Why missile attacks on Israeli cities rarely lead to prosecution

In many cases, attribution does not require a complex investigation because the perpetrators not only identify themselves but also take credit for these attacks.

By Aaron J. Schuster, Middle East Forum

On June 19, 2025, an Iranian missile struck Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, wounding civilians and damaging one of southern Israel’s largest southern hospitals.

Under international laws of war, hospitals receive special protection. Protecting the sick and wounded was the foundational principle at the Geneva Convention of 1864.

They are not lawful targets unless they are used for military purposes. No such claim accompanied the strike on Soroka Medical Center. Although the incident drew headlines, it did not lead to legal action.

That attack was not an isolated incident. On April 1, 2026, sirens sounded in Tel Aviv after Hezbollah launched a salvo of missiles.

Civilians moved into shelters across the city when the warning system activated as the missiles targeted civilian neighborhoods.

Other groups such as Yemen’s Houthis also have launched missiles and drones toward Israel and promised more.

Hamas has fired unguided rockets toward Ashkelon, forcing civilians into shelters and emergency crews into the streets.

The perpetrators may differ, but the strategic method remains the same: They direct missiles and rockets toward civilian areas to cause terror, damage property, and injure or kill civilians.

International humanitarian law prohibits direct targeted attacks on civilians and specifically prohibits attacks that cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets.

Both unguided rockets and cluster bombs fired indiscriminately into cities fall into that second category. The international proscription applies universally regardless of who launches these types of strikes.

Part of the problem lies in jurisdiction and political will, since many of the groups responsible for these attacks operate outside the reach of courts that otherwise might prosecute them.

Their leadership resides in territories where arrest is unlikely, and the states that host or support them have little incentive to cooperate with enforcement.

International mechanisms exist, but they are dependent on state action to enforce them and without that cooperation, the path from violation to prosecution dissipates long before it can reach a courtroom.

Independent organizations have said as much. Human Rights Watch has concluded that recent missile strikes on Israel, including those involving cluster munitions, were indiscriminate and may amount to war crimes.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that cluster munitions place civilians at risk both during an attack and long after, when unexploded submunitions remain scattered on the ground. These are settled laws.

What is harder to identify is any consistent effort to enforce these laws. Missiles land, sirens sound, a militia claims responsibility openly, and then the necessary enforcement mechanism evaporates.

There are few efforts to pursue arrests, indictments, or prosecutions tied to these attacks on Israeli population centers.

The gap stands out because the underlying facts are not hidden.

Hezbollah statements link attacks to ongoing conflict conditions, while Houthi officials describe their operations publicly, and Hamas long has sought credit for its rocket fire into Israeli cities.

In many cases, attribution does not require a complex investigation because the perpetrators not only identify themselves but also take credit for these attacks.

Legal mechanisms do exist. International law provides for accountability and courts have jurisdiction under certain conditions.

Sanctions rules can target both individuals and organizations. The problem is the absence of implementing these tools when the victims of attacks are Israelis.

When attacks on hospitals and cities do not result in prosecution, the law begins to lose force. It remains part of the language of diplomacy and reporting, but it does not deter.

The issue, then, is not the content of the law but its consistent application. A serious response does not mandate new rules, but it requires the equivalent application of existing ones.

Policymakers and legal institutions can identify incidents, assign responsibility, and pursue action where jurisdiction allows, including sanctions and arrests.

In Israel’s case specifically, there seems to be little interest in enforcing the laws of war against those who target civilians. Until that changes, the gap between law and application will remain exceptionally wide.