Incendiary Munitions Strike Gaza-bound Flotilla Two Nights in a Row
On September 8 and 9, two vessels of the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) were attacked outside the port of Sidi Bou Said in Tunisia.
Bellingcat analysed footage and images from both incidents. The experts consulted believe improvised incendiary munitions were likely used. The trajectory followed by the objects and the audio recordings also appear to suggest they could have been dropped from an aerial platform above the vessels. Although this tallies with witness accounts that claim they saw a drone, more evidence would be needed to confirm the device used for the attacks.
The first attack happened around midnight local time and targeted the lead vessel, referred to as the Family Boat. The GSF’s official statement said the Family Boat was “struck by a drone in Tunisian waters”, causing a fire on “the main deck and below deck storage”. The six passengers and the crew managed to extinguish the fire. No injuries or significant damage were reported.
Tunisian official sources said there was “no evidence of any hostile act or external targeting”. A statement published by the country’s National Guard on Facebook stated that initial investigations indicated the fire broke out in one of the life jackets “as a result of a lighter or cigarette butt”. At the time of publication, this remains the only official statement about the cause of the fire. Bellingcat sent an inquiry to Tunisian authorities, but had not received a response by the time of publication.
The GSF reported that another boat, the Alma, was hit by a second attack on September 9, shortly after midnight local time, approximately 24 hours after the first incident. They released a video showing incendiary munition falling in a similar manner to that which struck the Family Boat. The crew of the Alma managed to extinguish the fire. No injuries were reported, and damage was minor.
The First Attack: What Open Source Can Reveal
Following the first attack, the GSF released several videos, including one recorded from another vessel showing an incendiary munition falling onto the Family Boat. The object ignites above the boat’s mast – the highest point on the vessel – before erupting into a larger flaming mass and striking the deck. The visual evidence appears to contradict the statement published by the country’s National Guard.
The object must have been deployed from an aerial platform, as no higher structures or elevated positions are visible in the analysed footage.
Eyewitness accounts support the aerial origin. Portuguese citizen Miguel Duarte was on the Family Boat. He can be seen in a video from a camera installed on the vessel, showing a view of the aft-deck and looking upwards shortly before an explosion occurs off camera. He said in a statement that he “saw a drone clearly about 4m above” his head. He described the object to Bellingcat as a very noisy, square drone of around half a meter in width.
Duarte also said that the projectile landed directly on a pile of life jackets. The boat’s paint was damaged, but no steel melted. Bellingcat was not able to identify any munition remnants from the available open sources documenting this strike.
However, Bellingcat contacted two independent experts who appear to agree that an improvised incendiary object was used in the attack and deployed from an aerial platform.
Dr N.R. Jenzen-Jones from Armament Research Services (ARES) stated: “The videos appear to show an incendiary object falling onto the deck of the ship in question. Contrary to some public observations, there is nothing to suggest this was an explosive munition.” He said that while the available imagery is limited, preventing an identification at this time, the incendiary object “could conceivably be a military incendiary munition, a civilian object (such as a flare), or an improvised device.”
Dr. Jenzen-Jones also said that “the sound in some videos suggests a flying object such as a UAV or light aircraft may have dropped the object from overhead, but there is no conclusive evidence of this, and the noise could be coincidental.”
Petro Pyatakov, a retired colonel who is now a consultant for the arms industry, told Bellingcat that from the videos, “it looks like an improvised incendiary shell dropped from 100-130 metres. [There are] no sounds like a rocket engine or an arty shell, [just a] low blast effect only, [maybe] some incendiary material with an igniter like a Molotov cocktail”.
Audio from the video footage also reveals the presence of a sound in the background that appears to be consistent with that of a drone.
Bellingcat asked Faine Greenwood, owner of Tarentum Consulting LLC and an expert on unmanned aerial vehicles, to review the video. After watching the footage, Faine stated that “it’s very hard to say conclusively that this is a drone, as we don’t actually get a chance to see it. However, I do think that the nature of the recorded sound, the trajectory of the dropped explosive (as visible in this video), and the boat’s known proximity to the shoreline/port do make me think that it’s highly plausible that this was a drone attack of some kind, likely carried out with a multirotor-type platform and not with a fixed wing.”
