Key Takeaways:
- Israel's investigation into the death of Hind Rajab during the Gaza war is evidence of accountability, not an admission that its troops committed war crimes.
- The new findings correct parts of the IDF's initial account while also confirming details that complicate the media's established narrative.
- Much of the coverage treats every development as further proof of Israeli guilt, revealing that the verdict was often reached before the facts were settled.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Military Advocate General (MAG) Corps announced on Wednesday that the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division (MPCID) would open a criminal investigation into the January 2024 incident involving the Hamada family and the death of five-year-old Hind Rajab in Gaza – demonstrating precisely the kind of accountability that is expected of a democratic state examining the conduct of its own forces.Â
Soon after the news broke, anti-Israel pundits were already dismissing the investigation as theater, accusing the IDF of having lied about the incident, or claiming it had effectively admitted to war crimes – reactions that misunderstand how investigations work in the uncertainty and complexity of wartime.
On January 29, 2024, just months into Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza, IDF troops opened fire on a vehicle that the military said was approaching them “contrary to the advanced notice†given to residents of the Gaza City area. The IDF cited media reports identifying the vehicle as belonging to the Hamada family. Five passengers were killed in the initial shooting, according to the military, while five-year-old Hind Rajab and her cousin Layan Hamada survived. Rajab later called emergency services, and a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance, whose movement had been coordinated with Israeli authorities, was dispatched to reach her. According to allegations referenced in the IDF's latest statement, the ambulance was later shelled, killing two paramedics. Several days later, the bodies of all seven family members were found in the vehicle.
After a review by the General Staff Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism (FFAM), including alleged failures in coordinating the movement of the ambulance, military prosecutors decided to open a criminal investigation.
The referral follows the FFAM's review of around 150 incidents from the October 7 War and reflects the kind of internal accountability expected of a democratic state. No military is immune from mistakes, misconduct or crimes by individual soldiers, but what distinguishes Western liberal democracies is a commitment to the rule of law and to investigating their own institutions. Robust internal scrutiny is part of that process, and those who genuinely value accountability should welcome it and demand that it be carried out thoroughly.
Yet incidents such as the Rajab case have often been judged in the court of public opinion long before those processes are complete, with hostile actors also turning to international legal forums to press claims against Israel. Some of those appeals were filed at an early stage of the war, before Israel had a meaningful opportunity to complete its own investigations, replacing due process with guilty verdicts reached well in advance.
As expected, the IDF's announcement has breathed new life into that same court of public opinion, where malicious actors and the ill-informed have again misrepresented the findings. At the far end of the spectrum, some have claimed that the IDF admitted soldiers involved in the incident committed war crimes or murder.
They are wrong.
The IDF has not admitted to war crimes, let alone issued an indictment. The statement only goes so far as to say that there is sufficient suspicion of offenses having been committed to warrant a criminal investigation, and only at the end of that investigation will decisions be made about whether there are sufficient grounds to issue charges. Guilt can only be determined by a military court after trial. While many fancy themselves investigators, few understand war and its laws, or the unique circumstances in which the IDF operates, well enough to objectively pass judgment.
Social media, and increasingly traditional media, expect wartime investigations to move at the speed of a TikTok upload or breaking-news headline. And yet, even peacetime criminal investigations take time. Reconstructing one incident amid an active war takes considerably more.
Anti-Israel pundits have argued that the investigation update reveals that the IDF had previously lied about troops being in the area and about coordination with an ambulance, and indeed the Israeli military needs to account for this discrepancy.
Yet it is also the case that the earlier assessment was based on a preliminary investigation.
The IDF Spokesperson's Unit told The Times of Israel in February that “from a preliminary investigation that was conducted, it appears that IDF troops were not present near the vehicle or within firing range of the described vehicle in which the girl was found.â€
“Also, given the lack of forces in the area, there was no need for individual coordination of the movement of the ambulance or another vehicle to pick up the girl,†it added.
Preliminary investigations are not final and, as the term suggests, are based on the information initially available. The IDF Spokesperson's Unit should be transparent about why its initial statements were incorrect, but as with any investigation, it should be understood that new information can change an assessment.
