Hamas and the Use of Civilian Infrastructure in Gaza

The public record shows that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have stored weapons, fired rockets, placed tunnel access, or conducted military activity in and near civilian sites in Gaza. It does not validate every Israeli claim about every hospital, school, or apartment building. The distinction matters both for factual accuracy and for applying the law.

What is well documented

Three findings are well supported.

First, the U.N. itself has said that weapons were found in U.N. school buildings in Gaza. On 23 July 2014, the U.N. Secretary-General’s spokesman said rockets had been placed in a UNRWA school and had later gone missing. UNRWA’s later review of the 2014 war said weapons placed by Palestinian militant groups were found in three empty UNRWA schools during the war.¹²

Second, major human-rights groups have tracked Palestinian armed groups firing from or working inside dense civilian areas. Human Rights Watch wrote in 2009 that rocket fire from dense areas put Gaza civilians at risk in a way that broke the law. Amnesty International’s 2015 review of the 2014 war found credible cases where Palestinian armed groups fired rockets or mortars from civilian sites. These included schools, at least one hospital, and a church complex.³⁴

Third, evidence of military use at Al-Shifa no longer rests only on Israeli statements. In January 2024, the Associated Press and the Washington Post reported that U.S. intelligence was highly confident about military use of the hospital. The assessment said Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad had used it to support operations, store some weapons, and hold at least a few hostages. The Washington Post’s open-source review also warned that the public evidence did not establish every claim about the scale or layout.⁵⁶

The supported conclusion is repeated military use of civilian sites and dense civilian areas, not acceptance of every wartime allegation.

What the law says

International humanitarian law sets duties for both the attacker and the defender.

The defender may not use civilians or civilian sites to shield military action. Additional Protocol I says civilians may not be used to make points or areas immune from attack. It also asks parties to avoid placing military targets in dense areas when they can. The ICRC’s study of customary international humanitarian law treats the ban on human shields as a customary rule, not a niche treaty line.⁷⁸

Storing weapons in a school, conducting military activity under a hospital, or firing from dense residential areas can violate those rules.

The other side of the law matters just as much. Civilian sites do not become fair targets just because an armed group abuses them. Attackers still owe duties of distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions. For special sites like hospitals, the law expects a warning when possible before protection is treated as lost.⁸⁹

What this does not prove

The evidence does not prove that every site struck by Israel was a lawful target or that every account of tunnels and command centers was accurate in every detail. Nor does military misuse erase the civilian status of Gaza’s population. Individuals remain civilians unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities.

Some wartime claims have been too sweeping. The Washington Post’s review of Al-Shifa found signs of military use. It did not find enough public proof to back every early Israeli claim that the hospital was a fully shown central command complex. That is why the narrower framing is the stronger one.⁶

Bottom line

Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly used civilian buildings and dense areas for military purposes. That unlawful conduct contributes to the danger of urban combat. It does not turn all of Gaza into a military target or relieve Israel of its duties of distinction, proportionality, and precaution.

Sources