Hamas’s War Crimes Revealed

War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity Under International Criminal Law

This comprehensive analysis demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Hamas has systematically committed war crimes and crimes against humanity through its calculated exploitation of medical facilities in Gaza, as evidenced by declassified internal Hamas documents, UN investigations, and international legal precedents analyzed by NGO Monitor (2025). The analysis reveals how Hamas’s documented militarization of hospitals constitutes grave violations of international humanitarian law, while simultaneously exposing the international community’s institutional bias in applying legal standards. Furthermore, this analysis supports the legal justification for Israeli military operations against militarized medical facilities under the doctrines of military necessity, proportionality, and loss of protected status.

The Legal Framework: Absolute Protection and Its Exceptions

Under international humanitarian law, medical facilities receive absolute protection during armed conflict, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and additional Protocol 1 of 1977. Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention mandates that “civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack”. This protection extends beyond mere physical attacks to encompass any military use that transforms medical facilities from protected humanitarian spaces into legitimate military targets (Article 12 of Additional Protocol I).

However, this protection is not absolute. Article 13 of Additional Protocol I provides the crucial exception: “The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy”. The International Committee of the Red Cross clarifies that such harmful acts include “the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post”. Significantly, protection ceases “only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded”.

The Rome Statute of the International criminal Court (ICC) codifies these protections within the framework of international criminal law, through Article 8(2)(b)(ix), which specifically prohibits “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to medical purposes… provided they are not military objectives”. More critically, Article 8(2)(b)(vii) criminalizes “making improper use of… the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions,” while the war crime of perfidy under Article 8(2)(b)(xi) applies when actors “invite the confidence or belief” of protection “that they are entitled to protection under international humanitarian law with intent to betray that confidence”.

The Smoking Gun: Hamas’s Internal Documentation of Medical Facility Exploitation

The declassified Hamas Ministry of Interior and National Security (MoINS) documents from February and March 2020, analyzed by NGO Monitor (2025), provide unprecedented documentary evidence of Hamas’s systematic strategy to exploit Gaza’s medical infrastructure for military purposes. These documents, authenticated by the Israel Defense forces (IDF) and made publicly available, reveal Hamas’s explicit acknowledgment that medical facilities serve as integral components of its terror apparatus rather than neutral humanitarian spaces.

The Hamas documents explicitly acknowledge that health facilities “serve as places that the wounded” – who “hold sensitive positions in the resistance” – are gathered in during times of escalation (NGO Monitor, 2025). This admission demonstrates Hamas’s systematic use of medical facilities to harbor combatants, directly violating Article 12(4) of Additional Protocol I, which prohibits using medical units “in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack”.

Furthermore, Hamas describes medical facilities as “places of gathering for many commanders of the movement [i.e., Hamas] and the government in times of escalation” (NGO Monitor, 2025). This constitutes unequivocal evidence of transforming protected medical spaces into command and control centers, thereby forfeiting their protected status under international humanitarian law. The use of hospitals for military command purposes falls squarely within the definition of “acts harmful to the enemy” under Article 13 of Additional Protocol I, justifying the loss of protection after appropriate warning.

Hamas’s documents reveal deliberate maintenance of physical military infrastructure within hospital buildings, noting that the International Committee of the Red Cross (IRC) “has chosen [to operate] in a wing inside Al-Shifa Hospital that is adjacent to the [Hamas] movement’s offices” (NGO Monitor, 2025). This proximity is not coincidental but represents Hamas’s calculated strategy to exploit the Red Cross’s protected status of medical facilities to shield its military operations while maintaining plausible deniability.

