Hamas and the Use of Civilian Infrastructure in Gaza

This page makes a narrower claim than a lot of wartime rhetoric does. The public record does support saying that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly placed weapons, launch activity, tunnel entrances, or command activity in or near civilian sites in Gaza. It does not support treating every Israeli allegation about every hospital, school, or apartment block as automatically proven.

That distinction matters. A research page should be precise about what is well documented, what is disputed, and what the law actually says.

What is well documented

Three categories are firmly in the record.

First, U.N. institutions themselves have acknowledged that weapons were found in U.N. school facilities 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 weaponry placed by Palestinian militant groups was found in three empty UNRWA schools during the hostilities.¹²

Second, major human-rights organizations have documented Palestinian armed groups launching from or operating within densely populated civilian areas. Human Rights Watch wrote in 2009 that Palestinian armed groups launching rockets from densely populated areas unlawfully put Gaza civilians at risk. Amnesty International’s 2015 review of the 2014 war reported credible cases in which Palestinian armed groups launched rockets or mortars from civilian facilities or compounds, including schools, at least one hospital, and a church complex.³⁴

Third, the strongest hospital-related claim is no longer just an Israeli claim. In January 2024, the Associated Press and the Washington Post both reported that U.S. intelligence assessed with high confidence that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad used the Al-Shifa hospital complex and sites beneath it to support military operations, store some weapons, and hold at least a few hostages. At the same time, the Washington Post’s own open-source review warned against overstating what had been proved about the scale and exact layout of that infrastructure.⁵⁶

The disciplined conclusion is not that every dramatic wartime allegation was true. It is that repeated military use of or operation from civilian sites and dense civilian areas is part of the documented record.

What the law says

International humanitarian law places duties on both the attacker and the defender.

The defender may not use civilians or civilian sites to shield military activity. Additional Protocol I says civilians may not be used to render points or areas immune from military operations, and it requires parties, as far as feasible, to avoid locating military objectives in densely populated areas. The ICRC’s study of customary international humanitarian law treats the prohibition on human shields as a customary rule, not a niche treaty provision.⁷⁸

That is the legal frame for the conduct described above. If an armed group stores weapons in a school, places command activity under a hospital, or repeatedly launches from dense residential areas, that conduct is unlawful.

But the other side of the law matters just as much. Civilian objects do not become fair game in a blanket sense because an armed group abuses them. Attackers still owe duties of distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions. And where specially protected sites such as hospitals are concerned, the law expects warning when feasible before protection is treated as lost because of misuse.⁸⁹

What this does not prove

This page is not a license for overclaiming.

It does not prove that every site struck by Israel was a lawful target. It does not prove that every Israeli presentation of tunnel networks or command centers was accurate in all details. And it does not erase the civilian character of Gaza’s population. Gazans remain civilians unless and until they directly participate in hostilities.

It also matters that some wartime claims have been too sweeping. The Washington Post’s review of Al-Shifa found evidence consistent with military use, but not enough public evidence to validate every early Israeli description of the hospital as a fully demonstrated central command complex. That is exactly why the narrower formulation is the stronger one.⁶

Bottom line

The defensible claim is not that “everything in Gaza is a Hamas base.” It is that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly used civilian infrastructure and dense civilian areas for military purposes, and that this conduct is unlawful and strategically consequential. It helps explain why Gaza combat is so deadly without turning that explanation into a blank check for unlawful Israeli force.

Sources