Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Edit request 26 August 2025

Description of suggested change:

Your article states that: "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded that the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel."

Source 21 is quoting an investigation of forensic architecture. It is clearly not quoted, but instead misquoting other newspaper articles. The investigation from forensic architecture states that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive".

The aim of the investigation was not to prove or disprove whether Israel or Hamas fired the attack, but to prove israeli disinformation. The investigation just proves that the israeli disinformation about potential propellers were their own, not that they were the ones to strike the hospital, as is stated clearly in the original source.

Source: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disinformation-al-ahli-hospital

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

152.115.49.8 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 5 December 2025

Description of suggested change:

The following edit is needed because all of the sources under footnote 12 contradict the text as written. All four sources say that Israel is not responsible for the attack, so it is not really "contested." Hamas is not a legitimate source and their claim is contradicted by all four articles.

The first sentence of Paragraph 3 should therefore be deleted: "The cause of the explosion is contested." The last sentence of this paragraph should be changed from: Hamas and PIJ stated the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike. to: Hamas and PIJ falsely claimed the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike.

Slava570 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests are for noncontroversial changes only. Furthermore, in this case the cited sources plainly support the article text as written. Day Creature (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Recent edit

Regarding this recent edit by @טבעת-זרם, is "Kan" a reliable source? Is the sentence "The head of PIJ's militant wing was documented admitting knowing about the defects and the damange they cause, saying that "Even if a thousand people are killed by friendly fire, that is the price of war"." sufficiently sourced? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Israeli state media reporting on a conveniently discovered document that magically confirms Israeli claims that have been rejected by multiple independent investigations is definitely not reliable. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

These claims against Kan are unbased. TaBaZzz (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Has Kan been assessed for reliability on enwiki? I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. Maybe I'm having some error with my search function but can't find anything over at WP:RS. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I also could not find anything on WP:RSN. I think in this situation we can safely say that much better sources would be needed to justify this claim without opining on Kan more generally. And even if this alleged PIJ document is real, its link to the Al-Ahli explosion is still WP:SYNTH – Kan does not say the document admits that a PIJ rocket failure caused the Al-Ahli explosion. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I was questioning this. Has Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (Kan/Makan) been raised at WP:RSN before? GnocchiFan (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

New source (+972 Mag) for 'Authenticity' and 'Israel' sections

Information from +972 Magazine article potentially useful for "Authenticity of purported call recording" and "Governments and other entities: Israel".

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. Claims phone call was obtained by the "Legitimization Cell" from Israeli intelligence intercepts: "The day after the explosion, the army released a recording that the Legitimization Cell had located in intelligence intercepts, presented as a phone call between two Hamas operatives blaming the incident on a Islamic Jihad misfire."

2. Apparent confirmation of audio content of call but denying it being Hamas operatives speaking: "A Palestinian human rights activist told +972 and Local Call in December 2023 that he was stunned to hear his own voice in the recording, which he said was simply a benign conversation with another Palestinian friend. He insisted he had never been a Hamas member."

3. Release of audio being controversial: "A source who worked with the Legitimization Cell said that publishing classified material like a phone call was deeply controversial. “It’s very much not in Unit 8200’s DNA to expose our capabilities for something as vague as public opinion,” he explained."

4. 2 intelligence sources claiming at least one instance of "misrepresented intelligence in a way that allowed for the false portrayal of a journalist as a member of Hamas’ military wing". There is more information in article framed as undermining the cell's credibility.

5. Claims cell existence supported by official security sources (post-publication - though no apparent reference to cell by name) and intelligence sources in article: After the publication of this article, official security sources confirmed to +972 and Local Call that various “research teams” had been established inside Israeli military intelligence over the past two years with the aim of “exposing Hamas’ lies.” They said that the goal was to “discredit” journalists reporting on the war on broadcast networks “in allegedly a reliable and precise way,” but who they claimed are actually part of Hamas. According to the sources, these research teams do not play a role in the selection of individual targets to be attacked.

~2026-19503-00 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Possibly This could be a useful source but please just link the source, the LLM summary is not permitted. (See WP:AITALK.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)