History 361-01-Jewish History The Human Shield The debate over the use of human shields in combat has gone on for years and it is a hot topic as it pertains to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Even though the act of using human shields can be traced all the way back to the 13th century when it was a tactic used by the Mongols in combat, the issue seems to have become an international focus especially under the microscope placed on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The question now is why has so much attention been placed on the use of human shields by Israeli and Palestinian troops when there is documentation in one form or another of this “tactic” being used in every major conflict or war that has occurred over the last 300 years? As it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are numerous articles and news reports which offer insight and accusations as to why this tactic is being used so liberally in this conflict. Whereas Pro-Israel reports shift blame to Palestinian fighters, likewise Pro-Palestinian reports shift blame to Israel. Finding any Israeli or Palestinian report offering a non-biased report going against its government or nation is quite difficult. For the purpose of military affairs, human shield is defined by freedictionary.com, as a person who takes a position at a likely military target as a means of forestalling an enemy attack or a person used by military forces to act as a shield or barrier against enemy fire whether this is voluntarily or forced. Forces use this as a means of making enemy forces more reluctant to fire on their positions and in many cases, abort missions to avoid civilian casualties. In many cases when civilian casualties do occur, the effected side tends to use their deaths as a means of propaganda against the attacking forces and country. The act of using human shields is illegal and considered a war crime as defined in the Fourth Geneva Convention. If a party does in fact attack a military target which is shielded by human presence, they must do so according to strict rules of proportionality. These acts were placed under scrutiny during the Israeli war on Gaza in 2009. The United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned a fact finding mission on the Gaza conflict which would become known as the Goldstone Report in which a group of independent investigators headed by Richard Goldstone of South Africa conducted an investigation on alleged allegations that Israel and Palestine were in violation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The findings of the report accused both Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian militant groups particularly the Hamas of committing war crimes. Israeli government officials rejected the findings of the Goldstone report stating they were unbalanced, prejudice, and full of errors; the fact that the report accused Israel of having policy which allowed for deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilian populations was false according to the Israeli government. Although the account that Israel had a policy of targeting civilian populations would later be retracted by Goldstone, his fellow investigators who assisted with the report would state that the initial report was factual and valid. The Goldstone Report and its accusations would open the flood gates for reporters on both sides of the conflict to criticize the tactics used by opposing forces. Two articles that deal directly with the use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seem to illustrate how each side feels the need to shift blame to the other side. Whereas from the Palestinian perspective, the author defends his nation and says the use of human shields is a “tactic” regularly used by Israel, the author of the Israeli perspective states that Palestinian’s boast over their use of human shields and considers it an honor to be placed in harm’s way so that military forces or assets can be protected from enemy fire. Although the articles are written three years apart, the overall intention of both articles are the same in shifting blame from one side to the other and refusing to acknowledge any wrong doing on their governments part. The two articles titled “The Israeli Human Shield” by Abu al-Sous (Salah Mansour) and “Dealing with Hamas’s Human Shield Tactics” by Yaakov Lappin both offer very different perspectives on the use of human shield tactics in Gaza. The first article by Mansour is very biased and claims no responsibility on the part of the Palestinian people. Mansour starts his piece by blaming Western media for “propagating Israeli propaganda that the Palestinian resistance has been using their own family members as human shields” (Mansour). He goes on to state that Israeli propaganda is often presented in Western media as fact and that there is no verification; it is just accepted as fact. It seems that Mansour is presenting a case that Western media is trying to dehumanize the Palestinian people by showing that they, the Palestinian people, do not care about their own family members. In fact, Mansour will call this effort a “dehumanizing campaign” on behalf of Western media and Israeli officials. Lappin begins his article in a much different way than does Mansour. Lappin instead of immediately starting the blame game chooses to defend Israel and the Israeli Air Force (IAF) by showing how they are in fact following the rules of engagement when