See my previous post. Etymological identification is a suggestion but never proof. The spade must be used in conjunction - many sites have been located that way but etymology proves nothing on its own.
No one is saying etymology proves anything on it's on, but you and others admit that it has successfully IDed many places that were previously unknown. How would you go about proving "with the spade" that Israeli authorities are correct (or not) with their etymological analysis that Azal is Wady Yasul (actually it wasn't their innovation, they simply agreed with Clermont-Ganneau's proposition). In fact, there is far more evidence than just etymology that shows they are correct in their assessment.