How to counter the "Hamas hides behind civilian shields" argument?
How to counter the "Hamas hides behind civilian shields" argument?
I keep seeing this online and in person. I don't know how to respond
You're viewing a single thread.
It's worth looking at past times when Israel has used this argument. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/special-sessions/session9/fact-finding-mission
The Mission’s attention has been drawn to a well-known incident in which women and children followed calls to gather on the roof of the house of a Palestinian man who had been informed by the Israeli authorities that his house would be targeted. This incident has been documented in video footage in the public domain and is referred to in submissions received by the Mission as evidence of the use of human shields. The Mission notes, however, that the incident occurred in 2007. No such incidents are alleged by the Israeli Government with regard to the military operations that began on 27 December 2008. The Mission received no reports of such incidents from other sources. On the contrary, in one case investigated by the Mission, a Hamas official received a phone call from the Israeli armed forces to the effect that his house would soon be targeted. He evacuated the house with his family and alerted the neighbours to the imminent threat so that they, too, were able to leave their homes before the missile did indeed strike
Finally, on this issue, it is relevant to mention that the Israeli Government has produced no visual or other evidence to support its allegation that Palestinian combatants “mingle routinely with civilians in order to cover their movements”.
- The Mission is unable to make any determination on the general allegation that Palestinian armed groups used mosques for military purposes. It notes that, in the one incident it investigated of an Israeli attack on a mosque, it found no indication that the mosque was so used.
- On the basis of the investigations it has conducted, the Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities and that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes.
- On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission found no indication that the civilian population was forced by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups to remain in areas under attack from the Israeli armed forces
And so on. Page 218 onwards, on the other hand, describes the IDF using Palestinians as human shields.
So what about since Oct. 7th? Here's Amnesty International's findings on the investigation of three strikes with heavy civilian casualties:
In all three cases, Amnesty International did not find any evidence that there had been any military targets in or around the locations targeted by the Israeli military, raising serious concerns that these attacks amount to direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, which are war crimes. Israel has not provided any information about the attacks in Rafah, and has only provided general allegations, which it later contradicted, regarding the attack on al-Maghazi.
Meanwhile, there are numerous examples of Israelis using Palestinians as human shields. Marching Palestinians in front of them as they move into territory. Sending a Palestinian into a hospital to warn them to evacuate, and then shooting that same man dead when he left. We know that IDF operatives dressed as doctors and nurses and entered a civilian hospital to shoot patients in their bed. IN THE WEST BANK.
Are there Hamas installations in close proximity to civilian buildings? Gaza is one of most densely populated areas on earth, so it would be impossible for that not to be the case. But it also wouldn't be unusual, and there are IDF facilities near civilian buildings as well. My city has an army barracks in a fucking residential area, I suppose that justifies my liquidation in the event of a war then.
Because all this doesn't even touch on the fact that this argument is trotted out to justify the unjustifiable: "They were hiding amongst children, so we had to kill all the children"
An argument that is morally vacuous at best. Apply it to any other situation: "There was a shooting in a school so we bombed the school."