This week, in the middle of the Israel-Hamas conflict, an explosion was reported at the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza city. This was initially reported, all around the world as an Israeli missile strike causing 500 deaths, Many got the impression that the hospital had been destroyed or severely damaged. The hospital is run by the Anglican church and leading clergy were quick to rush out their condemnation of the strike.
However, an alternative version of events has been offered. The IDF have denied responsibility for the strike and have suggested that it was caused by a failed rocket launch from one of Hamas’ allies. It seemed in the early hours following the incident that which version of events you were likely to accept was affected to some degree by your pre-existing view of the conflict.
Now, trying to unravel what is likely to have happened seems to be near impossible given that we risk bias confirmation and that most of us are not experts in war/disaster-scene investigation and analysis. However, I do believe that it is possible to come to some conclusions, even if tentative. After, all this is what lawyers have to do all the time when assessing technical evidence.
It is my intention here to set out a little, using the specific case study of how a safe conclusion might be reached. I do have my personal opinion of what is likely to have happened here. However, whilst it will be necessary for the purpose of argument to show my own assessment, this is not the prime purpose of the article. This also means that I’m not going to attempt to share or discuss every detail of evidence. I’d encourage you to do the research for yourself.
Undisputed data
There are three elements to the evidence. First, there’s what we might regard as undisputed data. In this case, this includes the reported, timed events, eye witness visuals and especially recorded evidence. These include as follows:
- Visuals of a projectile exploding mid air and then falling back to earth around about the time of the explosion. This has been captured multiple times including during a live Al-Jazeera recording.
- The situation on the ground in the aftermath of the explosion. This includes substantial damage to the carpark area where large numbers of people were sheltering. It also includes the lack of more extensive damage such as a large crater or serious structural damage and destruction to the hospital building itself.
Now the data itself may be undisputed. However, interpretation of what the evidence means is disputed. For example, some have argued that the projectile was itself an Israeli missile of some sort. Others have suggested that it was a Hamas/or ally rocket but that the damage on the ground could not have been caused by it.
Meanwhile, some have argued that whilst the data points away from a direct missile strike that would have caused a large crater, it doesn’t mean that this wasn’t an Israeli strike. Some have suggested a drone type strike or that detonation was above ground.
We can though make further evaluations about likelihood. For example, analysis suggests that the damage on the ground is also not consistent with an in air detonation. It does seem that the available data is not in line with an Israeli strike.
Disputed Data
Some of the data is disputed. In particular, it is disputed as to whether or not Israeli air force strikes were taking place at the time. Al Jazeera says “yes”, US intelligence and other observers say “no”. There was also a recording shared by the IDF of a conversation between two alleged Hamas operatives confirming that the strike was one of theirs. However, some have disputed the genuineness of the video and accused Israel of sharing a deep fake. The argument seems to be based on the accent/dialect not being specific to Palestinian Arabic with some identifying it as Moroccan.
My inclination here is to ask why Israel would go to the effort of creating a deep -fake but not take care in accurate creation, paying attention to accents, syntax/grammar and vocabulary. Indeed, I would seem harder for Israel to get this wrong and end up using distant accents/dialect rather than local on the ground options than to get a deep-fake right.
It is possible that the audio is not authentic from Hamas but was commentary from other Arabic speakers elsewhere in the world. It is also possible that with Hamas and allied organisations are Arabic speakers who have joined from across the region.
Circumstantial evidence
This third type of evidence is different from the other two kinds and comes with greater risk. A case cannot be built on circumstantial evidence alone. However, the circumstantial evidence may help us to think through and evaluate the direct evidence.
In this case, I think that one form of circumstantial evidence centres on the question “Who gains and who loses?” Hamas certainly gain from Israel being blamed for an atrocity. We have already seen how unverified, incautious reporting has had an impact on public opinion and behaviour around the world.
Meanwhile, what do Israel have to gain? Well, to some extent, it doesn’t matter so much if an Israeli missile struck the hospital. It wouldn’t be the first time that this has happened in a war. Indeed, this would kind of confirm the legitimacy of Israel’s warnings about the need to evacuate. The IDF have made it clear from the start that they cannot guarantee civilian safety.
The burden of proof
There are two aspects to burden of proof. First, we might ask who carries the responsibility for proving their case. Given that both Hamas and Israel are active in that location, I would argue that the level of responsibility and burden of proof is equally shared.
Then there’s burden of proof in terms of the level of confidence we need to reach a conclusion. There are two ways of approaching this. Beyond Reasonable Doubt means that there isn’t any serious question about who did what. I don’t think that we can reach that level of certainty here at the moment. However, we can talk about a “balance of probabilities”. This means we are determining which account seems most likely given all that we known.
Conclusion
My personal opinion is that on the balance of probabilities, the case for this being a Hamas rocket launch gone wrong is more likely than a direct strike by Israel. This is the direction that the evidence, taken as a whole seems to point us in.
However, more importantly than my conclusion, I hope I’ve helped you to have some confidence when approaching disputed claims yourself. It is possible to reach conclusions but we should do so cautiously and carefully. Getting things wrong in such cases can be detrimental to others.
Faithroots 