Did Israel bomb hospitals that didn't had any militar activity?
Executive summary
Multiple independent reports, UN briefings and academic analyses document that Israeli strikes hit many Gaza hospitals and health facilities, sometimes causing large civilian deaths and rendering facilities non‑functional [1] [2] [3]. Israel frequently justifies such strikes by alleging Hamas and other armed groups used hospitals for military purposes, while Palestinian health authorities and humanitarian organizations deny systematic militarization — the result is a contested record where some incidents show evidence of combatants or military use and many others remain disputed or unproven in public reporting [4] [5] [2].
1. What the record shows about strikes on hospitals
Open-source and institutional reporting establishes that a large number of Gaza hospitals were damaged or destroyed during the campaign that began October 2023, with the UN and rights monitors documenting patterns of airstrikes followed by ground raids that left facilities non‑functional and patients and staff detained [1] [2]. Independent satellite analysis published with Harvard collaborators found more than half of healthcare, education and water facilities were damaged in the first phase of the campaign, a finding used by commentators to argue the damage was not “random” [1]. The UN human rights office and UN experts have repeatedly decried deadly strikes at hospitals such as Al‑Ahli and called for independent investigations [3] [2].
2. Israel’s stated rationale: allegations of militarization
Israeli authorities and the IDF have repeatedly said hospitals were being used by Hamas — for command posts, cameras, tunnels, weapons storage or to move fighters — and have sometimes publicly acknowledged specific strikes while asserting militants were killed or military assets neutralized [4] [5] [2]. In at least one incident reported by the Palestine Red Crescent and acknowledged by the IDF, an ambulance in a convoy was struck with the IDF saying it was transporting Hamas personnel and weapons; the PRCS and Gaza health officials disputed that account and said the victims were civilians [4].
3. Evidence and independent scrutiny: mixed, often contested
Investigations and media analyses reveal a mixed evidentiary picture: reporting has verified tunnels or military activity under or near some hospital infrastructure in a few cases, while other analyses — including a Times verification cited in reporting — conclude the Israeli military has struggled to conclusively prove a command‑and‑control center under Shifa [4]. Visual and forensic reviews of certain strikes (for example Nasser and Ahli incidents scrutinized by journalists and rights groups) have raised questions about the proportionality and necessity of the munitions used and whether adequate precautions were taken to protect patients and staff [6] [7].
4. Legal and humanitarian framing: presence of combatants does not automatically authorize indiscriminate attack
Legal analysts emphasize that even if combatants are present in hospitals, international humanitarian law requires attackers to take “all feasible precautions” to minimize civilian harm and that hospitals retain protected status; treating individual wounded combatants in a hospital does not by itself make the facility a legitimate target [6]. Critics of Israeli operations argue the frequency and scale of damage — including the UN estimate that the vast majority of hospitals were damaged or destroyed — indicates either failure to take precautions or an impermissible pattern of targeting civilian infrastructure [1] [8].
5. Where reporting leaves the question: definitive answers are limited
Public reporting assembled by UN bodies, academics and journalists documents many strikes on hospitals and offers concrete allegations of both military misuse and wrongful targeting, but the available sources also show disputes over specific facts and call for independent, transparent probes; the current public record therefore does not permit a single universal conclusion that Israel bombed only hospitals without any military activity, nor that every hospital strike was justified — the evidence is incident‑specific and contested [2] [1] [4].