Hamas weaponizes international law

As the world focuses on the immediate geopolitical costs of the present Israel-Hamas armed conflict, started by the brutal terrorist attack of Hamas against Israel and innocent Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023, a concomitant battle is ongoing : Hamas’s strategic manipulation of international law. The weaponization of this body of law has two purposes: the delegitimization of the Jewish state on the world stage and undermining the current military operations in the Gaza Strip whilst gaining support for its genocidal intentions against Jews and the State of Israel.

Historically, the Palestinian terrorist organization has formally called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to examine Israeli military operations in Gaza. In May 2021, Hamas issued a statement urging the ICC to investigate what they labelled as "crimes" committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict.

The Palestinian terrorist group has publicly called for international legal action against Israel's military operations. In May 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel to halt its military action on Rafah. Hamas welcomed the decision¹ and urged the United Nations Security Council to enforce it.

Hamas has urged the ICJ and the international community to intervene and halt Israel's military operations in the Gaza² Strip. It has also called for Israeli leaders to be held accountable for what it describes as a campaign of starvation against civilians in northern Gaza.

In a most recent event, on 20 May, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada issued a joint statement on the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. The three Western Powers warned they will take “concrete” measures if Israel proceeds with what they termed an “egregious” expansion of military operations in Gaza.

On May 20, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada issued a joint statement addressing the ongoing situation in Gaza and the West Bank. They warned that if Israel persists with its alleged "egregious" expansion of military operations in Gaza, they would consider taking "concrete" measures in response.

According to the statement, human suffering in Gaza is intolerable; allowing a basic quantity of food into Gaza is wholly inadequate; the denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

The statement condemns the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate.

The declaration asserts that permanent forced displacement is a breach of IHL.

Also, the three Western Powers recognized that Israel suffered a heinous attack on October 7. They indicated that they have consistently supported the Jewish state’s right to defend Israelis against terrorism, but the present escalation is wholly disproportionate.

They called on Hamas to immediately release the remaining hostages, held by Hamas since 7 October 2023, and reiterated support for a ceasefire and the implementation of a two-state solution.

Hamas welcomed the joint statement

The joint statement is music to the ears of Hamas. Why not?

Considering that the statement echoes Hamas's criticisms of Israel's military actions in Gaza, this endorsement is unsurprising. And indeed, Hamas’s endorsement of the joint statement³ is not merely supportive—it deliberately reinforces and reiterates the language of the Western Powers statement, underscoring a strategic alignment.

The terrorist group said that the joint statement is a rejection of the “policy of siege and starvation pursued by the occupation government against our people in the Gaza Strip and the Zionist plans aimed at genocide and displacement.”

Hamas⁴ sees the international stance as a significant move to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, confirming their belief that Israel's actions have been disproportionate and in breach of international legal standards. It reiterates that the joint statement is “an important step towards restoring the principles of international law” and crucial for protecting civilians and ending what they describe as “the occupation’s fascism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people in Gaza.”

Hamas’s appeals and support for the joint statement are part of broader international efforts aimed at demanding accountability for Israeli actions it regards as violations of international law. It knows how to strategically manipulate international law in order to gain support for its own cause.

In this light, the terrorist group is calling for an “urgent translation” of the joint statement “into effective practical steps that deter the occupation.”

Specifically, it has urged “Arab and Islamic countries, the European Union, and the international community to take decisive and concrete action to halt the “savage Zionist aggression,” curb the Israeli military’s ongoing crimes, and ensure accountability for what it called a “rogue state” and its leaders, whom it described as war criminals.”

Hamas grossly violates international law

The support of Hamas for the joint statement is astonishing. The terrorist group, whilst paying lip service to the norms of international law and governments’ joint statements condemning the Jewish state, commits gross infringements of IHL⁵ deliberately.

It is sufficient to see the atrocious terrorist attacks carried out against innocent Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023.