More significantly, Hamas maintains “secure communications infrastructure” within hospitals, including spaces where international NGOs operate. The documents specifically reference how “Doctors Without Borders (MSF) France chose the only room in Abu Yousef El-Najar Hospital that has a (safe) communication landline which belongs to the positive’s activity” (NGO Monitor, 2025). The term “positive” is documented Hamas nomenclature for the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, its military wing. This demonstrates not only the militarization of medical spaces but also the systematic exploitation of international humanitarian presence to legitimize and conceal military communications infrastructure. The Hamas documents detail an elaborate surveillance and control system over foreign medical organizations, including the World Health Organization, Médecins Sans Frontières, Médecins du Monde, Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund, and numerous other international medical NGOs (NGO Monitor, 2025). Hamas restricts these organizations to “specific places, such as the outpatient department, the specialized departments and operations rooms,” while explicitly prohibiting access to areas “where it [Hamas] is located” (NGO Monitor, 2025). Hamas’s systematic control extends to comprehensive pre-approval procedures requiring medical delegations to “submit a request… attached with CVs of the doctors,” extensive surveillance where “security personnel present with health delegations as they move from place to place,” and deliberate spatial separation ensuring NGO workspace is “outside the main building of the clinic or hospital and far away from [Hamas] movement’s locations” (NGO Monitor, 2025). Such comprehensive control over humanitarian actors demonstrates Hamas’s instrumental use of international medical presence to legitimize its militarization of medical facilities while maintaining operational security.

International Condemnations vs. Documented Evidence: Institutional Bias Revealed

The international response to Israeli operations against militarized hospitals demonstrates unprecedented institutional bias that undermines the credibility of international humanitarian law. Despite overwhelming documentary and physical evidence of Hamas’s systematic exploitation of medical facilities, international actors have consistently condemned Israeli military operations while ignoring or minimizing Hamas’s violations.

Following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre of over 1,200 Israelis, Israeli military operations against Al-Shifa Hospital generated immediate international condemnation. UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed horror at hospital strikes, WHO Director-General Tedros strongly condemned attacks, and multiple international actors accused Israel of war crimes. However, Israeli operations were based on extensive intelligence demonstrating Hamas’s systematic military use of the facility. US National Security Coordinator John Kirby confirmed that American intelligence “corroborated the Israeli claims that Hamas was using it [Al-Shifa] as a command-and-control node”. The Israeli military provided specific warnings to cease military activities before operations, in full compliance with Article 13 of Additional Protocol I.

Israeli operations revealed extensive evidence of Hamas’s military exploitation, including:

A sophisticated tunnel system at least 700 feet long, twice the length publicly revealed, with underground bunkers, living quarters, and communications equipment
Weapons caches including assault rifles, grenades, and military equipment found throughout hospital buildings
Hostages brought to the hospital immediately after the October 7 attacks, confirmed by hospital security footage
Command and control infrastructure connected to Hamas’s broader tunnel network

The March 2024 operation provided even more compelling evidence when Hamas forces had regrouped at Al-Shifa. Israeli forces apprehended over 500 Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives, including 15 who participated in the October 7 massacres, and eliminated over 200 terrorists in intense fighting within hospital buildings. The recovery of extensive Hamas intelligence documents, military equipment, and terror funds demonstrated the facility’s continued use as a military command center. Despite this overwhelming evidence, international condemnations continued throughout 2024 and 2025. The UN Human Rights Office published reports expressing “grave concerns” about Israeli hospital operations while acknowledging but minimizing Hamas’s military use. The UN Special Rapporteur condemned attacks on Al-Ahli Hospital as leaving Gaza’s healthcare system “decimated”, while the Security Council debated “alleged” Hamas misuse of medical facilities.

This pattern reveals institutional bias that undermines international humanitarian law by creating different standards for democratic states and terrorist organizations. While Israeli defensive operations face immediate condemnation and investigation, Hamas’s systematic exploitation of medical facilities receives diplomatic protection through procedural mechanisms and linguistic obfuscation.

The Legal Doctrine of Military Necessity and Loss of Protected Status

Under international humanitarian law, medical facilities lose their protected status when used for military purposes, making them legitimate military objectives subject to the principles of military necessity, proportionality, and precautionary obligations.

Military necessity, codified in the 1863 Lieber Code and recognized in international jurisprudence, permits “measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of war” and “which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war”. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia established in Prosecutor v. Blaškić that military necessity requires actions that are “(1) urgent; (2) necessary to achieve (3) a known military purpose; and (4) consistent with international humanitarian law”. Hamas’s systematic use of medical facilities for command and control operations, weapons storage, and communications infrastructure transforms these facilities from protected humanitarian spaces into legitimate military objectives. The urgency is established by ongoing military operations; the necessity is demonstrated by the facilities’ role as command centers; the military purpose is eliminating Hamas’s command structure; and the consistency with international law is ensured through compliance with proportionality and precautionary principles. The International Criminal Court has emphasized that military necessity cannot justify violations of international humanitarian law but can justify otherwise lawful military actions that achieve legitimate military objectives. Israeli operations against Hamas command centers embedded in hospitals fall squarely within this framework, representing lawful targeting of legitimate military objectives under the doctrine of military necessity.

