How a Scottish Maritime Museum Ended Up in Israel’s 3D Propaganda Videos

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Israeli army released an animated video claiming to reveal what lay beneath al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest medical complex. It showed underground tunnels, bunkers and a Hamas command room — all depicted through slick 3D graphics.

“That information is ironclad,” insisted Mark Regev, then a senior adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during an interview the same day on CNN. “It’s based on Israeli intelligence.”

Israel’s first raid on the hospital would not come until mid-November. But the narrative had already been set. The clip was pushed simultaneously across the army’s Telegram, Facebook, YouTube, X and Instagram accounts. On Netanyahu’s own X profile, it drew tens of millions of views. Over the subsequent weeks, dozens of international outlets would rebroadcast it for their own audiences, invariably accompanied by Israel’s claim that the hospital served as Hamas’ “main operations base” in Gaza.

But no such base was ever discovered. Moreover, the command room featured in the video was not unique; it had already appeared more than a year earlier in another animation published by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), illustrating what it said was a tunnel beneath a United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) school in Gaza. The surrounding streets in the “al-Shifa” video, meanwhile, were populated with storefronts from a commercial 3D asset pack — replete with fictional establishments like “Fabio’s Pizzeria,” “Andre’s Bakery” and “Revolution Bike Shop.”

The al-Shifa animation would become one of the most notorious examples of Israel’s new wartime communication strategy. It also marked the beginning of an accelerated phase of production within the IDF’s Spokesperson’s Unit: Having published only a handful of 3D visualizations before Oct. 7, the unit has since released dozens of similar videos depicting supposed terror sites in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. 

Over time, these illustrations coalesced into a distinct and consistent visual style. They usually begin with satellite imagery, followed by transitions into 3D visualizations that then often present an X-ray wireframe view of an interior or underground scene, intercut with real drone footage of airstrikes or bombings.

The blending of these elements gives the impression of seamless factual continuity. But instead of revealing hidden truths — as Israeli military officials insist, and as the international media readily amplifies — the visualizations actually blur them. 

A monthslong investigation by +972 Magazine and Local Call, together with the research collective Viewfinder, the Swiss network SRF and the Scottish outlet The Ferret, analyzed 43 animations produced by the Israeli army since Oct. 7 and found that many contain serious spatial inaccuracies or prefabricated assets — sourced not from classified intelligence but rather from commercial libraries, content creators and cultural institutions.

Interviews with soldiers involved in the production of these videos further illuminate how the army prioritizes the aesthetic value of the animations over their accuracy, while animators routinely embellish in order to emphasize a supposed threat. 

The outcome is a communications campaign that mimics the graphics of forensic reconstructions in pursuit of legitimizing military strikes on civilian infrastructure. And as most of the sites depicted in the army’s animations remain inaccessible to journalists and researchers, and many have been blown up or demolished, Israel’s illustrated allegations effectively defy verification.

‘They look sexy and professional’

Most, if not all, of these animations are produced in house by a dedicated team within the Spokesperson’s Unit, consisting of only a handful of soldiers. Former members nickname it the “After Effects Cell,” referencing a popular graphic design software created by the U.S. company Adobe. The team consists of motion designers, 3D modelers and animators who work primarily with Adobe’s products but also pull from open-source software like Blender.

Officially, every video created by the cell is cleared for publication by an intelligence officer. But the distinction between illustration and evidence is porous. Missing details are simply filled in. Prefabricated assets and recycled interiors are assembled quickly into a coherent scene and then passed upstream for approval.

A reservist who served in the unit during the current war, and agreed to speak about the 3D work on condition of anonymity, said soldiers “have to sign a confidentiality agreement, then they receive the information and begin to work. Sometimes they receive a 3D model that intelligence has already prepared and work based on that foundation. They’re told, ‘This is the building, here’s a photo or video, on this and that floor there’s something,’ and then they [create animations] based on what they receive.”

While denying that there is a culture of lying with regard to the cell’s animations, the former unit member said embellishment is routine. “If the commander wants to add more lathes [machines that can be used to produce weapons], then they’ll add more so it looks more powerful,” the source said. “The model is approved by an intelligence official; it’s not a complete illustration, but when information is missing or they don’t know exactly what will be there and it’s meant to demonstrate something, then you illustrate it. 