Hamas uses unlawful and asymmetrical warfare tactics that violate fundamental principles of international law. These include using human shields, taking and killing hostages, and hiding terrorists among civilians—a form of perfidy. The group stores weapons in civilian infrastructure like homes, schools, residential buildings, and hospitals, then launches indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilian areas from these sites.

The terrorist group has built a tunnel network beneath residential buildings in Gaza to conceal military equipment and its members, deliberately endangering Palestinian civilians. These tunnels were never intended to protect innocent civilians or shield them from conflict. The tunnels increase collateral damage and have heightened Israeli anxiety by posing a direct threat to civilians and undermining their sense of territorial sovereignty.

This terror infrastructure reduces confidence in conventional border security measures like patrols, fences, walls, and checkpoints, leading to diminished trust among Israeli citizens in their government's ability to ensure safety and security. Besides, it erodes public trust in state institutions responsible for national security. Exactly what Hamas desires.

This terrorist group controls the civilian population in Gaza and has turned it into a center of gravity for its unlawful operations. By choosing and imposing this strategically amorphous battlefield on the Israeli Defense Forces, it has a high level of manoeuvrability and stealthiness, consequently inducing collateral damage by complicating the battlefield environment and challenging conventional military methods.

Such strategies aim to compensate for the stark disparity in power between Hamas and the IDF while avoiding direct military confrontation. Hamas' unlawful approaches collapse the fundamental tenets of engagement and blur the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, thereby undermining the integrity of lawful warfare. By exploiting both the vulnerabilities and constraints of the IDF—particularly its legal and ethical obligations—Hamas seeks to inflict civilian casualties and provoke international condemnation of Israeli responses.

Yet, evidence presented in Palestinian Media Watch⁶ shows that, “while the international community is blaming Israel for the tragic civilian deaths in Gaza, Palestinians are correctly blaming Hamas for intentionally using civilians as human shields. Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah has criticized Hamas for its responsibility for the deaths of Gazan civilians because they use them as human shields in the war.” Consequently, Palestinians say, “Don't blame Israel for the deaths of Gazans.” The Palestinian Authority “blames Hamas” for the death toll.

The tragic reality is that civilian casualties are an unfortunate consequence of war, especially in complex and densely civilian environments where one of the contenders is embedded to gain strategic advantage. And, while Hamas employs tactics designed to increase a high number of such casualties and inflict unnecessary suffering, Israel is seriously criticized for using disproportionate force and urged to show greater restraint or stop its military operations. Why is the full force of the demands only for one side and not for a terrorist group whose objective is to inflict unnecessary suffering in contravention of the principle of humanity, one of the sacrosanct underlying principles of the normative architecture of IHL?

Criticisms of the joint statement

The joint statement has faced considerable criticism, mainly due to its perceived inadequacies and the broader implications of the positions taken by the Western Powers. Critics have pointed out that the threat lacks concrete actions against Israel if the Jewish state does not stop the military operations in Gaza. However, they are silent about the atrocities committed by Hamas or dismantling Hamas. Detractors do not offer real solutions for the broader security implications of its existence and use of its illegal, asymmetrical means and methods of violence for innocent Palestinians and Israeli civilians.

It is not a simple task to stop the military operations without concomitantly requesting substantive demands of a genocidal terrorist group whose fundamental objective is the extermination of the Jewish State. Hamas's constitutive charter is clear about this.

Detractors have stated that the support for Israel’s right to self-defense undermines the seriousness of the humanitarian crisis there. In other words, Israel must stop its lawful right to self-defense because solving the humanitarian crisis must take precedence.

A morally reasonable argument, many contend. However, what do they do with Hamas? What do they do with the remaining hostages and the permanent threat to the lives of Israeli civilians? How do observers reconcile the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza— caused ultimately by Hamas —with Israel’s right to exist and defend itself against future attacks from a terrorist group that openly targets civilians, shows no regard for human life, and rejects international humanitarian norms? The lives and inherent dignity of innocent Palestinians and Israelis are of equal and unquestionable value.

Suspending Israel’s right to self-defense would offer Hamas a critical opportunity to regroup, rearm, and rebuild its capacity to carry out further terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians.