The principle of proportionality, enshrined in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I, prohibits attacks “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. Israeli operations against Hamas command centers in hospitals satisfy proportionality requirements through several factors:
- Military Advantage: Eliminating Hamas command and control centers disrupts the organization’s ability to coordinate attacks, command military operations, and maintain operational security. The recovery of over 500 operatives and extensive intelligence materials demonstrates the significant military advantage achieved.
- Precautionary Measures: Israeli forces provided advance warnings, opened evacuation routes, supplied medical assistance, and employed specialized units including Arabic speakers and medical teams to minimize civilian harm. These measures exceed the requirements of Article 57 of Additional Protocol I regarding precautions in attack.
- Civilian Harm Limitation: Israeli operations distinguished between military objectives (tunnel systems, command facilities, weapons caches) and civilian areas (patient wards, emergency departments). The continued functioning of medical services during operations demonstrates compliance with the principle of distinction.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia established in Prosecutor v. Strugar that proportionality must be assessed “from the perspective of the person contemplating the attack, including the information available to the latter”. Israeli commanders possessed extensive intelligence about Hamas’s command infrastructure within hospitals, justifying military operations under proportionality analysis.

Precautionary Obligations and Warning Requirements: Article 13(1) of Additional Protocol I requires that protection of medical facilities “may… cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded”. Israeli compliance with this requirement is extensively documented. Prior to the November 2023 Al-Shifa operation, Israeli forces “issued a specific warning to cease all military activities in the Al-Shifa Hospital” (Israeli Government Response, 2024). The warning provided reasonable time limits for Hamas to cease military activities and for civilian evacuation. When Hamas continued military operations from the facility, Israeli forces proceeded with targeted operations in compliance with international law. The March 2024 operation followed similar procedures, with Israeli forces opening evacuation routes, providing medical supplies, and facilitating the evacuation of over 6,200 civilians before commencing military operations. These measures exceed the minimum requirements under international humanitarian law and demonstrate Israel’s commitment to minimizing civilian harm while achieving legitimate military objectives.

Hamas War Crimes Under International Criminal Law

Hamas’s exploitation of medical facilities constitutes the war crime of perfidy under Article 8(2)(b)(xi) of the Rome Statute, which prohibits “killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army”. The International Criminal Court’s Elements of Crimes clarifies that perfidious acts require the perpetrator to have “invited the confidence or belief” in protected status “with intent to betray that confidence. Hamas’s deliberate placement of military infrastructure, command centers, and communications equipment within medical facilities while maintaining their facade as protected humanitarian spaces precisely fit this definition. Hamas’s internal documents demonstrate both elements : the organization explicitly acknowledges using medical facilities’ protected status to shield military activities while simultaneously expressing concern about “hostile parties” gathering intelligence on these facilities (NGO Monitor, 2025). This dual recognition of protection and exploitation establishes both the confidence-building and intent-to-betray elements required for perfidy under international criminal law.

Additionally, Hamas’s actions constitute “making improper use of… the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions” Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the Rome Statute. The systematic use of medical facilities for military purposes while maintaining their protected status and distinctive medical emblems directly violates this provision . The maintenance of Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems on facilities housing command centers and weapons caches constitutes deliberate exploitation of protected symbols.

Furthermore, Hamas’s systematic attacks on October 7, 2023, and its ongoing exploitation of medical facilities constitute multiple additional war crimes confirmed by the UN Commission of Inquiry. These include “intentionally directing attacks against civilians,” “murder or wilful killing,” “torture,” “inhuman or cruel treatment,” “taking hostages,” and “outrages upon personal dignity”. The Commission’s findings establish a pattern of systematic criminality extending beyond medical facility misuse to encompass broader violations of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Court has applied for arrest warrants against Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh (all eliminated) on charges including “extermination, murder, hostage-taking, rape and other acts of sexual violence, torture and cruel treatment”. These charges, supported by extensive evidence gathered by the ICC Prosecutor, demonstrate the systematic nature of Hamas’s criminal conduct and its classification as crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

Hamas’s policy of embedding military infrastructure within medical facilities while maintaining civilian populations constitutes the war crime of using protected persons as human shields under Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the Rome Statute. The organization’s documents explicitly acknowledge gathering “wounded” with “sensitive positions” and “commanders” in medical facilities, demonstrating deliberate use of civilian patients and medical staff to shield military operations (NGO Monitor, 2025).

