A report published by Human Rights Watch on Wednesday has been slammed as "biased" by Hamas, which was accused by the US-based rights group of committing "war crimes" during the 7 October attack on southern Israel.
In a statement on Wednesday, Hamas rejected the claims laid out in the report, saying the report "justifies the crimes and continuity of the occupation".
The report set out a host of crimes under international law that it says Hamas and its allies had breached.
The crimes include "deliberate and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian objects; wilful killing of persons in custody; cruel and other inhumane treatment; sexual and gender-based violence; hostage taking; mutilation and despoiling (robbing) of bodies; use of human shields; and pillage and looting", said the report.
The report focused on violations of international humanitarian law, rules mostly rooted in the Geneva Conventions for conduct in war.
While the report laid out apparent responsibility for the deaths of civilians on 7 October with Palestinian armed groups, the rights group failed to recognise the role of the Israeli military.
A recent report from Israeli newspaper Haaretz found that the Israeli army had issued its own "Hannibal Directive" on 7 October which ordered troops to kill captives and their captors to stop "enemies" from being able to use Israeli citizens as bargaining tools.
Haaretz found that the directive was used throughout the morning of 7 October and was employed at many locations Hamas had infiltrated, including the Erez border crossing, the Re'im army base and the Nahal Oz outpost.
In a separate incident, an Israeli combat helicopter was found to have opened fire at festival-goers during the Hamas assault on the Nova music festival.
"The report talks about what it described as "crimes" committed by the Palestinian factions on the 7th of October - according to its claim - but it deliberately ignores the crimes committed by the Nazi occupation army on the same day against our people in Gaza, and even against the Israeli civilians who were bombed with the Palestinian fighters by planes and tank shells," Hamas said.
Although Hamas is recognised as the orchestrator of the 7 October attack, known as ‘Al Aqsa Flood’ by their armed wing Al-Qassam Brigades, the HRW report suggested that other Palestinian factions were involved.
The report named five groups, including the armed wings of Fatah and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) — both part of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and recognised for their greater presence in the occupied West Bank.
Both groups did not state their involvement in Al-Aqsa Flood, which was a top-secret operation that only a handful of top Hamas officials were aware of.
HRW said that the Telegram channels of some groups reportedly showed their members at the Erez crossing and military bases nearby.
Hamas deputy Saleh al-Arouri – who was later killed in Beirut by Israel – said that the operation was to take "control over Israeli settlements and military bases" in the Gaza enclave. Al-Arouri also said it was never in Al-Qassam’s plan to "violate civilians or kill them".
Other officials from the group said that Palestinians from Gaza spontaneously joined in the attack and have blamed them for the "chaos" and possible violations against Israelis.
But HRW cautioned that it "was unable to determine through visual information the scale of the coordination between groups before and during the attacks that various armed groups claimed".
The report has also been criticised for relying on testimony from search and rescue group Zaka, whose members circulated now-debunked claims about alleged atrocities committed on 7 October.
In its statement, Hamas called on HRW to retract the report and to include Israel’s invasion of Gaza in its findings. The rights group has said it was still looking into the conflict in Gaza.
For decades, the organisation has issued reports on the status of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as on specific atrocities.
It has faced criticism in the past for taking a soft approach to Israel; such as a "selective" treatment of its violations against Palestinians or neglecting to assess whether Israel’s military has breached laws of war and concluding with ambiguous statements.
(with Agencies)