Strike on Nasser Hospital: what happened, why it matters, and the wider fallout

Ephraim Agbo 

Early on Monday morning Israeli forces struck the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip. Palestinian health authorities say the strike — two successive blasts, the second hitting as rescuers and journalists rushed to the scene — killed around 20 people, among them several journalists and medical workers. Hospitals and ambulances were left damaged; dozens of people were wounded and the already fragile health system in southern Gaza suffered another crippling blow.

What the reports say

Local hospital officials and Gaza’s health ministry reported that the first explosion struck the hospital’s upper floors and stairwells. Minutes later, a second strike hit the same area while first responders, hospital staff and reporters were assisting the wounded — a sequence of events captured in multiple videos and later verified by international news outlets. Several journalists working for major outlets — including Reuters, the Associated Press and Al Jazeera — were killed or wounded in the attacks, a development that has sparked particular international alarm.

Israel’s military acknowledged that it “carried out a strike in the area” and said it regretted harm to “uninvolved individuals.” The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) said the chief of the general staff had ordered an immediate inquiry into the incident, and the military pointed to its long-stated operational position that Hamas sometimes uses civilian infrastructure — including medical facilities — for military purposes. The IDF emphasised it does not deliberately target journalists or civilians and said it tries to mitigate civilian harm while protecting its forces.

Immediate international reaction

The killings prompted swift condemnation from international institutions and major capitals and renewed urgent calls for an impartial investigation. U.N. officials, press-freedom organisations and a number of governments demanded answers and stressed that medical facilities and media workers are protected under international humanitarian law. The deaths of journalists covering the humanitarian consequences have intensified pressure on mediators and foreign governments to push both sides toward greater restraint.

The legal and operational context

Hospitals are protected under the laws of armed conflict, but those protections can be lost if the facility is used for military purposes — for example, as an operational command post or to conceal weapons. Israel has repeatedly accused Hamas of placing military assets in or under civilian structures in Gaza, a claim the Israeli military says complicates operations and raises risks for civilians and medical staff. Human Rights Watch and other watchdogs, however, have documented multiple instances where military operations in and around hospitals produced severe harm to patients and staff and have accused Israeli forces of conduct that in some cases may amount to war crimes. Independent verification of claims about the presence of militants inside specific medical buildings is often extremely difficult in Gaza’s chaotic environment.

Why this strike matters

1. Humanitarian impact — immediate and cumulative. Nasser is one of the few functioning hospitals in southern Gaza. Any strike that damages its infrastructure or deters patients and staff from entering reduces access to emergency care for a population already suffering grave shortages of supplies and personnel. The strike therefore does not only produce immediate deaths and injuries but worsens mortality and morbidity across the enclave.

2. Press safety and information flow. The deaths of journalists reporting from Gaza further erode conditions for independent reporting in the territory. Monitoring groups say this period of conflict has already been the deadliest on record for journalists covering a single conflict, and incidents like this both remove experienced reporters from the field and chill coverage. That in turn makes verification of battlefield claims — including accusations about militants using hospitals — even harder.

3. Diplomatic consequences. Strikes on medical facilities trigger global political repercussions: they strengthen calls for ceasefires, increase pressure on Israel from allied capitals, and often drive renewed efforts at international accountability (including calls for impartial investigations or action through international courts). Conversely, if evidence emerges that the site contained valid military targets, that will complicate the legal assessment and the political response.

What to watch next

• Findings of the IDF inquiry: The Israeli military has said it launched an inquiry. Watch for whether it releases forensic details (munitions used, targeting data, timing) and whether it shares or permits independent verification of its findings.
• Independent investigations: International bodies, U.N. agencies or reputable NGOs may seek to conduct or call for independent fact-finding. Their access to the scene, evidence and witnesses will be decisive in establishing an authoritative account.
• Humanitarian access and hospital capacity: Whether Nasser and nearby facilities can resume normal operations, receive supplies and protect staff will determine short-term civilian survival rates in the region.
• Legal and diplomatic fallout: Expect further statements from governments and rights groups; in some cases these incidents have led to legal complaints or new diplomatic leverage for ceasefire talks.

Final takeaway

Whatever the eventual findings of military or independent probes, the strike on Nasser Hospital is a stark reminder of how urban warfare, conflicting claims about civilian infrastructure, and the fog of combat produce devastating human costs — for patients, medical workers, rescuers and journalists. It also underscores an uncomfortable truth of modern conflict: when hospitals become contested spaces or are forced to operate amid active hostilities, the line between protected civilian life and the battlefield blurs, with catastrophic consequences for non-combatants. The immediate need is twofold: a transparent, credible investigation into this incident and stronger measures — political, operational and legal — to reduce the chances that hospitals and other civilian lifelines will be drawn into the fighting again.