The Hamas documents originated from the Gaza Interior Security Mechanism under the Ministry of Interior and National Security, establishing clear command responsibility at the ministerial level (NGO Monitor, 2025). Ministers Naser Maslah (2021-2023) and Mahmoud Abu Watfa (2025), both identified as leading Hamas commanders, bear direct criminal responsibility for policies systematically violating international humanitarian law. Command responsibility under Article 28 of the Rome Statute extends to civilian leaders who knew or should have known of war crimes committed by subordinates and failed to prevent or punish such conduct. The systematic nature of Hamas’s medical facility exploitation, documented at ministerial level, establishes prima facie cases for command responsibility against senior Hamas leadership.

Hamas operatives who implemented the documented exploitation of medical facilities, including intelligence officers Aqid Ayman Rouqa (“Abu Islam”) and Aqid Abu Rabi, face individual criminal liability under Article 25 of the Rome Statute. Their direct involvement in planning and executing policies that systematically violated medical facility protections establishes personal criminal responsibility.

NGO Complicity and the Corruption of Humanitarian Principles

The Hamas documents reveal that international medical NGOs, despite being aware of Hamas’s military use of medical facilities, continued operating under Hamas-imposed restrictions that facilitated the militarization of humanitarian spaces (NGO Monitor, 2025). International medical organizations including the World Health Organization, Médecins Sans Frontières Belgium, Spain, and France, Médecins du Monde France, Switzerland, and Spain, Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund, and numerous others accepted Hamas surveillance, movement restrictions, personnel vetting, and operational limitations while failing to report these violations publicly (NGO Monitor, 2025). This complicity violates humanitarian principles of independence and neutrality established in the Geneva Conventions and reinforced by humanitarian organization charters. By operating under Hamas security directives, these organizations became unwitting participants in Hamas’s strategy to exploit medical neutrality for military advantage.humanitarian principles with far-reaching implications for international humanitarian law.

International medical NGOs have consistently condemned Israeli military operations near medical facilities while concealing their knowledge of Hamas’s systematic militarization of these same spaces (NGO Monitor, 2025). Organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières publicly condemned Israeli attacks on hospitals where they knew Hamas maintained military infrastructure, creating false narratives that protect terrorist exploitation of humanitarian protections. This selective reporting creates institutional moral hazard by encouraging terrorist organizations to exploit medical facilities while shielding them from accountability. The failure of these organizations to report Hamas’s violations despite documented awareness through operational constraints constitutes professional and ethical misconduct that undermines international humanitarian law and encourages terrorists to re-engineer humanitarian protection.

The United Nations General Assembly has demonstrated unprecedented institutional bias in its treatment of Hamas versus Israel, adopting over 700 resolutions condemning Israel since 1967 while failing to adopt a single resolution condemning Hamas despite documented war crimes and crimes against humanity. This stark disparity cannot be explained by differences in conduct given the extensive evidence of Hamas’s systematic violations of international law.

Attempts to condemn Hamas have consistently failed due to procedural obstacles orchestrated by Hamas’s diplomatic allies. In December 2018, despite receiving majority support (87 votes in favor, 57 against, 33 abstentions), the US-sponsored resolution condemning Hamas failed because Arab nations successfully imposed a two-thirds majority requirement. The resolution specifically sought to condemn Hamas for “repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence” and to demand that Hamas “cease all violent activity”. Similar procedural defeats occurred in 2023, with attempts to include condemnation of Hamas in Gaza ceasefire resolutions failing to meet artificially imposed supermajority requirements. Canada’s amendment to condemn Hamas’s October 7 attacks received 88 votes in favor but failed due to the two-thirds requirement. These procedural manipulations demonstrate systematic protection of Hamas from international accountability while subjecting Israel to routine condemnation.

