Analysis Summary:

The article's claim about Israel's military citing "professional failures" in the killings of Gaza medics and dismissing a deputy commander is partially verifiable. While the provided sources don't directly confirm the specific incident described in the NY Times article, they do discuss related issues such as investigations into killings of paramedics (Verification Source #1), the resignation of a high-ranking military official (Verification Source #2), and accusations of genocide (Verification Source #1, #5). The article appears to have a moderate bias due to the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential for selective reporting.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** Israel’s Military Cites ‘Professional Failures’ in Killings of Gaza Medics.
• Verification Status: Partially verifiable. Verification Source #1 mentions investigating killings of paramedics and rescue workers in Gaza, which aligns with the general topic. However, it doesn't confirm the specific incident or the "professional failures" cited. Verification Source #2 mentions the resignation of a Major General, which could be related to failures, but doesn't specifically mention the medics.
• Claim:** In a statement summarizing its investigation into the deadly episode, the military said a deputy commander would be dismissed.
• Verification Status: Not directly verifiable. None of the provided sources explicitly confirm the dismissal of a deputy commander in connection with the killing of Gaza medics. This claim is not covered by the provided sources.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #1: "Israel/ OPT: Investigate killings of paramedics and rescue workers in Gaza." This supports the general context of the article, indicating that killings of medics are a documented concern.
• Verification Source #2: "Major General Aharon Haliva, head of Israel's military intelligence, resigns, citing the failure to stop Hamas's deadly surprise attack on…" This suggests accountability within the Israeli military for failures, but it's related to a different event (the October 7th attack).
• Verification Source #3: This source discusses the humanitarian situation in Gaza and criticizes Israel's military offensive, providing context but not directly verifying the specific claims in the article.
• Verification Source #4: This source discusses Hamas's perspective on the October 7th attack and admits to some faults, which is tangentially related to the overall conflict but doesn't verify the article's claims.
• Verification Source #5: This source mentions accusations of genocide against Israel, which provides a broader context of the conflict but doesn't directly verify the article's claims.

Limitations: The provided sources do not directly confirm or deny the specific claims made in the NY Times article. Therefore, the factual accuracy score is limited by the available information.