[12] An Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said that a Hamas squad was firing mortar shells from the immediate vicinity of the school.

[14] On 6 January, the IDF released a video footage from 2007, showing Palestinian militants firing from the school compound and carrying a rocket launcher with them as they flee the scene.

[12] Abdel Minaim Hasan who lost his eldest daughter, Lina, 11, wept by her body wrapped in a Hamas flag.

"[18] Huda Deed who lost nine members of her extended family, ages 3 to 25, was also weeping and standing before the bodies of the dead remarked, "Look, they've lined them up like a ruler!"

[18] Mushir al-Masri, a senior Hamas official who emerged from hiding to attend the funeral, commended the dead and called them martyrs.

[25][26] On 8 January, a UNRWA spokesman said that the IDF admitted that they had not responded to shelling originating from the school, and said that the attack on the UN site was unintentional.

The UNHRC fact-finding mission report in September 2009 criticized the choice of weapons for the counterstrike, saying that the use of mortars in this setting would have brought about certainty that civilians would be injured and killed.

The report stated that the IDF had violated Article 57, Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, in excess of proportionality, finding in conclusion:"... the Mission is of the view the deployment of at least four mortar shells to attempt to kill a small number of specified individuals in a setting where large numbers of civilians were going about their daily business and 1,368 people were sheltering nearby cannot meet the test of what a reasonable commander would have determined to be an acceptable loss of civilian life for the military advantage sought.

Both were sons of Muhammed Fouad Abu Askar, identified by the report as a Hamas member and holding the civilian position of Director-General for Religious Affairs.

The other, Imad Abu Askar, alleged by numerous Israeli officials to be "a well-known member" of Hamas and "of some significance in rocket launching operations", was reported to be a 13 year-old boy.

[28]: 155 The report admits the possibility of Palestinian militant activity in the area, but states that the credibility of Israel's government was "damaged by the series of inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies", citing "erroneous allegations of who specifically was hit".

The report regards the government's version of events on January 6 as being "erroneous" and "a result of the immediate outcry", factually conflicting with later official Israeli investigations published on April 22.

Citing these and other incongruities, it describes the version stated by Israeli authorities as giving "the impression of either profound confusion or obfuscation".

[28]: 153–8 In the initial response to the UNHRC fact-finding mission report, Israeli Government replied that the committee findings reflect the oversimplistic approach to complex military challenges during the fighting, implying that the mission members did not possess the information that was known to the force's commander at the time of the attack regarding the immediate threat, weapon's availability and potential risks to civilians.

[31] Two unnamed residents, who spoke to an Associated Press reporter by phone on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said a group of militants had been firing mortar shells rounds from a street close to the school.

The CLA also stated that the IDF was returning fire after coming under attack, that its shells did not hit the school compound, and that this has been acknowledged by the UN.

[4] The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and the San Francisco Chronicle linked the attack on al-Fakhura school with a possible cease-fire or withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.

[39][40] The New York Times[39] said that the al-Fakhura killings "will inevitably turn stomachs all over the world and increase pressure on Israel for an early cease-fire".