In principle, no. However, the IDF has failed to provide convincing evidence in many cases, especially in the case of the Al Shifa hospital. Doubly so when their most spectacular piece of evidence - the tunnel found underneath the hospital - was casually revealed by Ehud Barak in a CNN interview to have been an old Israeli construction from the time of the military occupation (taking Christiane Amanpour aback live on air) [0].
Do I think that some of the apparently civilian infrastructure they destroyed was legitimate targets? Yes, absolutely. But given the scale of the destruction and the scantness of evidence, I do not at all believe that all of it was.
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/20/exp-amanpour...
Consider that releasing information jeopardizes its source, both in the physical sense (a person giving information will be executed), and in the intelligence sense - the source will go dead and Israel will have worse intelligence.
That's why Israel can't release information for each and every single target. For Al-Shifa, ample evidence was produced. Whether or not it is convincing is subjective, and your opinion is not more valuable than mine or the IDF's.
The only way to get an objective judgement of the legitimacy of a given attack is to have a neutral third party actively collect intelligence and present their findings, but that's not going to happen.
Given that, do you deny possibility that some residential infrastructure targeted by Israel including that hospital could have been used militarily by Hamas as they have done in the past?