“Usually, they prepare the model before the strike,” the reservist added. “There were cases where, because they didn’t plan ahead or didn’t update the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit in advance [about an airstrike], they had to create the model afterward.”

Production is guided less by precision than by aesthetics and speed. “Some of the models are made [by the army] for the videos,” one former animator in the unit said. “Others are taken from other places because they don’t have any intelligence significance. It serves the purpose.”

Another reservist, who served during the first months of the war in a unit involved in communication with international actors, said: “They look sexy, they look professional, and obviously the average person doesn’t go down into the details. The models just make the military look more professional, like a high-tech company with cool diagrams and cool technology. So whenever we had them, we would present them to explain why the IDF is [doing something].” 

But this source was skeptical about the results. “I always thought it was very crude, but I never found it particularly compelling. And I’m sure most of the international actors weren’t always convinced that [the intelligence we presented] justified killing tons of civilians or destroying a hospital.”

From a Port Orchard parking lot to a Gaza City high-rise

The Israeli army presents these videos as intelligence-derived illustrations. But in reality, many of the environments they depict are, at least in part, borrowed from artists far removed from the battlefield.

Our analysis of the army’s animations found that more than half contained 3D assets taken from third-party sources. Over 50 third-party assets were identified in total, which were replicated hundreds of times across animations of sites ranging from Gaza to Iran.

A parking lot in Washington state, a boat-building workshop in Scotland and commercial storefront kits from the video game industry — all of these have been inserted, without credit, into animations presented as “illustrations” of Hamas bunkers or Iranian weapons facilities.

Many of these 3D models were acquired by the army in online marketplaces, such as KitBash3D (where an entire asset pack depicting military outposts or storefronts is sold for around $100-200) and Sketchfab (where equipment like a video editing machine are available free of charge under Creative Commons licenses). 

Others were acquired from 3D artists like Ian Hubert, who share their work with paid subscribers on websites like Patreon. The popular American content creator has produced photogrammetry scans of utility poles, parking lots and street corners in his hometown of Port Orchard, Wash., alongside renderings of pipes and antennas that he designed from scratch — all of which are available to subscribers on Patreon for around $7 a month. 

More than 30 of these assets now appear in the Israeli military’s animations of high-rises in Gaza, tunnels in Beirut and nuclear sites in Iran. (Hubert had not responded to a request for comment by publication time.)

The Israeli army has also made use of 3D assets from the Scottish Maritime Museum under an unrestricted Creative Commons license. Workbenches, cabinets and an electrical box — uploaded as part of a photogrammetry project relating to a 2019 boat-building workshop — have been identified in animations depicting underground missile factories in Syria and Iran. (The museum stated that once it uploads digital models of its collection online for purposes such as conservation and research, it “has no control over how the data is subsequently accessed, downloaded, or used.”)

In some cases, the “illustration” goes one step further, with fabricated environments replacing real places. In September 2024, the Israeli army published an animation depicting houses in southern Lebanon that it claimed were concealing missiles. Our investigation identified the area that the video zooms in on from a satellite image to be the outskirts of the village of Yater.

Yet, a visit to the village last week found that no such buildings or streets as those depicted in the video exist in this area — and not because they were destroyed by the Israeli army, which bombed only a handful of sites in Yater. Indeed, the houses in the video are entirely fabricated, featuring at least three unique models from Hubert’s “Antenna Kit,” published in March 2021.

When Israel attacked Iran in June this year, the army released a similar 3D model depicting a uranium enrichment site in Natanz. As international media outlets rushed to cover the event, dozens republished the animation in part or in full, including the BBC, CNN and Sky News. The interior of the facility depicted in the animation includes at least six of Hubert’s 3D assets, collectively replicated over 150 times.

More recently, the army posted a 3D animation depicting the interior of the Mushtaha Tower in Gaza City shortly after bombing it in early September as part of the systematic destruction of the city’s high-rises.

The animation contains several third-party assets, including a portion of a 3D scan of the Scottish Maritime Museum’s boat-building workshop, as well as additional assets from Hubert’s Patreon, including an electrical meter from Port Orchard and three scans of parking lots.

The final section of the video zooms out from the tower to showcase a wider swath of Gaza City and its urban architecture. This scene uses a satellite image base layer from 2024, identifiable through a Star of David pattern etched into the soil of nearby Green Battalion Square by a soldier using a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. 

