We professionally scrutinised this "investigation” by
@nytimes.
"There is no evidence that Israel struck or directly targeted the apartment buildings"
This should have been the headline but no, @evanhill produced a video that has the hallmark of investigation bias.
@nytimes.
"There is no evidence that Israel struck or directly targeted the apartment buildings"
This should have been the headline but no, @evanhill produced a video that has the hallmark of investigation bias.
https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1408051858816520195
We watched the video and it feels as if the investigation team was working towards a predefined outcome that Israel's actions "could be a war-crime".
No new evidence came to light from this investigation, so it is hardly what we would class as an investigation, rather an attempt to frame already available information as something new and sinister. The NYT appears to be taking sides framing Israel as the aggressor.
The @nytimes have also been dishonest in saying "weeks after the attacks and after repeated questioning from the Times the military said that what they'd actually hit was an underground command center".
The Independent reported on the "underground military infrastructure" on 24 May 2021, so clearly it was not weeks before the military made this statement. 
And using @amnesty's Saleh Hijazi as an "expert" is problematic, he was using an image of a terrorist as his Facebook profile picture, showed support for Khader Adnan, senior member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad , and shared an antisemitic poster on FB.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
