The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    About Human Shields

    By A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 08/11/2014 - 3:09pm |

    I lost a longer version of this and that is probably for the best. Here is the shorter version in which I don't try to cover every possible nuance but just hit the high points to make my point.

    The phrase “human shield" has, IMO, become Orwellian in its use in relation to the ongoing conflict between Israel and either Hamas or the Palestinian people as a whole. One aspect of actually using humans as shields is emphasized while another equally important aspect is ignored. The complete, true, and honest implications of the phrase itself, regardless of whether Hamas actually does use humans as shields, is intentionally obscured. A narrow and less than complete understanding of the implications of the charge is intended to be mentally embedded while the full implications are distorted or, hopefully, un-noticed.

    Hamas is steadily being accused of using human as shields. This is a way to demonize them and at the same time to excuse to the extent possible the killing of so many civilians. So many that it appears to many that the killing of Palestinian civilians is largely indiscriminate even though it is terrorists that are being targeted. [If civilians are being deliberately targeted then a very much more important question is begged] It is a defense against this charge to say that Hamas is using humans as shields and so the death of those civilians is Hamas’ fault. My complaint does not depend on whether Hamas is, in fact, using human shields. My complaint is about how I see the charge of Hamas using human shields is  being manipulated in an Orwellian way to put all blame on one side and thus obscure a better understanding of what is actually happening in the ongoing tragedy. My complaint is that the charge is used in a deliberately manipulative way that is by definition propaganda.

    It is this simple. The only way an innocent human can be used as a shield is if the entity needing shielding against  anyone, in this case I will suppose it is a terrorist needing a shield against a soldier, is if the soldier or his commander who has the the upper hand and is in position to make the choice of killing or not, can see and understands that killing of the terrorist requires killing of the innocent person being used as a shield. The shield’s strength is only psychological, it only complicates choices, it only creates a moral dilemma, it doesn’t stop bullets. The dead civilian is not an example of the dehumanizing term; collateral damage. Their fate was decided as worthwhile. Thus my conclusion which the common use of the charge ignores: If the claim is accurate that a human was used as a shield and then if the human shield is killed, it is the result of a conscious choice. Someone made the choice to kill the shield so that they could also kill the shielded terrorist. That is not the way that the persons leveling the demonizing charge wants it to be seen. That formulation  widens the parameters of responsibility for the death of the shield at least somewhat.

    It is my belief that this understanding should be considered when the charge of using human shields is made.

    This is not an attempt to establish that it is IDF's intention to deliberately kill civilians but rather to somewhat define some of the terms used to excuse or justify those deaths. Every State killing machine does it.

    Comments

    Whenever Americans or Israelis bombard civilians, we hear the old saw that the enemy is "hiding behind civilians". The people who drop the bombs and fire the shells are responsible for the deaths, even when the bombing isn't indiscriminate(and it looks like the attacks in Gaza are indiscriminate).


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 08/11/2014 - 9:34pm

    I think you make a very sound point, but I also think that all decent human beings still can agree that Hamas should find a place other than Gaza's Shifa Hospital as headquarters.  I don't write this to diminish Lulu's principal point and your follow-up that we tend to use terms like human shields and terrorists rather loosely at times.  


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 9:01am

    Thanks for the effort . And describing it as an "effort" is not a back handed way to disparage it.

    Of course the  Israelis use the charge of "human shields". And Hamas uses whatever charges it employs. The two sides are at War and if "Truth" isn't the first casualty , it's got it worried.

    It's so depressing. Every day human lives are being ended. Any one of whom-Israeli or Arab- might have been the person who found a cure for Ebola. Or just made another person happy tomorrow.

    Oh well. Keep on keeping on.

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 8:10am

    Thanks.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 6:30pm

    I think the concept behind the term "human shields" is that when fighting a war, the military has an obligation to their own citizens to not launch attacks from within civilian centers. If our military did this to us, we would rightfully be outraged. Military centers are separated from civilian populations. From a tactical point-of-view, the downside to doing so is arguably threefold:

    1. the military targets are easier to spot using aerial surveillance (reasonable to think about);
    2. building separate military centers adds overhead expense; and
    3. the military targets are easier to destroy without harming civilians (if a military thinks this is a downside, then its priorities are way out-of-whack).