The UN Commission of Inquiry, while documenting Hamas war crimes, simultaneously accused Israel of crimes against humanity for its defensive military response, drawing false moral equivalencies between a democratic state’s defensive actions and a terrorist organization’s systematic targeting of civilians. This approach undermines international humanitarian law by failing to distinguish between legitimate military responses and terrorist aggression. The Commission’s findings acknowledge Hamas’s “intentionally directing attacks against civilians,” “murder or wilful killing,” “torture,” “taking hostages,” and “sexual violence and rape” while simultaneously condemning Israeli defensive operations as disproportionate. This false equivalency ignores the fundamental legal distinction between defensive operations by a sovereign state and aggressive terrorist attacks targeting civilians. This bias is exemplified in UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21, which condemned violence against civilians without specifically mentioning Hamas, despite the organization’s massacre of over 1,200 Israelis on October 7, 2023. The resolution’s failure to acknowledge Israel’s right to self-defense while calling for cessation of hostilities effectively rewards Hamas’s terrorist tactics and encourages similar strategies by other armed groups

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia established crucial precedents regarding medical facility misuse in Prosecutor v. Galić, where the Appeals Chamber held that hospitals lose their protected status when used for military purposes, but “only as long as it [is] reasonably necessary for the opposing side to respond to the military activity”. However, the Chamber clarified that “one instance of hospital misuse does not justify making a hospital a permanent military target”. Hamas’s systematic and continuous military use of medical facilities, as documented in the 2020 internal organizational documents spanning years (NGO Monitor, 2025) and continuing through current operations, exceeds the threshold established in Galić for legitimate military response. Unlike isolated incidents addressed in Yugoslavia, Hamas’s exploitation represents institutionalized policy documented at the ministerial level.

The ICC approach to medical facility attacks, as demonstrated in the Kunduz hospital case, emphasizes the requirement for knowledge and intent in establishing war crimes liability. Hamas’s internal documents provide unprecedented direct evidence of both elements, demonstrating organizational knowledge of international humanitarian law violations and deliberate intent to exploit medical protections (NGO Monitor, 2025). Moreover, the ICC established in Prosecutor v. Bemba that command responsibility extends to civilian leaders who exercise effective control over subordinates committing war crimes. Hamas’s ministerial-level documentation of medical facility exploitation policies establishes clear lines of command responsibility from senior leadership to operational implementation. The systematic nature of Hamas’s violations, spanning multiple facilities and years of implementation, demonstrates organizational policy rather than isolated criminal acts. The ICC jurisprudence in Prosecutor v. Katanga emphasizes that systematic attacks on civilian objects as part of organizational policy constitute crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

Hamas’s medical facility exploitation contrasts sharply with established state practice regarding medical facility protection during armed conflict. Democratic militaries, including the Israel Defense Forces, implement extensive precautionary measures to avoid medical facility targeting, including advance warnings, graduated responses, and proportionality assessments. Hamas’s military infrastructure systematic embedding in medical facilities without regard for civilian protection violates not only international humanitarian law but also customary international law regarding precautionary principles. The organization’s internal documents demonstrate complete disregard for civilian welfare in pursuit of military advantage through exploitation of humanitarian protections.

Implications for International Criminal Justice and Deterrence

The Hamas internal documents analyzed by NGO Monitor (2025) represent unprecedented direct evidence of terrorist organization planning for international humanitarian law violations. Unlike typical war crimes cases relying on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, these documents provide contemporaneous written proof of criminal intent and systematic planning at the organizational level. This evidence standard exceeds requirements established in previous international criminal cases and provides a model for future prosecutions of terrorist organizations that systematically exploit humanitarian protections. The documents’ authentication by military intelligence and public availability ensure their admissibility in international criminal proceedings.

Hamas’s documented exploitation of medical facilities, combined with international criminal accountability, serves crucial deterrent functions for other terrorist organizations considering similar strategies. The systematic documentation of criminal liability through internal documents demonstrates that exploitation of humanitarian protections will face legal consequences. However, the international community’s failure to hold Hamas accountable, particularly through UN institutional bias, undermines deterrent effects and encourages similar conduct by other armed groups. This institutional failure requires urgent reform to preserve the credibility of international humanitarian law.

