[shykes]

Congratulations, you found the one fringe publication that contradicts the overwhelming consensus from OSINT and official investigations alike. You wanted so badly Israel to be responsible, that you decided to trust the least credible source possible.

[tovej]

Least credible? Fringe? Forensic Architecture is a very respected source that has done in-depth technical analysis of many, many accidents and incidents, e.g. the Beirut port explosion. Articles from Forensic Architecture are often featured on HN.

It received the Peabody award in 2021. It received the Right Livelihood award in 2024. It is a research unit under the university of London. Its reports have been used as evidence in cases in the Israeli supreme court and in the UN. The project has gotten numerous grants from the European research council, collaborated with Bellingcat, Amnesty international, and ACLED [1]

Your kneejerk reaction to information that contradicts your priors is obvious. If you had bothered to do even a small google search you could have checked what FA actually is, rather than just lash out.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Conflict_Location_and_Ev...

[shykes]

You haven't addressed the fact that the overwhelming OSINT consensus contradicts their claim, making it fringe by definition.

I am very familiar with FA, and with that particular paper. That's the thing with echo chambers: the people inside of it are all repeating the same exact talking points, drawing from the same narrow set of "approved" sources. And in the case of Al-ahli, the set is very, very narrow, so it gets repeated a lot.

Al-ahli is the ultimate test, because the evidence is so one-sided. If you can convince yourself, against overwhelming evidence, that Israel is still responsible - then you can convince yourself of anything.

[tovej]

You have not presented any evidence, you're just claiming there is a consensus, and that it's foolproof. Please stop the posturing and produce something. As it is your post contains zero information content.

Afaik, the cause of the explosion has not been conclusively shown by anyone, and it is still contested. But FA has presented the most detailed analysis of all.

You're also painting with vey broad strokes, making claims about me picking from a narrow set of sources. Based on what? Vibes? Why don't you throw out some more accusations while you're at it.

If you're familiar with FA, then your claim that they are not credible is very strange indeed. Because they are very thorough in their analysis, and known for it. It seems you have some very strong ideological reasons not to like the conclusions they come to.

[shykes]

> You have not presented any evidence, you're just claiming there is a consensus

- US government (Biden administration): https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-has-high-confid...

- Canadian government: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/20...

- French government: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-france-intellige...

- IDF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y70TjUKVYk

- Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...

- Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/video/video-analysis-shows-gaza-hospital...

- Bellingcat: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2023/10/18/identifying-possi...

> making claims about me picking from a narrow set of sources. Based on what?

Based on the fact that you only provided one source? I did find two more sources that corroborate your claim that Israel is responsible: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad...

> Because they are very thorough in their analysis, and known for it. It seems you have some very strong ideological reasons not to like the conclusions they come to.

And what conclusions would that be?

[tovej]

Hamas and PIJ are ridiculous sources to use in this case, I will not use them.

Equally ridiculous is to use the IDF or the Biden admin as sources. They are also party to the war.

Using Canadian and French government sources is less ridiculous, but they are still aligned with Israel, and therefore have a motive to side with the IDF. HRW and Bellingcat are good sources on this front. The WSJ is an ok source.

Please show your work. You should open up what the sources actually say. Simply dumping documents on someone is not a good way to argue. You're making me do your work for you.

US govt source

- party to the war

- no analysis shared

Canadian govt

- no analysis shared

- state that evidence is inconclusive, but points to rocket from within Gaza

French govt (anonymous French official)

- state that evidence is inconclusive, but size points to rocket from within Gaza

IDF

- party to the war, unreliable source

- identifies the PIJ missiles are responsible, the same ones that FA showed were not

HRW

- extensive text, first serious source in your list

- argues that the fire damage is consistent with rocket fuel burning up

- notes that a misfire may be the cause of that

- argues that the size of the blast is inconsistent with the larger IDF bombs

- does not conclude anything, but draws partial conclusions that are consistent with a misfire

- notes that the IDF hit the same hospital three days earlier with a missile

- notes that the IDF was hitting targets near the hospital at the time of the explosion

WSJ

- Shows footage of a rocket exploding in the air, claims this is a misfired rocket that explodes in the air and falls in the hospital parking lot

- The NYT [2] shows that the videos of the rocket exploding in the air are unrelated

- The HRW source also seems to comment on these videos (they could be other similar videos, they don't identify them), saying they are unrelated Israeli interceptors

Bellingcat

- reports that an impact crater has been identified

- reports what the IDF has commented on it

- no conclusion

Let me add one source, for now, since this list is quite long.

NYT source [1] - discounts the video evidence used by the WSJ source (much like HRW)

- notes that the IDF hit the same hospital three days earlier with a missile

- notes that the IDF was hitting targets near the hospital at the time of the explosion

> And what conclusions would that be?

The evidence is inconclusive. Which FA also states. It is still unclear where the particular rocket that hit this hospital came from. Israel targeted and destroyed many other hospitals in Gaza during the genocide, so that is not unlikely. Rockets from Gaza do also misfire, and it is also possible that that was the cause, just not any of the rockets that have been identified. FA has also shown that the impact crater features are consistent with the rocket travelling from the direction of Israeli positions.

What is clear is that you are mischaracterizing your position as an "OSINT consensus". There is no consensus, and nobody who isn't the IDF has made a conclusive statement about who is at fault. Also claiming I use a narrow set of sources because I only cite the clearest one is simply mischaracterization. It's bad faith argument.

The point was that the particular claim that Israel made, the one about a PIJ rocket, has been discounted. Which was my original point. The IDF has lied through its teeth through all conflicts its been in (then later revised its statements quietly). About the death toll in Gaza. About the ambulance crew that was massacred. About not purposefully targeting civilian infrastructure. The IDF and the Israeli government lie about their acts of war constantly and cannot be trusted. The same is true for the US government.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/world/middleeast/gaza-hos...