Critics uphold that the three Western Powers tacitly support Israel’s disproportionate use of force. They also argue that the joint statement lacks substance, pointing out that it fails to explicitly affirm a commitment to IHL or outline any consequences for violations of that body of law. These arguments are reasonable prima facie. However, they are not straightforward under scrutiny. Implementing the provisions of IHL is a challenge in asymmetric conflicts, where one of the contenders is an army and the other is a terrorist group entrenched within the civilian population, as implied before, and does not follow the rules of combatancy.

Implementing IHL is not an easy task

The normative architecture of IHL law seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict or human suffering during the conduct of hostilities by requiring compliance with the principles of distinction and proportionality.

The imposition of limits on military actions during armed conflicts is an absolute necessity. War is brutal.

We cannot analyze all the intricacies involved in these premises, but because the norm of proportionality is the most used and abused in information warfare, or rather disinformation, it is of value to mention a few problems faced by this rule.

The principle of distinction is a theoretically straightforward rule. According to the International Court of Justice, it is an intransgressible and cardinal principle that is a component of the fabric of IHL. Obliteration of the lines between combatants and civilians in order to induce the stronger opponent to execute indiscriminate attacks is simply prohibited.

The combatants must distinguish between civilians and combatants and civilian objects and military objectives. However, it is very hard to discern this rule when one of the contenders is camouflaged amongst innocent civilians. Who is a legitimate combatant? The terrorists can see soldiers in uniforms, but can the soldiers see the enemy with accuracy in an irregular battlefield? In the fog of an amorphous battlefield, where are the legitimate military targets? What are they?

There are few legitimate military targets in an asymmetric conflict. Hamas has none because it cannot fight against powerful army in a frontal battlefield. And Israel is contending with and invisible enemy which has chosen the civilian population as a battlefield. The projection of military might is very difficult under these conditions.

Turning to the norm of proportionality. This norm forbids excessive collateral damage in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage gained.

The rule of proportionality requires that a commander must apply a test before executing an attack to minimize collateral damage. The radius and geography of the legitimate military target must be as narrow as possible.

It also requires that an attacker may attack or choose to limit or suspend the attack to reduce harm to civilians if the attack would result in excessive collateral damage. Confronted with this duality, the norm obliges the attacker to suspend the attack in order to protect civilians. This is a heavy burden on an army when there are no clear-cut choices in an irregular battlefield, where one of the enemies is encrusted within a densely civilian environment. And many factors outside of the control of a commander can occur between gathering information on the military target and the moment the commander decides to execute the future attack. The prospective character of the rule of proportionality is highly problematic.

The norm does not demand soldiers to be clairvoyants with a crystal ball to predict the future. It is about reasonable possibilities and decisions taken before executing an attack.

Besides, the term 'excessive' is the crux of the balancing test in the judgment of a commander. This term is not defined by the law and is open to different interpretations. Restrictive interpretations of proportionality are a hindrance and give advantage to the enemy. Therefore, there is no alternative but to expand the interpretation of the norm in order to have some possibility of combat.

Excessive collateral damage is illegal, and incidental collateral damage is permitted. But IHL does not provide a mathematical formula to measure collateral damage. Where can armies draw a line between permitted and prohibited collateral damage?

Conducting an objective test to gather information prior to carrying out an attack in the context of an asymmetric conflict, as mandated by the principle of proportionality, renders the norm inapplicable.

Hamas exploits civilian casualties in Gaza—regardless of who is responsible—to fuel international condemnation of Israel. It portrays Israel as the sole aggressor, and perpetrator of widespread universal crimes, while deliberately obscuring its own henous violations of international norms and openly stated genocidal goals. This strategy aims to generate sympathy and deflect attention from its own reprehensible abuses.

Hamas's leverage does not end with the weaponization of IHL. It is now being expanded to International Human Rights Law and, under this body of law, is suing the British Government.

