All taken from Israeli sources and reporters on the ground after Israel took control and at the leisure of Israeli access and information control which it also states in your article.
Yes your article includes contractory information and again noted it’s inconclusive.
The sources also include photos of the site, the crater, and the type of damage. Photos of the hospital and surrounding areas in the aftermath shared by independent journalists.
Even the AP came to the same conclusion:
WHY IS AP STILL CONCLUDING A PALESTINIAN ROCKET WAS LIKELY TO BLAME?
AP’s updated analysis found that the most likely scenario is still that the medical facility was struck by a Palestinian rocket that went astray, with experts citing:
Three videos that show Palestinian militants launching multiple rockets from inside Gaza on a trajectory that would have taken them in the direction of the hospital seconds before the explosion. Damage at the scene was also not consistent with Israeli air strikes or artillery.
The only one not convinced here is you, who seems to take Hamas and Islamic Jihads word over multiple countries worth of reporters, experts, and analysts.
Yes things that require expert opinion and very thorough investigation. Not investigative journalists and Israeli meddling.
Not at all, most credible experts are withholding opinion until there’s an investigation especially given Israels track record of striking hospitals and lying about it namely one that was claimed to be a misfired rocket in prior years.
I did, they mention third party opinion from people who haven’t been there, haven’t been allowed full unfettered access and only do so at the whim of Israel and after Israel had been left alone with the scene. Nothing suspicious there.
I downvote things that are factually incorrect, you’ve not nor had Israel proven anything. They infer, imply and implicate, prove is not something isrealis do well or honestly willingly.
All taken from Israeli sources and reporters on the ground after Israel took control and at the leisure of Israeli access and information control which it also states in your article.
Yes your article includes contractory information and again noted it’s inconclusive.
The sources also include photos of the site, the crater, and the type of damage. Photos of the hospital and surrounding areas in the aftermath shared by independent journalists.
Even the AP came to the same conclusion:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-hospital-rocket-gaza-e0fa550faa4678f024797b72132452e3
The only one not convinced here is you, who seems to take Hamas and Islamic Jihads word over multiple countries worth of reporters, experts, and analysts.
Yes things that require expert opinion and very thorough investigation. Not investigative journalists and Israeli meddling.
Not at all, most credible experts are withholding opinion until there’s an investigation especially given Israels track record of striking hospitals and lying about it namely one that was claimed to be a misfired rocket in prior years.
Then you didn’t read the articles I linked. Full stop.
Have you tried actually reading instead of mindlessly commenting and down voting anything that doesn’t agree with your prejudices?
I did, they mention third party opinion from people who haven’t been there, haven’t been allowed full unfettered access and only do so at the whim of Israel and after Israel had been left alone with the scene. Nothing suspicious there.
I downvote things that are factually incorrect, you’ve not nor had Israel proven anything. They infer, imply and implicate, prove is not something isrealis do well or honestly willingly.
And there is the crux of your argument and your bias.
1500 comments on Lemmy but you add very little of value. Your existence seems to be dedicated to only wasting strangers’ time.
That’s just sad, man.
Congratulations on being the first on my block list, troll.
Facts aren’t biased, Israel gets caught lying constantly. Factual history isn’t biased it just is.
Aww neat, way to admit to stalking my profile.
Something is sad here, in that we agree but likely for different reasons.
Neat.