In the evening of Oct. 17 (local time) the Al Ahli Hospital was rocked by an explosion, killing many civilians who were waiting for treatment in the vicinity.
It has been nearly a week since the tragedy occurred, and supporters of Israel and Palestine continued to trade blame over the incident.
What we know for certain
What is not in dispute was that the hospital's car park was hit by some kind of explosion, with most blaming some kind of airborne munition for the explosion, either a rocket fired from Gaza or an airstrike.
What is also not in dispute was there were several fatalities and casualties, with the lowest number we've seen ranging into the multiple dozens.
It is known that there were many people who were sheltering in and around the hospital, particularly in the open ground around the carpark.
Also not in dispute is that in the nearly two weeks since the Oct. 7 attacks in Southern Israel, Israel and forces allied to Hamas have traded fire, usually in the form of air strikes and retaliatory air strikes, ostensibly on rocket launch sites or ammunition depots.
The rocket attacks are being intercepted, although not 100% of them are, by Israeli air defences, such as Iron Dome. Iron Dome is a rocket defence system which uses guided munitions to intercept incoming rocket fire, such as the type being used by militants in Gaza.
Militant groups in Gaza are also firing rockets into Israeli controlled territory.
The cramped nature of northern Gaza mean that the rockets will often pass over populated areas. Israel has also claimed that these launchers are located in and around civilian areas to specifically expose civilians to danger.
What official sources have said
Gaza Strip
The information emanating from Gaza is being attributed to Gaza's health ministry, with Al Jazeera reporting the Gaza health ministry as saying that more than 500 Palestinians were killed by what they called an Israeli strike.
The Gaza Strip is controlled by Hamas, and the health ministry is under their jurisdiction, so official statements are coming from Hamas-controlled government bodies.
Israel Defense Force
A spokesperson for the IDF has denied responsibility for the explosion.
Instead they have said that the explosion was the result of a misfired rocket that was fired by the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
(Note: as reported by the Guardian, Palestinian Islamic Jihad is the English language name for the group known as Ḥarakat al-Jihād al-Islāmī fī Filasṭīn. Unlike situations where groups are named by their opponents, such as when Islamic State was called Daesh by its local opponents, PIJ is the group's name.)
The IDF has used social media to share its refutation of responsibility: including video footage of the explosion, as well as a recordings purporting to be intercepted Hamas communications.
Other governments
Al Jazeera reports that the governments of France, Canada, and the United States believe that Israel was not behind the explosion.
The Canadian Forces Intelligence command has said it has a "high degree of confidence" that Israel was not behind the blast, instead saying that the blast was more likely caused by an errant rocket, basing its conclusion on opensource and classified information.
France's Directorate of Military Intelligence similarly blamed an errant "Palestinian rocket", with a roughly 5 kilogram explosive charge, as being the cause of the blast.
Intelligence agencies from the United States meanwhile estimated that 100 - 300 people were killed in the blast.
Independent Analysis/Speculation
There are several known independent analyst who have investigated available footage, although few are on the ground themselves.
Bellingcat
Bellingcat, known for its open source intelligence analysis for the Ukraine war, is one of the most prominent groups of independent analysts and has published its initial findings.
In it, it describes viewing video footage showing "dozens" of dead bodies, but was not able to independently verify the exact number of fatalities.
Bellingcat does not speculate on what they think happened, but restricts themselves to observing that the impact of the blast is not consistent with the most common types of air dropped munitions that the IDF uses, that being the Joint Direct Air Munition, or JDAM.
It should be noted that JDAMs are far from the only type of munition that is available to Israel, and that some other type could have been used.
Channel 4 News
The United Kingdom's Channel 4 News, who was able to get journalists onto the hospital compound, agreed with that analysis, saying that the size of the crater, the lack of shrapnel damage, and the lack of structural damage to surrounding buildings did not match a JDAM weapon.
But Channel 4 speculated that it could possibly be a result of an airburst munition, which would explode before hitting the ground. Such a device, they said, could have caused significant casualties with the resultant lack of structural damage.
Palestinian sources, as far as Mothership is aware, do not speculate as to the type of weapon used.
Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera analysed footage of the incident which showed a series of rockets being launched from Gaza.
The final rocket in the series then exploded in the skies above Gaza with the footage showing two explosions on the ground about five seconds apart: a smaller one, and then a larger one that is believed to be at the hospital.
Al Jazeera said that based on its analysis, it said the final rocket did not fail, but was intercepted by Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system. In Al Jazeera's opinion, the explosion was not caused by a missile failure.
Think tank and NGO researchers
But other analysts, such as the UK's Royal United Services Institute researcher Justin Bronk has said that from the pictures he had viewed (he is not in Gaza), the damage could be consistent with a failed rocket falling to earth, and the fuel burning.
This view is shared by Marc Garlasco, a United Nations war crimes investigator and military adviser with NGO PAX Protection of Civilians.
In an interview with PBS, he noted "a lot of surface damage and very little damage to the buildings", which he called "telltale signs" of IDF employed airstrike.
He also comments that the fire damage seen on the cars on the carpark showed a "high temperature fire that lasted for quite a while", without the "fragmentation" from an airstrike's typical weaponry.
The fire damage was important because typically military weapons tended to not have "long term thermal effects" as it would "waste a lot of energy with fire".
Garlasco said that Israel's air campaign represented a "level of sustained firepower that is amazingly dangerous" to civilians, raising concerns of "recklessness".
But he also agreed with PBS's Nick Schifrin when Schifrin pointed out that he had "personally seen how Hamas will use neighbourhoods in order to hide rockets", and how Hamas officials targeted by the IDF would surrounded themselves with family members.
But Garlasco said that while Israel had the right to defend itself, that right was not "unfettered", and they still had to follow international law.
Despite that, he did not think that the Al-Ahli incident was caused by an airstrike.
No definitive conclusion for now
It seems highly unlikely that journalists alone will be able to uncover the full truth of the matter, nor analysts working from pictures and second hand footage.
A full accounting can likely only be made after investigations made by neutral experts, unfettered by local authorities, in this case both Israel and Hamas.
It is unclear when such an investigation can even begin, let alone if it would be allowed to happen.
Top image from Mohamed Al Masri via @Osinttechnical/X