Tired of "human shield" bullshit.

It irks me that in this latest conflagration between Israel and Palestine, one of the most important talking points from the pro-​​Israeli side is the notion of “human shields”. Specifically, Israel blames Hamas for encouraging Gazans to stay in the line of fire, in a bid to rack up the body count, thus earning more sympathy for their cause.

Very many reports from the ground have reported that this is not true, but I suppose the name of the game in international politics is conviction over evidence. Let’s assume though for a brief moment that this *is* true, the proposition that Hamas is intentionally engineering the “human shield” situation, for whatever reason. Okay, under what circumstances would this official statement serve in any sense as a justification? A lot of disgusting things happen in conflict zones; this is at best a stain on Hamas’ conduct, not a demonstration of Israeli moral right. Why especially bring this up time and time again, specifically to answer the world’s outrage at the continued bombing?

The term “human shield” is inconvenient for me, isn’t it for you? Does it imply Gazan complicity with Hamas or unwitting victimhood? Let’s examine both cases.

100% of Gazans support Hamas

In this context, Gazans are politically active and disapproving of their conditions imposed by the Israeli regime. At worst, they’re possibly open to violent means (and ends). Except they’re unarmed… but still.

Is a Gazan then a “human shield” or a protester? “Human shield” or freedom fighter? By Israel’s logic, even Tiananmen Square’s unsung hero might qualify as a “human shield”, which is not very encouraging.

Also, we have a large population unanimously protesting for basic rights, some resorting to violence to drive home the message. However inconvenient the issue may be, the size of the population should lend their case (and cause) some legitimacy, right? What is the semantic difference between a civil rights movement and an unwieldily illogically large terrorist campaign?

So, “human shield” as a term assigns alleged political motive to Gazan casualties even if there was none, shifting blame almost entirely to Gazans and Hamas. It incriminates all casualties as militants, which they are not.

Does it justify the use of indiscriminate force? NO.

Most Gazans are civilians caught in the crossfire

In this case, Gazans are not supportive of Hamas, harmless moderates caught in an unbearable reality, regardless of their true feelings towards Israel, (though I suspect at this point, there are not many Israel-​​friendly Gazans left). Hamas insidiously tricks Gazans and Israelis both, weaving in and out of civilian areas. Gazans are Hamas’ “human shields”, literally.

Oh that’s funny in a way, because in common parlance, innocent people used against their will for political ends are called hostages. At least in most cases, when a hostage situation breaks out, most civilised countries try to minimise civilian casualties. We even have a popular genre reserved for heroic hostage rescues. If a terrorist cell takes an entire mall hostage, using “human shields” to cover their nefarious actions, the morally blameless solution is NOT the one that supports shelling the mall to the ground.

How exactly is a “human shield” different from a hostage? Am I right to equate the two? If I were to equate the two, the same official line goes from a tone of justification to one of inhuman contempt.

By placing all of their weaponry next to homes, by operating out of homes, mosques and hospitals, by firing rockets next to schools and by using human shields, Hamas is the one responsible for the civilian deaths during the operation.

The Jerusalem Post -(do remember to account for some bias coming from Israeli commentary, from which this paragraph was lifted).

Yes, no one’s arguing Hamas is innocent. But let’s rewrite that, replacing non-​​complicit civilian “human shield” with the more commonly-​​used term “hostage”.

By placing all of their weaponry next to homes, by operating out of homes, mosques and hospitals, by firing rockets next to schools and by using hostages, Hamas is the one responsible for the civilian deaths during the operation.

This small change in no way absolves Hamas of its crimes. But at least it doesn’t also conveniently write off innocent Gazans’ lives. Imagine now, dear reader, that you read this line using words and wordings you are more familiar with, would you still support Israel’s offensive that is indiscriminately hurting civilian hostages? Because the logic of the latter less-​​obfuscated version is sublime; that sublime logic is best captured thus.

Hamas is responsible for the broken windows! Israel threw rocks at Hamas but Hamas ducked!

(This does not attempt to excuse either party from their role in propagating the conflict, but it does highlight the ridiculous nature of Israel’s justification.)

Calling them “human shields” devalues their forfeit lives. How is a civilian casualty different from a “human shield”? So in this latter case, “human shield” removes agency and motive from the civilian casualties – their tragic co-​​location with terrorists seals both their fates. As “human shields” and not “innocent hostages”, Gazan victims are dehumanised, their deaths are not tragedies but necessities?! There’s a human in “human shield”, last I checked.

Need I even proceed to the rhetorical question: does this justify the indiscriminate use of force? NO.

So what does the term “human shield” really add to your narrative, Israel?

What Israel is saying is either:

• we have a large population, an entire country in fact, that doesn’t like what we’re doing to them and since disagreeing with us is anti-​​Semitic, they are all going to have to be put down, OR
• we have a terrorist group that is using innocent civilians to camouflage themselves but we hate the terrorist group so much that killing these innocents is acceptable collateral damage.

Either way Israel, what you’re admitting to is the mass-​​murder of a disproportionate number of people. Before you come up with a politically-​​correct word for that, the rest of the world would otherwise call it what it is, a wilful genocide.

No amount of commentary and rhetoric will change the fact that violent conflict is a stain on human conduct, an abject failure to get along. So do what you want Israel and Hamas, retribution will come in time at great cost. But in the meantime Israel, don’t bandy about words like “human shield” as justification. Even if it were true, it does not in any way give you the moral high ground. And saying this is not anti-​​Semitic, just plain anti-​​BULLSHIT.