civilians are present at bombing sites. He tells you of a radio conversation which takes place during an inbound air strike in which the radio operator tells the pilot to abort the mission because civilians were spotted around the target. He defends this decision and previous decisions when he says “It was one of many occasions in which pilots were ordered to call off air strikes in the last moment, after real-time footage…revealed the presence of Palestinian non-combatants” (Lappin). It is two very different and interesting ways to start articles that are about the topic of human shields. Neither Mansour nor Lappin bring any historical data to back up their claims. Instead, both authors insist on finger pointing as to who is right and who is wrong or who is actually responsible for using human shields and firing upon positions where civilian population is present or high. Lappin insist that the Hamas is responsible for all civilian casualties in Gaza because of their positioning of ammunitions and because they set up military sites in, on, and around public building such as schools and residences. He says as much when he says “the IAF is dealing with an enemy keen on using the densely populated Gaza Strip as a rocket base, often shooting the projectiles from the tops of residential buildings, or near schools, mosques, and other public places” (Lappin). By delivering this statement in such a manner, Lappin is successful in shifting blame to the Hamas because he shows that they are engaging Israeli troops from populated areas which leave IDF troops no choice but self defense which puts civilians in harm’s way or retreat leaving an enemy embedded in public domain. Lappin insist that Hamas leaders purposely put their people in harm’s way in an effort to protect military assets and leaders. He is able to present what we as readers are meant to understand are direct quotes from Hamas leaders which serve as evidence to this fact. According to Lappin, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya promotes the idea of Palestinian people using themselves as human targets when Haniya himself says “the Palestinians are a people and a nation of jihad and martyrdom”. Lappin also presents a quote from Hamas MP Fathi Hamed in which according to Lappin, Hamed confirms the acceptance of citizens using themselves as human shields when he says “We desire death more than you desire life; for the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, the elderly excel at this, and so do children”. This by itself is a strong statement which seems to expose the fact that Hamas leaders do indeed condone Palestinian citizens putting themselves in harm’s way in order to protect military agenda. Mansour on the other hand does not even acknowledge Palestinians using their people as human shields. He instead uses the angle that Israel still refuses to comply with orders passed down from the Israeli Supreme Court to stop using Palestinians as human shields and wonders why if in fact the IDF is not committing such atrocities would the Supreme Court of their land have to even make a decision regarding this matter. It is a strong point, but is overshadowed by his next statement in which Mansour claims “It has been an Israeli strategy from the start to use civilian target as strategic weapon” (Mansour). With making such a bold statement, Mansour would be in a position to be taken more seriously by offering some data or evidence to prove that Israel uses civilians as strategic weapons. The closing of each author’s articles contradict one another in every sense. Mansour asserts that Palestinians using human shields is a concoction by Zionist to delegitimize any Palestinian resistance and to “deflect from the war crimes that are being perpetrated on the people of Gaza”. Lappin says Palestinian military and Hamas terrorist have in the past used human shields and “this won’t be the last time that…Hamas terrorist will seek cover behind Palestinian civilians”. Both contribute to each side’s argument that they are not the ones using human shields and in fact it is the other side that either uses civilians as shields or fires into crowds of civilians using the excuse that there are enemy combatants present within the crowds. The debate over who is committing war crimes by either using human shields in combat or firing into crowds where enemy combatants are allegedly present is a topic that may never by fully understood. It seems that a party attacked by human-shielded weapons or troops is in a predicament if it disregards human shields and scrutinized by its own people if it does nothing. The media especially those in the West seem to regularly point out when one side is “guilty” of firing into a crowd of civilians shielding military targets but conveniently forget that those parties shielding themselves with civilians is just as guilty of war crimes as those firing the actual bullets. Regardless of how the media interprets the situation, using human shields in combat is a tactic that has been used by militaries for hundreds of years and it does not seem to be something that will ever be fully understood or resolved for that matter.

Works Cited
Lappin, Yaakov. "Dealing with Hamas's Human Shield Tactics." JPost. Jpost.com, 20 Nov. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013.
Mansour, Salah. "The Israeli Human Shield." PalestineRemembered.com. Salah Mansour, 13 Jan. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2013.