By 2024, and certainly by the time the animation was published last month, much of the neighborhood had been destroyed by airstrikes and explosive munitions. Yet the army’s 3D illustration depicts a pre-Oct. 7 urban landscape, with most of the buildings around the tower still standing, obscuring the scale of the ongoing destruction.

Delegitimize and confuse

The power of these animations lies primarily in how they circulate. Animations are released in lockstep with Israel’s public messaging — sometimes after a strike, sometimes immediately before one, and often to preemptively signal that an area might be targeted. The clip will typically be pushed across the army’s Telegram, YouTube, Facebook, X and Instagram channels, and may be paired with a press conference by an IDF spokesperson.

Faced with breaking developments and a shortage of verified imagery, international media outlets will invariably opt to use these ready-made visuals, in many cases amplifying them uncritically. They fill airtime, illustrate complex operations and give the impression of insider knowledge.

Almost all of the animations published by the army contain the word “illustration” in the bottom corner. But the meaning of that tag is left deliberately vague. Different outlets engage with this qualification in different ways; some emphasize it with skepticism, others ignore it entirely. (In a statement in response to this investigation, the BBC said: “We use third party graphics with attribution. In this case we have been clear that the animations have been released by the IDF.”)

In a Hebrew-language video posted to the army’s TikTok account after the June 2025 attack on Iran, soldiers from the unit describe having worked for almost a month under what they call “prime-minister-level secrecy” to produce illustrations justifying the airstrikes. A nuclear scientist was brought in to explain how centrifuges functioned so that animators could recreate them in 3D, the soldiers said. By the time the strike order was given, the animations were already finished.

One soldier explains: “They simply told us, ‘There will likely be an attack on Iran and we need to be ready, and you are responsible for [making] the messaging for a video. Simplify everything: what’s going to happen, who is being attacked, what is being attacked, the locations, why.’”

“We conducted ourselves in secret every day as if the attack were happening tomorrow,” another soldier recounts in the TikTok. “When they finally told us, ‘We’re attacking Iran today,’ we understood the magnitude of it. And 30 hours later our products were everywhere .… We translated everything into different languages. CNN and other really influential channels in the United States broadcast what we made.”

Experts have compared the aesthetics of the army’s burgeoning animation campaign with the fields of visual and open-source investigations, which are becoming increasingly popular for covering areas where traditional news reporting can be difficult. 

“I think the visual lexicon of open-source investigation is something that the Israelis have co-opted as a way to try to delegitimize [those investigations] and confuse,” said Elizabeth Breiner, head of programs at the Forensic Architecture research center at Goldsmiths, University of London. “These visuals are open about their status as something in between the real and the imaginary, but the real harm is that they stick with people well beyond the point after which something may have been functionally disproven.”

Eyad Elyan, a Palestinian academic at Scotland’s Robert Gordon University specializing in artificial intelligence and 3D modeling, said he was “deeply disturbed” to learn that Israel has been using Scottish assets in its propaganda animations. “This aligns with Israel and the IDF’s long history of exploiting others’ resources and employing every means possible to promote baseless claims,” he said. 

“What is especially troubling, however, is how such fabricated content is uncritically accepted and amplified by mainstream media outlets,” Elyan said. “Much of this material consisted of outright falsehoods — for instance, the widely circulated animation alleging that Hamas operated a command center beneath al-Shifa Hospital. No such facility was found, but [this claim] was used to destroy almost the entire health care system in Gaza.”

In response to our investigation, the Israeli army stated that “claims regarding inaccuracies or the use of ‘exaggerated’ elements do not reflect reality and are simply unfounded,” and that “all content is based on verified intelligence from a variety of sources.” 

The statement continued: “When three-dimensional or animated visualizations are used, it is clearly indicated, and their purpose is to present complex information in a clear and accessible visual manner — not to produce an exact reconstruction of every physical detail in the area.”

The army added: “The purpose of these illustrations is to demonstrate a reality that has been repeatedly proven on the ground — that terrorist organizations embed their assets within such infrastructure and operate under the cover of the civilian population.”

This investigation was initiated in January 2025 by Jack Sapoch, Robin Kötzle, Nicole Vögele and Jake Charles Rees as part of Viewfinder, an independent research collective.