Recommendations

The systematic abuse of medical facility protections by terrorist organizations necessitates consideration of absolute prohibitions on military use of medical facilities, similar to protections against torture and sexual violence. The current exception-based framework has proven inadequate to prevent exploitation by non-state actors who deliberately blur the distinction between military and civilian objects. Academic analysis by Gordon and Perugini suggests that “the shielding claim is being used not only to legitimize specific assaults, but to justify wholesale strategic bombings aimed at destroying the distribution of healthcare in a given region”. While this critique targets state actors, the principle applies equally to terrorist organizations that systematically exploit medical facilities to shield military operations.

The United Nations requires institutional reform to address systematic bias in applying international legal standards. The 700-0 disparity in resolutions condemning Israel versus Hamas demonstrates institutional dysfunction that undermines the credibility of international law.

Proposed reforms include:

Elimination of procedural obstacles that protect terrorist organizations from condemnation
Mandatory reporting requirements for NGOs operating in conflict zones regarding military use of humanitarian facilities
Enhanced evidence standards for UN investigations including documentary evidence analysis
Equal application of international legal standards regardless of the identity of violating parties

The International Criminal Court must prioritize prosecution of Hamas leadership based on the extensive documentary evidence of systematic war crimes and crimes against humanity (NGO Monitor, 2025). The precedential value of these prosecutions extends beyond the immediate conflict to establish deterrent effects against other terrorist organizations.

The Court’s arrest warrants against Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniya (all eliminated) provide an opportunity to establish legal precedents regarding terrorist exploitation of humanitarian protections. These prosecutions should incorporate the NGO Monitor documentary evidence to strengthen cases and establish comprehensive legal precedents.

Restoring the Integrity of International Humanitarian Law

The evidence analyzed in NGO Monitor report (2025) establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Hamas has committed systematic war crimes and crimes against humanity through its calculated exploitation of medical facilities in Gaza. The organization’s internal documents provide unprecedented direct proof of deliberate violations of international humanitarian law, while UN investigations confirm broader patterns of criminal conduct including intentional attacks on civilians, torture, hostage-taking, and sexual violence.

The international response to Israeli defensive operations against militarized hospitals reveals institutional bias that threatens the fundamental integrity of international humanitarian law. The United Nations’ demonstrable bias, evidenced through 700 resolutions condemning Israel versus zero successful condemnations of Hamas, represents a systemic failure that undermines legal accountability and encourages terrorist exploitation of humanitarian protections. International medical NGOs’ complicity in Hamas’s exploitation of medical facilities, documented through their acceptance of military restrictions while failing to report violations, constitutes a betrayal of humanitarian principles that requires comprehensive institutional reform (NGO Monitor, 2025). These organizations’ selective reporting creates false narratives that protect terrorist exploitation while condemning legitimate defensive responses.

The legal framework of international humanitarian law provides clear justification for Israeli operations against militarized medical facilities under the doctrines of military necessity, proportionality, and loss of protected status. Hamas’s systematic embedding of command centers, weapons storage, and communications infrastructure in hospitals transforms these facilities from protected humanitarian spaces into legitimate military objectives subject to attack under international law. The ICC and member states bear obligations under the Rome Statute to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Hamas leadership. The failure to exercise universal jurisdiction over Hamas operatives present in member state territories constitutes violation of international legal obligations and undermines the international criminal justice system. This analysis demonstrates that the protection of medical neutrality during armed conflict depends upon equal application of international legal standards to all actors, including terrorist organizations. The international community’s selective enforcement of humanitarian law endangers the fundamental protections that have safeguarded civilian populations during armed conflict for over seventy-five years.

The path forward requires comprehensive accountability: Hamas must face criminal prosecution for its systematic war crimes; international institutions must reform their biased approaches to ensure equal legal standards; and the global community must recommit to the principles of humanitarian law that protect medical facilities and civilian populations during armed conflict. Only through such comprehensive reform can the international community preserve the humanitarian protections essential for human survival in times of war.

The evidence is unequivocal, the law is settled, and the need for action is urgent. Hamas’s systematic exploitation of medical facilities represents not merely tactical violations but strategic criminality that threatens the entire framework of international humanitarian law. Hamas must face criminal accountability for its systematic war crimes and crimes against humanity. Failure to bring Hamas to court will encourage similar conduct by other terrorist organizations and ultimately destroy the legal protections that distinguish civilized warfare from barbarity. The integrity of international humanitarian law—and the protection of vulnerable populations it is designed to safeguard—depends upon the international community’s response to this unprecedented challenge to medical neutrality in armed conflict.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). (1977, June 8). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1125.