MarineTraffic, a global ship tracking database, shows that the Family Boat was moored within approximately 1.62 kilometres of land at the time of the incident.
The Second Attack
On September 9, the GSF reported a second attack, this time targeting the Alma. Members of the crew stated they saw a drone hovering over the ship, which then dropped the incendiary munition similar to the one that struck the Family Boat. The crew managed to put out the fire, and there were no injuries and only minor damage.
The GSF released a video showing the incendiary munition landing on the rear of the vessel, erupting into a fireball that oversaturates the camera, similar to the strike on the Family Boat. Once the camera is no longer oversaturated, a fire is visible burning on the deck before being extinguished by those on board.
The incendiary munition that landed on the Alma appears to be the same type as the one visible in the first attack on the Family Boat. They both seem to follow the same trajectory, have a comparable flaring appearance as they fall, and both create fireballs on impact that oversaturate the cameras.
Unlike the attack on the Family Boat, munition remnants were recovered and shared by GSF after the Alma incident.
Mauricio Morales, a journalist travelling with the GSF, sent Al Jazeera a photo of the remnants recovered after the attack on the Alma. It appears to show a grenade attached to a webbing or bag.
The photo was taken at the rear, near where the incendiary munition impacted the vessel.
The grenade matches the appearance of smoke or thermite grenades used by Western militaries, including the United States, as well as Israel.
Bellingcat showed the images and footage to munitions expert Dr N.R. Jenzen-Jones, from Armament Research Services, who said: “They appear to show what would ordinarily be a hand-thrown munition amongst the remains of a melted synthetic bag or pouch. This may be an incendiary grenade, or possibly a smoke grenade used to ignite an incendiary composition held in the bag. The safety pin and safety lever of the grenade appear to be absent, consistent with it being armed and capable of functioning.”
Thermite grenades and smoke grenades are of similar construction, with the same general external appearance. While the above reference image of a US AN-M14 thermite grenade is painted red, the colours vary between manufacturers of thermite grenades.
Dr Jenzen-Jones further stated: “The fuze features an external clip for the safety-pin ring-pull, as well as peripheral protection for the split pin. These features are common, but not exclusive, to some models of Israeli hand grenades. Better images will likely reveal important diagnostic details, potentially even remnants of markings on the body of the munition.”
While the exact type of grenade – thermite or smoke – cannot be determined from the available imagery, the characteristics of the falling incendiary munitions seen striking the Family Boat and Alma clearly indicate the use of an incendiary composition.
Incendiary grenades are typically filled with thermite or a similar incendiary composition. According to a recent report from Forbes, thermite is not nearly as effective as explosive munitions against armoured targets or personnel. While it is very effective against flammable targets.
Какой интересный заряд, полежал, подумал и только потом сработал с огоньком https://t.co/JyW72b2J2Z #RussianUkrainianWar pic.twitter.com/1cBzpB2J8f
— Necro Mancer (@666_mancer) March 5, 2024
There are numerous visual references for incendiary munitions. For example, the Ukraine-Russia war has led to many videos of drones with attached thermite or other incendiary munitions burning as they fly over enemy positions. Similar incendiary munitions have also been used in Gaza. All these burn in a manner consistent with the incendiary munitions used in the attacks on the Family Boat and Alma.
As of the publication of this article, there have been no further official statements from Tunisian authorities since their initial statement following the attack on the Family Boat, which said there was “no evidence of any hostile act or external targeting”.
Miguel Ramalho contributed to this report for Bellingcat.
Members of Bellingcat’s Global Authentication Project, including Tomi McCluskey, Shiva Shah, Megan O’Toole, and Afton Briones, contributed research to this piece.
Bellingcat is a non-profit and the ability to carry out our work is dependent on the kind support of individual donors. If you would like to support our work, you can do so here. You can also subscribe to our Patreon channel here. Subscribe to our Newsletter and follow us on Twitter here and Mastodon here.
