Explosion at Al Ahli Arabi Hospital in Gaza What does

Explosion at Al Ahli Arabi Hospital in Gaza: What does the New York Times investigation reveal? Liberation

The war between Hamas and IsraelDossierOne week after the attack on a hospital in Gaza City, many questions remain unanswered. But the American daily refutes one of the hypotheses put forward by several media outlets and the Israeli army. Without commenting on responsibility for the strike.

More than a week after the deadly explosion at Al-Ahli Arabi Hospital in Gaza City, many questions remain unanswered. After the attack, as CheckNews wrote, the majority of experts and open source researchers leaned inconclusively toward a failed Palestinian shot. Particularly because the images of the affected area are hardly compatible with an Israeli air strike. This hypothesis was shared by numerous media outlets in the following days (Le Monde, Wall Street Journal, AP, BBC, CNN).

On October 25 of this year, the New York Times published a visual investigation that “examined” the “main elements of the Gaza hospital explosion” and introduced new elements that do not resolve the debate about responsibility for the strike and the hypotheses of several colleagues undermined, such as certain claims made by the Israeli army.

The article focuses on the trajectory of a projectile, which is visible in, through various videos Pictures of Al-Yeziraand which exploded in the air a few seconds before the explosion in the hospital.

From the beginning, this projectile was the focus of various hypotheses, most of which established a causal link between its explosion in the Gaza sky and the hospital explosion a few seconds later. Most research has hypothesized that a Palestinian projectile (the scene takes place a few seconds after a barrage from Gaza) had trouble flying and fell on the hospital.

As the New York Times points out, this is Israel’s analysis too. The country’s armed forces wielded it three times (Here, Here And Here) on Twitter and several times in front of the media (BBC, CNN, India Today).

Responding to questions from CNN, Israel Defense Forces spokesman Peter Lerner, screenshot of the video printed in his hands, said: “You’re asking me for evidence, you don’t need evidence from me.” All you have to do is agree change [de chaîne] on Al-Jezira, which broadcast it live. And you can see it […] they send [en live] The rocket hit the Gaza Strip. So if you want evidence, you don’t really want evidence.”

It is this claim that the New York Times undermines in two ways. The American daily initially claims that the projectile widely identified as responsible for the explosion came from Israel… and not Gaza. But the media also claims that this “missile visible in the video was probably not the cause of the explosion in the hospital.” In fact, it exploded in the sky about 3.2 kilometers away. In short, this video, which is often used to support the hypothesis of a miss on the Palestinian side, in fact proves nothing of the sort. Note that the same analysis has been formulated by various open source analysts in recent days, such as: Oliver Alexander And Archiethen a posteriori by Le Monde (which takes up and confirms the work of the first quoted), a few hours after the American publication.

The New York Times also points out that at the time of the explosion in the hospital’s courtyard, Israeli bombings appeared to have been taking place in the area, as previously highlighted by Al-Jezira, which recorded four attacks between 6:54 p.m. and 5:54 p.m. 18 :58 p.m

But as the American daily clearly states, and contrary to what some may have understood, the New York Times investigation does not point to Israeli responsibility. Nor does she claim the opposite. “The New York Times findings do not show what caused the explosion at Al-Ahli Arabi Hospital or who was responsible,” the daily writes. The claim by Israeli and US intelligence agencies that a failed Palestinian rocket attack was responsible remains plausible. But the New York Times analysis casts doubt on one of the most prominent pieces of evidence Israeli officials have used to make their case, and complicates the one-sided narrative they have put forward.”

“The rocket dissolved like salt in water”

The hypothesis of a failed Palestinian shot was not based solely on this video, the interpretation of which the NYT – along with other analysts – disputes. As various specialists in the analysis of attacks have emphasized from the beginning, the traces left on the ground (especially the crater) do not correspond to Israeli aerial bombs and indicate a projectile with a low explosive charge.

But only an analysis of the fragments of the projectile that caused the explosion would allow a decision. However, no debris was found at the site. “The rocket dissolved like salt in water,” Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said in another New York Times article on October 22. “It has evaporated, there is nothing left.” A statement that led the specialist to perform keystroke analysis Marc Garlasco explain on Twitter: “When I investigate the site of a possible war crime, the first thing I do is locate and identify the parts of the weapon.” The weapon allows us to know who did it and how. I have never seen such a lack of physical evidence of a weapon on a site. Never. There’s always a bomb afterwards. In twenty years of investigating war crimes, this is the first time that I have not seen any weapons remnants. And I worked on three wars in Gaza.”