British Medical Association. (2025, July 21). BMA urges global co-operation and action against attacks on healthcare in conflict zones. BMA Media Centre.

Case Matrix Network. (1995, October 1). The perpetrator invited the confidence or belief of one or more persons: Elements of war crimes under Article 8(2)(b)(xi). Case Matrix Network.

European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. (2024). International law under attack: Q&A War on Gaza. ECCHR.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention). (1949, August 12). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 75.

Gordon, N., & Perugini, N. (2019). ‘Hospital shields’ and the limits of international law. European Journal of International Law, 30(2), 439-463.

Gordon, N., & Perugini, N. (2024). Medical lawfare: The Nakba and Israel’s attacks on Palestinian health infrastructure. Journal of Palestine Studies, 53(2), 7-29.

Human Rights Watch. (2025, March 19). Gaza: Israeli military war crimes while occupying hospitals. Human Rights Watch.

Hussein, A. Q. (2021). The evolution of the military action of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades: How Hamas established its army in Gaza. Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, 4(1), 78-97.

Israel Defense Forces. (2023, November 19). The Shifa Hospital: Live updates regarding all terrorist infrastructure located. IDF Official Website.

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2024, December 31). Israel’s initial comments to OHCHR 4th thematic report on attacks on hospitals in Gaza.

Justice in Conflict. (2025, July 1). Accountability for war crimes can help stop attacks on hospitals. Justice in Conflict.

Lieber Institute for Law and Land Warfare. (2024, September 5). The legal protection of hospitals during armed conflict: Israel-Hamas 2023 symposium. West Point

Lieber Institute for Law and Land Warfare. (2024, September 5). The Ibn Sina Hospital raid and international humanitarian law: Israel-Hamas 2024 symposium. West Point.

Lieber Institute for Law and Land Warfare. (2024, September 5). Proportionality in international humanitarian law: A principle and a rule. West Point.

NGO Monitor. (2025, September 9). In their own words: Hamas turns hospitals into military assets with NGO compliance. NGO Monitor.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2024, June 20). Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. OHCHR.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2024, October 9). UN Commission finds war crimes and crimes against humanity in Israeli attacks. OHCHR.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2024, November 13). UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide. OHCHR.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2024, December 30). Pattern of Israeli attacks on Gaza hospitals raises grave concerns: Report. OHCHR.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2024, December 31). Thematic report: Attacks on hospitals in the Gaza Strip. OHCHR.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2025, April 16). UN expert condemns attack on Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza. OHCHR.

Opinio Juris. (2016, October 20). Don’t blame IHL for attacks on hospital shields. Opinio Juris.

Oxford Academic. (2025, June 30). Indiscriminate attacks and the proportionality rule: What is incidental harm? Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 30(2), 203-227.

Palestine Studies. (2024, January 5). ‘Medicide’ in Gaza and international law: Time for banning the unbearable. Institute for Palestine Studies.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (1998, July 17). United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2187.

Royal United Services Institute. (2024, May 19). What do the ICC warrants against Israel and Hamas mean for the conflict? RUSI.

Rubenstein, L. S., Bittle, M. D., & Speigel, P. B. (2010). Responsibility for protection of medical workers and facilities in armed conflict. The Lancet, 375(9711), 329-340.

UN Watch. (2023, December 18). UN General Assembly rejects motion to condemn Hamas, calls for ceasefire. UN Watch.

UN Watch. (2024, January 1). UN General Assembly failed to condemn Hamas, but adopts resolution on Gaza. UN Watch.

United Nations. (2025, January 2). Security Council debates Israeli attacks on hospitals allegedly used by Hamas. UN Press Release SC/15959.

United Nations General Assembly. (2023, October 27). Resolution ES-10/21: Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations. UN Doc. A/RES/ES-10/21.

US Mission to the United Nations. (2025, July 9). Explanation of vote on a UN General Assembly resolution on the situation in the Middle East. USUN.

Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict. (2016, December 15). What does international law say about attacks on schools and hospitals? Watchlist.

World Health Organization. (2023, November 3). Attacks on health care in Gaza Strip unacceptable, says WHO. WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office.

World Health Organization. (2024). In the line of fire: Health care under attack (1st ed.). WHO Press.