As of right now, evidence that’s coming out suggests this was actually a failed Hamas/PIJ rocket that landed in the parking lot of the hospital. It seems unlikely that the number people claimed by Hamas actually died. Damage is inconsistent with Israeli munitions, more so with burning propellant from an R160 rocket. Will wait for a bit to see if anything changes, but seems unlikely rn. Will resolve to N/A as explained below unless something changes.

What if he condemns the strike but says it wasn't Israel or leaves it ambiguous?

@DanMan314 Market calls it an Israeli strike, so it would have to be condemned as an Israeli strike. That being said, due to the wording, if solid evidence comes out proving it wasn’t an IDF strike, I would have to resolve N/A.

@NADZOR Could you reconsider the N/A resolution in the event that it wasn't an israeli strike? I think if the airstrike didn't happen and he doesn't condemn it, that's a pretty clear no

@HastingsGreer I completely get your concern, but the way the question is phrased implies it was an Israeli strike. He can’t condemn something that didn’t happen, so N/A seems to be the only reasonable response, so everyone gets their money back and no one feels cheated.

Should he place the responsibility on Israel?

@Emanuele98 I think that’s implied. Even if he says something along the lines of “Hamas put an HQ/base there,” he still has to condemn the strike itself