As global outrage over the Aug. 25, 2025, strikes grew, the Israeli military said that in addition to taking out the camera, six of those killed were linked to Hamas, without providing evidence.<\/p>\n
But an Israeli soldier, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, now says the military could find no evidence linking the camera, which belonged to al-Masri, to Hamas. The soldier, who was privy to discussions surrounding the military\u2019s response, said none of the six was the intended target of the strikes.<\/p>\n
AP sent detailed questions to the military about the allegations, as well as other questions about the strikes. The military didn\u2019t address the questions but said the incident is being examined and findings will be transferred to the Military Advocate General\u2019s Corps to reach a verdict on whether to open a criminal investigation. It didn\u2019t provide a timeline.<\/p>\n
The army said it would not comment on details while the incident was under review.<\/p>\n
AP reported at the time that one of the six Israel said was linked to Hamas wasn\u2019t on the hospital\u2019s list of casualties and two others were medical or emergency personnel. That, along with the soldier\u2019s account, raises serious questions about Israel\u2019s rationale for the strikes.<\/p>\n
Why did troops fail to identify the cameraman as al-Masri, even though journalists were known to film at the hospital? Why did they strike a second time, causing most of the deaths and raising accusations of a \u201cdouble tap\u201d attack on first responders, which would be a war crime?<\/p>\n
AP and Reuters released a statement Tuesday calling again for Israel to provide a full explanation of the strikes. The news organizations also called on Israel to give journalists access to Gaza to support colleagues who have covered the war from the beginning.<\/p>\n
\u201cA year later, we remain devastated by their deaths and are still searching for answers from the Israeli authorities about what happened,\u201d the statement read.<\/p>\n
Also Tuesday, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres\u2019s spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, told UN reporters: \u201cThere will need to be accountability for the civilians killed, for the journalists killed, and we will continue to call for that.\u201d<\/p>\n
News agencies like Reuters and AP supplied live video footage to newsrooms around the world from the hospital, one of the few functioning in Gaza at the time. AP repeatedly informed the army that its journalists were there.<\/p>\n
The first strike killed al-Masri and another person. As other journalists, including Dagga, and rescue workers rushed up an external staircase to help the wounded and document what happened, the military struck again, killing 20. Based on footage and eyewitnesses, none was armed. In all, Israel struck the hospital four times using high-explosive tank shells.<\/p>\n
Israeli officials afterward said Hamas was using the camera to observe nearby troops. They alleged \u201csuspicious behavior\u201d around the camera, but the only example they gave was that a towel draped over the camera and the person filming appeared to be an effort at concealment.<\/p>\n
Al-Masri routinely covered equipment with a white cloth to protect it from the sun and dust, a common practice among journalists in Gaza and other hot climates.<\/p>\n
Last week, the army announced criminal investigations<\/a> into two other high-profile attacks by its troops in Gaza \u2014 the 2024 killing of 5-year-old Hind Rajab<\/a> and her family, and the 2025 killing of 15 paramedics<\/a>. It cleared troops in three other attacks that killed international aid group workers.<\/p>\n The soldier was connected to AP through Breaking the Silence, a group founded over two decades ago by Israeli veterans that collects testimony from soldiers and is critical of Israel\u2019s actions in the Palestinian territories.<\/p>\n The soldier said after high-profile strikes that kill civilians without clear military purpose, army officials search for militant links among those killed.<\/p>\n Breaking the Silence said its testimonies show there is a \u201cretroactive incrimination process\u201d in which Palestinians who are killed are automatically counted as militants, even when unarmed.<\/p>\n Retroactive incrimination is used as a \u201cnear automatic justification for every bullet, shell, or missile fired, and as a tool used to avoid carrying out real investigations,\u201d Nadav Weiman, the group\u2019s executive director, said.<\/p>\n AP confirmed some details of the soldier\u2019s account, which is consistent with the military\u2019s public response. Breaking the Silence said it corroborated the account with its own sources.<\/p>\n The Israeli military has raided or laid siege to hospitals throughout<\/a> the war, accusing Hamas of using them as command centers and to hide fighters, though it\u2019s provided evidence for only some of its claims.<\/p>\n Hamas security men have been seen in hospitals during the war, controlling access to certain areas. Earlier this year, Doctors Without Borders suspended some operations at Nasser Hospital for several months after patients and staff reported seeing armed, masked men<\/a> roaming parts of the building.<\/p>\n The soldier, and a former military official with knowledge of the situation, said a high-ranking army official initially approved use of a precision weapon to take down the camera, but an attempt by drone failed for unknown reasons. The former official spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren\u2019t authorized to talk to the media.<\/p>\n The division commander then approved an alternative method, said the soldier, without saying what the method was. It\u2019s unclear who made the decision to fire tank rounds, which can cause more damage than drone strikes.<\/p>\n Oded Ailam, former head of the counterterrorism division in Israel\u2019s Mossad spy service, said while commanders on the ground have a degree of freedom, they don\u2019t have a \u201cblank check.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf the change is significant, particularly where it may affect the risk to civilians, it must remain within the authority, rules, and intent of the original order, or require renewed approval,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n