The Amnesty International report you provided directly addresses the issue of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups operating in civilian areas and the implications under international law.

According to the report:

  1. Hamas’s Conduct and Civilian Endangerment:
    • The report acknowledges that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups at times operated in or from the vicinity of densely populated residential areas, including schools and camps for displaced people, and that their fighters were present in such locations (pp. 20, 61, 125).
    • It states that by doing so, they violated their obligations to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks, and to avoid locating military targets in or around densely populated areas to the extent feasible (pp. 20, 61).
    • The report mentions that the Israeli military justified attacks on mosques and universities on the grounds that they had been employed for military purposes by Hamas or contained military infrastructure (pp. 33, 221-222).
  2. Amnesty International’s Position on Justification:
    • Crucially, the report states that such conduct by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups does not release Israel from its own obligations under international humanitarian law (pp. 20, 61, 78).
    • Specifically, Israel remains obligated to:
      • Distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives (pp. 75-76).
      • Not direct attacks against civilians or civilian objects (pp. 75-76).
      • Avoid attacks that would be indiscriminate or disproportionate (i.e., where the expected incidental civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated) (pp. 20, 76).
      • Take all feasible precautions in attack to avoid or minimize civilian casualties (p. 77).
    • The report argues that even where Hamas fighters were located near or within densely populated areas, Israel was obligated to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and avoid attacks that would be indiscriminate or disproportionate (p. 34).
    • Regarding human shields, the report clarifies that while international humanitarian law prohibits using human shields (p. 78), Protocol I (Article 51(8)) also states that a violation by one side (e.g., using human shields) “…shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians” (p. 78).
    • Amnesty International’s investigations into 15 specific air strikes concluded that in those instances, the locations struck were civilian objects, and they did not find evidence that the strikes were directed at a military objective or that the destruction was justified by imperative military necessity (pp. 19, 106-111).
    • The report also states that Amnesty International has not found evidence that the possible diversion of aid by Hamas explained the actions Israel took in blocking, restricting, and impeding the entry and delivery of aid and other items necessary for life into and within Gaza (p. 34).
  3. Destruction After Israeli Control, Questioning Military Necessity:
    • The report details investigations into the destruction of several cultural and religious sites, including Al-Azhar University (Al-Mughraqa campus), Israa University, Al-Dhilal mosque, and Al-Istiqlal mosque (pp. 33, 222-232).
    • A key finding for these sites, particularly the universities and some mosques destroyed by controlled demolitions, is that Israeli forces were often already in control of the sites at the time of their destruction (pp. 33, 222, 224, 227-228).
    • Amnesty International argues that this control “suggest[s] that there was no imperative military necessity for their destruction” at that moment (pp. 33, 222). If the sites were secured and no active hostilities were ongoing from them, the immediate military imperative to destroy them (especially by methods like controlled demolition which require time and planning) is questionable.
    • For example, Israa University was reportedly taken over by the Israeli army and used as a base for 70 days before its main buildings were demolished by explosives (p. 227).
    • Similarly, for the Al-Mughraqa campus of Al-Azhar University, Israeli forces had established a military road nearby and were active on the campus for weeks before the controlled demolition of two buildings (pp. 223-224). The army only appeared to start excavating for alleged tunnels near the destroyed buildings approximately two months after the demolition (p. 226).
    • Amnesty International states it was often “unable to find any official statement by the Israeli authorities that would explain the reasons for the destruction” of specific sites like the Al-Mughraqa campus of Al-Azhar University (p. 226) or Al-Istiqlal mosque (p. 232) at the time of those demolitions.
    • While Israel generally claimed Hamas used mosques and universities for military purposes (pp. 33, 221-222), the report finds that for the specific instances of controlled demolitions it investigated, the evidence of an ongoing, imperative military necessity at the moment of destruction was lacking or contradicted by the circumstances of Israeli control.
    • The report suggests that “this destruction of Palestinian cultural and religious sites appears to have been considered the very purpose and goal of Israeli soldiers’ actions” in some instances, rather than a response to an immediate military threat (pp. 33, 222).
  4. Challenges to Independent Verification of “Human Shield” Claims, with Israel as a Primary Source:
    • The Amnesty International report notes that Israel frequently justified its attacks on civilian infrastructure, including mosques and universities, by alleging that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups were using these sites for military purposes, such as storing weapons, concealing tunnels, or launching attacks (pp. 33, 221-222).
    • However, the report highlights that Amnesty International itself was consistently denied access to Gaza by Israeli authorities (p. 43), a restriction that also applies to other independent human rights investigators and international bodies. This denial of access severely impedes the ability of independent entities to conduct on-the-ground investigations and verify claims made by any party, including Israel’s allegations regarding the use of human shields or the military use of civilian sites.
    • In the specific cases of destruction of cultural and religious sites investigated by Amnesty International, such as the Al-Mughraqa campus of Al-Azhar University and Al-Istiqlal mosque, the report states it was “unable to find any official statement by the Israeli authorities that would explain the reasons for the destruction” at the time of those demolitions (pp. 226, 232). This suggests a lack of contemporaneous, detailed justification from Israel for specific actions, beyond general claims.
    • Furthermore, in its investigation of 15 specific air strikes that caused significant civilian casualties, Amnesty International “did not find any evidence that any of the strikes were directed at a military objective” or that the destruction was justified by imperative military necessity (pp. 19, 111). This indicates that in numerous instances investigated by Amnesty, Israel’s actions were not substantiated by evidence of legitimate military targets, which would include sites actively used for human shielding in a way that makes them targetable under IHL (while still adhering to proportionality and precaution).
    • While the report does not explicitly state that Israel is the only source for all claims of human shielding, the severe restrictions on independent access to Gaza, coupled with Amnesty’s findings where Israeli justifications were not evident or substantiated by their own research, underscore the significant difficulty in independently verifying such claims. This often leaves Israeli military narratives as a dominant, if not sole, source of information for specific operational justifications, which human rights organizations then attempt to scrutinize through remote methods and available evidence.
    • Independent journalism from previous conflicts have shown little evidence for Israel’s claims of Hamas’ use of human shields:
      • https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2014/07/jeremy-bowens-gaza-notebook-i-saw-no-evidence-hamas-using-palestinians-human
      • https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/israel-gaza-conflict-myth-of-hamass-human-shield-gazans-deny-being-put-in-line-of-fire/30448511.html

So, while the Amnesty International report acknowledges that Hamas’s actions (like operating in civilian areas) endangered civilians and violated international law, it firmly states that these actions do not legally justify Israel’s own violations of international humanitarian law, nor do they absolve Israel of its obligations to protect civilians and adhere to the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in its attacks. The report’s conclusion of genocidal acts by Israel is based on Israel’s own pattern of conduct, its policies, and the intent inferred from them, irrespective of Hamas’s unlawful actions.i