Journalists, who often have to update stories as they develop, should be more aware of this phenomenon than most. They expect a degree of patience and understanding from their own audiences as they work to hone, update and, when necessary, correct their reporting.
But there is another side to the new findings that has received considerably less attention.
In January, HonestReporting examined the Hind Rajab case using research by independent analyst Mark Zlochin, who had identified significant discrepancies between the earliest accounts of what happened and the version that later hardened into accepted fact.
One of the most important concerned the Hamada vehicle itself.
Early accounts described the car as moving when it came under fire. Later reconstructions increasingly depicted it as stationary. It may appear a small distinction, but it radically changes the circumstances being presented: a vehicle moving toward troops in an active combat zone is a very different scenario from soldiers knowingly firing into a stationary civilian car containing identifiable children.
Zlochin also pointed to evidence that the family was travelling north, contrary to evacuation instructions directing residents south. Hind's mother subsequently confirmed the direction of travel and described heavy rain that day, while images of the vehicle showed plastic coverings over its windows.
HonestReporting highlighted these details precisely because they complicated a narrative that was already being presented with extraordinary certainty.
And now the IDF's latest findings corroborate two central elements of that earlier account.
The military says the Hamada vehicle was approaching the troops when it was fired upon and that it was travelling “contrary to the advanced notice†given to residents.
This does not establish that the soldiers were justified in opening fire. That is exactly the type of question an investigation should determine.
But it does mean that correcting the IDF's preliminary account does not automatically validate every allegation that subsequently became attached to the case. The new findings both contradict something Israel initially said and corroborate details that complicated the version of events promoted by much of the media.
There is another significant point in the IDF's statement: five passengers were killed in the initial shooting, but Hind Rajab and Layan Hamada survived. An acknowledgement that Israeli troops fired on the Hamada vehicle is therefore not, by itself, an acknowledgement that the initial fire killed Hind.
Yet some media coverage has already collapsed that distinction. Reuters, for example, reported that “Israel admits its troops killed 5-year-old Hind Rajab in Gaza,†even though the IDF's announcement states no such thing.
This is precisely the problem HonestReporting raised months ago: disputed or incomplete elements of the incident have repeatedly been flattened into certainty, with questions that remained unresolved treated as though they had already been conclusively answered.
The fact that the IDF has now corrected its own earlier assessment only reinforces that point. The factual record was still evolving long after much of the media had already settled on its version of events.
Yet instead of acknowledging this, prominent anti-Israel commentators responded predictably. British media commentator Owen Jones dismissed the investigation as a “sham,†initiated only after attention had supposedly waned. Glenn Greenwald went further, arguing that Israel only acknowledges wrongdoing when it is caught “red-handed†and otherwise “lie[s] and den[ies] everything.â€
But paradoxically, the announcement has itself drawn renewed attention to the incident. If Israel wished for the case simply to fade from public view, the MAG would hardly elevate it to the next procedural step. Rather, if there were an institutional push to make the case disappear, it would be far easier to close the matter without a criminal referral, without correcting earlier statements, and without inviting another round of international scrutiny.
The investigation has taken time, will take time, and it is always easier to speculate than to investigate.
If detractors truly cared about justice, they would urge the IDF MAG to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation rather than reject the process outright. If crimes were committed, those responsible should be held accountable.
Instead, the reaction illustrates something more fundamental: for many anti-Israel voices, the incident has become less a matter to be examined than a case to be prosecuted in the court of public opinion. The tragedy itself is secondary to the imperative of incrimination.
Jones treats the timing of the investigation as evidence of bad faith. Greenwald treats the investigation itself as proof that Israel only acknowledges wrongdoing when forced to do so. In both cases, the conclusion precedes the process.
Even if Israel had somehow been able to complete a criminal investigation within days or weeks of the incident, much of the media and activist commentary had already reached its judgment and would likely have defended it even as the evidentiary picture changed.
If Israel does not investigate, it is accused of concealing a crime.
If it does investigate, the investigation is recast as an admission of guilt.
Either way, the verdict has already been reached.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what's really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!
