Apologists of Israel’s war crimes and genocidal acts against Palestinian people disingenuously throw down the term “human shields” as a justification for Israel’s mass killing of civilians. They provide no factual qualification or definition of human shields because they lack the substance to do so. It’s a distraction and a logical fallacy – a conclusion without a premise based on facts. They are fully aware that they cannot legally justify Israel’s blatant, indiscriminate killing of civilians, so they seek to confuse and distract their opponents.
As of early December 23rd, the horrific numbers were:
- At least 20,057 killed , including at least:
- 8,000 children
- 6,200 women
- More than 53,320 injured, including at least:
- 8,663 children
- 6,327 women
Israel has also killed over 100 journalists, over 278 medical professionals and over 136 UN workers, all unprecedented numbers and war crimes.
The death toll of children in Gaza from October 7th to the end of October had the Israeli slaughter of children in Gaza as the worse than all other armed conflicts around the world in the previous four years, which by now is much, much worse than even this unprecedented rate. Israel has bombed schools, hospitals, homes, densely populated refugee camps, mosques, churches, roads with fleeing civilians, and other civilian sites indiscriminately. At the end of October, former director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, called the Israeli assault on, and deprivation of, Palestinians in Gaza a “textbook case” of genocide[1]. Israeli leaders have openly stated genocidal intent directly or through dehumanization, making genocidal biblical references, calling all civilians targets, calling for the clearing out or killing of Palestinians in another Nakba, and referring to Palestinians as animals. As of November 16, UN experts warned of the risk of genocide of Palestinians due to the incessant bombing of civilians and civilian sites. They noted that the illegal siege on Gaza, depriving Gazan Palestinians of food, water, fuel, medicine and other essentials was a war crime. All has gotten much worse since then. Gaza, looking forward, may be largely uninhabitable. Human Rights Watch recently warned that the Gaza food system was on the brink of collapse, which it has been teetering on the edge of for weeks now and is edging closer to the abyss. Over 1.9 million out of the total 2.3 million population of Gaza has been internally displaced to 1/3 of the territory, of an already extremely population dense place, where communicable diseases are on the rise, and people struggle to access food, water, electricity healthcare, sanitation, and shelter.
The list of Israeli war crimes in the above, short summary is astronomical, to say the least.
Before even considering the “human shield” issue, first look to the sword
The starting point is that the attacking party is responsible for distinguishing between civilian and military targets, for targeting proportionately, and applying the precautionary principle. Failure to do so results in war crimes at the bloody hands of the attacking party. This is irrefutable in international law recognized in the Geneva Conventions 1949, Additional Protocol 1977 (see articles 48 – 58) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (see article 8), and customary international law. If the attacking party (Israel) claims that the other side (Hamas) is using human shields to make civilian casualties unavoidable, they have the onus to raise the defence with actual, concrete facts: what civilians, where, when, and what Hamas targets were behind the “shields”, and how and why civilian killings could not be avoided.
The suggestion that schools, hospitals, homes, densely populated refugee camps, mosques, churches, roads with fleeing civilians, and other civilian sites are filled with “human shields” is an excuse to suggest these places filled with civilians, who are actually using the facilities for their intended purposes or emergency shelter, are entirely preventing Israeli military from taking out targets that are imminent threats to Israel’s safety. It is a heinous attempt to avoid the application of international law principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, and place the blame on Hamas for Israel’s killing of civilians – wrongly reversing the onus. It should also be kept in mind that a state’s right to self defence, pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter, does not apply to a belligerent occupier on occupied territory. This was the position of the International Court of justice’s advisory opinion on the apartheid wall in the West Bank on 9 July 2004. It was reiterated in reference to Israel’s present onslaught on Gaza by UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese. On the other hand, Palestinians have the right to resist the illegal occupation with armed struggle.
What is the definition of “human shields”?
Use of human shields is itself a war crime. The concept of human shields is addressed in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court addresses the prohibition of the use of human shields under Article 8(b) (xxiii): “Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.”
In its international humanitarian law database, addressing IHL rule 97 (prohibition on the use of human shields), the International Committee of the Red Cross has provided a straightforward definition of human shields as: “an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons (not involved) with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.”
Contending with those who call Palestinians “human shields”
The onus is on Israel to prove the use of human shields in each and every case of a civilian being killed if they actually sought to use this assertion as a defence, something they have not done, cannot do, and will not do. Regardless, it must be kept in mind that civilians must not be targeted, otherwise it is a war crime. Those dealing with arguments of apologists for Israeli war crimes should be vigilant in pointing to the responsibility for safeguarding civilians being at the hands of the attacking party in each and every case.
Palestinian people have been subject to enormous dehumanization by Israel, including pasting them with the label “human shields”. They are not human shields, but human beings.
[1] The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines genocide as targeting a people based on nationality, ethnicity, race or religion with the following acts in whole or in part: killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, inflicting conditions of life designed to bring about the physical destruction of the people in whole or in part, preventing births in the population, and forcible transfer of children. The evidence of the first four is mounting fast — with piles of death bodies destruction and people at the edge of an abyss — to create the “textbook case”, particularly with statements showing genocidal intent.