Hamas is exploiting the European Convention on Human Rights

In the latest perversion, Hamas is now exploiting the language and principles of international human rights law. Why? Under the The United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act of 2000, Hamas was officially designated as a terrorist organization in 2001.⁷

In April 2025, it initiated legal proceedings against the British government’s decision to designate it as a terrorist organization in the United Kingdom, arguing that the terrorist designation contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the grounds that it ‘unlawfully restricts the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly’ of Hamas sympathizers. The absurdity is that it seems the government is in breach of international law by preventing Hamas supporters from possibly planning terrorist attacks or endangering national security.

Astonishingly, Hamas argues⁸ that the ban obstructs the group's efforts to pursue a political resolution to the conflict, suppresses discussions on reaching a lasting political settlement, and criminalizes ordinary Palestinians in Gaza.

What a set of rights used as familiar platitudes, without any compunction or contriteness, by a terrorist group that systematically infringes the same rights in Gaza. According to Amnesty International, an organization also critical of Israel, “since [Hamas’s] takeover of Gaza in 2007⁹ and the establishment of a parallel security and law enforcement apparatus, Hamas has imposed severe restrictions on freedom of association, expression, and peaceful assembly, using excessive force in response to several protest movements… and regularly detaining and torturing dissidents… Hamas security services continued to throttle freedom of expression, including by labeling critics as traitors.” Authorities…must respect the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression and cease the ongoing repression of protesters.”

Suing the British Government because the designation as a terrorist organization is a hindrance to a political resolution to the conflict?

The most widely discussed political solution to the Israeli-Hamas conflict is the paradigm of the two-state solution, which envisions an independent Palestinian state existing alongside Israel and where Jews and Palestinians can live in peace side by side. This framework is supported by much of the international community, including the UN, the EU, and the US, and is seen as the most viable long-term resolution to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And Palestinians have had several key opportunities over the years to establish a Palestinian state, and they have rejected them:

The 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed dividing British Mandate Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The Jewish leadership accepted it, but the Arab states and Palestinian leaders rejected it, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Between 1949 and 1967 the West Bank was controlled by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt. No moves were made by Arab leaders or Palestinians to establish a State in these territories;
The 1993 Oslo Accords marked mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel and outlined steps toward Palestinian self-governance. It was seen as a stepping stone toward statehood but ultimately failed to produce a final agreement;
During the 2000 Camp David Summit, Israel offered a proposal that included a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza. Yasser Arafat rejected the deal, citing various concerns, and the talks collapsed, followed by the Second Intifada.
2008 Olmert Proposal—Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered even more territory, including land swaps and a capital in East Jerusalem. Mahmoud Abbas did not accept the offer.

Since 2012, Palestine has held the status of a non-member observer state at the United Nations. While this designation offers a degree of international recognition, it does not confer full statehood or sovereign rights.

But the two-state solution is a figment without dismantling Hamas, the net of other Palestinian terrorist groups, and without warranting the security of Israel. Security guarantees for Israel are to ensure that a future Palestinian state would not pose a threat to the Jewish state.

Another major shift would be needed: unifying the fractured internal political authority of the Palestinian Authority. However, this shift requires exterminating Hamas. Hamas is a major security threat to Palestinians and Jews.

The existence of Hamas and unlawful means and methods of violence preclude a political resolution to the conflict. The British government's decision to outlaw it in the United Kingdom is correct.

Fortunately, the likelihood of Hamas succeeding in a legal challenge against the British government is exceedingly low. The United Kingdom has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, citing its involvement in acts of terrorism and its refusal to renounce violence.

The government has broad discretion under the law to proscribe groups involved in terrorism, and courts tend to defer to national security considerations, especially when classified intelligence is involved. To overturn the designation, Hamas would face a very high legal hurdle, proving that the decision was unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair¹⁰—an exceedingly challenging standard.

Besides, freedom of speech is recognised as a qualified right under international law. This implies that it may be restricted in specific circumstances such as those pertaining to public order, national security, or other people's rights and reputations. Restrictions must be mandated by law.

In a similar vein, the right to free assembly is regarded as qualified, subject to possible limitations based on necessary and legal constraints.