did not publish a detailed, transparent incident‑level account attributing fire to specific units at the Tel al‑Hawa petrol‑station coordinates or acknowledging responsibility for the deaths; where IDF spokespeople and Israeli officials have made specific claims—such as an absence of troops at the precise site—those claims are disputed by satellite and forensic reporting and remain unresolved in public IDF documentation [3] [2] [6]. Available IDF press pages and spokesperson updates show broad operational claims for the area but lack a publicly released, forensic internal investigation addressing the sequence of events and the direct source of the lethal fire at the car and ambulance on January 29 [8] [9].