Conclusion: Amnesty's finding that these 15 cases were deliberate attacks on civilians rests on investigations that have now proven remarkably unreliable. Its fieldworkers visited the sites, photographed rubble and weapon fragments, searched for signs of military targets, and its researchers interviewed 74 survivors, witnesses and relatives. Amnesty then declared that it found no evidence of a military objective and that EVERYONE killed in all 15 strikes was a civilian. But how could an after-the-fact investigation possibly establish what Israeli intelligence knew or whom a strike was targeting? And how credible is a methodology that effectively depends on people in Gaza, who are instructed to hide combatant status, telling Amnesty, "Yes, a PIJ battalion commander was staying here. Israel sure hit the right place”? The results speak for themselves and shatter Amnesty’s report. Based on only the roughly 2,000+ combatants whose identities and affiliations have subsequently been revealed by the group’s themselves (so no “Israel says so evidence”), 5 of Amnesty's 15 handpicked cases already include commanders and other combatants it glaringly failed to identify. That is one-third of the very strikes Amnesty selected as evidence of civilian targeting. This evidence demolishes the evidentiary logic Amnesty used to infer that these strikes lacked military objectives and then wield them as evidence of genocide. When such a large share of your showcase cases changes materially once just a small amount of information unavailable or ignored by your investigators emerges, the problem isn't a few incidental errors. The methodology fails to support the sweeping conclusions Amnesty built upon it and Amnesty should issue updates and retractions based on the new evidence. Note: All cases can be found in Amnesty's report titled "YOU FEEL LIKE YOU ARE SUBHUMAN’ ISRAEL’S GENOCIDE AGAINST PALESTINIANS IN GAZA" on page 107.