Using as a case study the controversial use of forensics, and more specifically forensic architecture, in the aftermath of “Operation Cast Lead” by the UN Goldstone Commission, this paper highlight a recent epistemic shift through which an emphasis on forensic practices has gradually increased at the expense of the (human) witness in the context of international law. Forensic architecture is an analytical method for probing histories of violence as they are inscribed in buildings and other forms of construction. It operates at the intersections between the study of the built environment and the laws of war, otherwise known as international humanitarian law (IHL). Like DNA in criminal forensics, damaged buildings are uncritically treated not only as repositories of truth about violence, but increasingly as “more reliable witnesses” than human memory and eyewitness accounts.. In the case of Operation Cast Lead, the facts of destruction were evident and abundant, and the Goldstone Commission’s investigation was undertaken and pursued as a technical matter (i.e., utilizing reliable techniques). Its forensics experts explored heaps of rubble in order to gather information with regard to how an event unfolded and, by extension, whether it was legal or illegal according to the frame of IHL. The ferocity of the debate in this instance meant, in turn, that not only the forensic analyses but also the analysts themselves came under prolonged scrutiny. But, as this paper argues, privileging the reliability of buildings over people/victims, and the kinds of “humanitarian” deliberations by Israeli military lawyers that preceded the bombings and attacks, expose the deeply contested nature of IHL standards and their use in protecting Palestinians from military onslaught. The forensic “reading” of buildings, and the consequences and debates that result, highlight the plasticity of IHL even as they provide a new approach that attempts to apply IHL standards on the ground. The paper argues that the uses of forensic architecture in the aftermath of violence in Gaza offer, importantly and paradoxically, a glimpse into the growing proximity between human rights organizations and the militaries of western states, including Israel. This proximity and paradox is expressed by a shared language, sometimes overlapping aims, and an easy migration of personnel who transfer their military and IHL expertise to the service of human rights organizations.