Osama Abu Nassar took his 18-month-old son Jawad to a supermarket near al-Maghazi refugee camp on March 19, the day before Eid al-Fitr, when Israeli soldiers detained them after Abu Nassar allegedly entered a restricted area. Jawad was returned to his mother Waad al-Shafi'i more than ten hours later with visible injuries to his legs, including puncture wounds and circular burn marks consistent with cigarette burns. Al-Shafi'i described finding her son wrapped in a thermal blanket, visibly distressed and unable to bear her touch, with bloodstains on his sweatpants. She said he cried out in pain and recoiled when she attempted to hold him, and doctors later confirmed deep second-degree burns and multiple puncture wounds on his legs.
Israeli military officials denied the allegations, claiming the child's injuries resulted from splinters after soldiers fired warning shots toward his father. The Israel Defence Forces stated that Jawad received medical care under an IDF physician's supervision before being handed over to the Red Cross at the earliest opportunity. Video released by the IDF showed a soldier claiming Jawad was stable and walking, though al-Shafi'i disputed this, saying her son barely slept that night due to pain. Doctors at Al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir el-Balah examined Jawad the next morning and found injuries matching the description of cigarette burns, with tissue damage likely affecting nerves. Medical reports also indicated puncture wounds consistent with being caused by a nail, and doctors noted severe anxiety and signs of psychological trauma in the toddler.
Neighbors said they tried to stop Abu Nassar as he walked toward the restricted area amid heavy gunfire before soldiers detained him and his son. Abu Nassar was reportedly ordered to strip to his briefs before being taken into custody. The Red Cross facilitated Jawad's release, picking him up from Kissufim crossing between Khan Younis and Deir al-Balah.
When the IDF claims a toddler was "stable, walking, and happy" after hours in military custody, that statement reveals a deliberate dismissal of trauma. Soldiers who can frame a child's distress as vitality are the same ones who leave cigarette burns and puncture wounds behind. The real question isn't whether the injuries happened—it's how a military justifies treating an 18-month-old like a threat worth burning.