    I think there is something to the idea that when you're operating on a (comparatively) shoe-string budget (is Hamas operating on such a budget? I don't know), building military centers that are separate from civilian centers might be viewed as an unavailable luxury.

    So, a question is, who has a greater obligation to your civilians? Your own military or the people you're at war with?

    That said, I still prefer Doc's take on the "two sides" that we should be discussing here. On one hand we have Israeli and Palestinian hawks. On the other, we have Israelis and Palestinians that long for peace. I wish we had some brilliant ideas on how to help the latter.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 9:24am

    Has anyone noticed there has not been one story or report on a dead or wounded Hamas terrorist missile shooter or a personal press story of 'why I dig tunnels to kill Israeli's'?

    If Hamas prevents photo's or reports of hostile activities, or accounts of it's wounded or dead fighters, yet facilitates press reports on wounded or dead non-combatants, doesn't that show the dead have propaganda value to Hamas?

    And if Gaza civilians have great propaganda value to Hamas dead, do you think they want less of them dead or more dead?

    Ergo, pile on the propaganda, pile up the bodies.... fire missiles, dig tunnels, hide rockets among the non-combatants, mosques, schools and hospitals...


    by NCD on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 11:19am

    And if Gaza civilians have great propaganda value to Hamas dead, do you think they want less of them dead or more dead?

    One does not necessarily follow from the other. When the Lusitania was sunk, it had propaganda value, but that doesn't mean we wanted it sunk. To assume that Hamas wants Gazan civilians dead is an assumption, an axiom almost.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 11:45am

    I was thinking of exactly the same reply except with a more recent example. I think yours, with a longer historical separation in time, is better in that it doesn't confuse the issue by using more recent events that still evoke emotional reactions, some of which have not even been clarified as to exactly what happened .


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 6:39pm

    Whatever the propaganda value/body count of dead or wounded, as long as the people of Gaza support Hamas, they frankly are asking for more dead and wounded, because every time Hamas attacks on Israel that is a result.

    It's sort of like a little Lusitania every day Hamas attacks Israel. Hamas knows all will go down on the little ship, but they keep sending them, and Gazans keep drowning.
     


    by NCD on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 8:33pm

    Hamas has been very clear that it views life in Gaza as being in prison and that it views Israel as being in possession of stolen land. Herein lies the biggest roadblock. Hamas sees history as supporting Muslims forced to flee because of attacks by Zionists. Israelis see Israel as their birthright. Hamas feels imprisoned by Jews. Israelis feels attacked by Muslims. Both sides see the other as terrorists.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/03/world/meast/hamas-meshaal-interview/


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 12:00pm

    I agree with with the things you say but for them to have any meaning, any affect on decisions or attitudes, each of those things need judgments as to their truth. They are not all true and where they are true they are not equivalent in affect on he different people involved or the responsibility of the different parties. Picking one as an example, is Israel really the birthright of the Jews? Did God actually promise that land to the Jews? If I believed that I would have an easy answer, I would say sorry Palestinians, you are just SOL, God aint on your side. You are among the un-chosen. Of course with my actual beliefs I just have to say, sorry Palestinians, you are just SOL, at least for the foreseeable future, because no one is on your side, certainly not some just God that you imagine might exert his will in your favor.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 7:20pm

    If Palestinians have no one coming to address their issues, what do they have to lose? The West Bank has been well behaved, but remains enclosed. Hamas is not considered worthy of being at the negotiating table.Abbas has no real power.

    Being good is of no value and no one is coming to help, what method do you think will work for Palestinians?

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/12/2014 - 9:26pm

    Maybe one of you geniuses here can explain the difference is between Hamas and ISIS?

    One is killing thousands of Muslims in Syria and Iraq, and the other wants to kill Jews.

    ISIS and Hamas (900 PA when they took over Gaza) both kill co-religionist Muslims. Both are Muslim terrorist groups.

    They all pray 5 times a day, ISIS, Hamas and the Muslims they kill.  Murderers and victims of ISIS all prostrate to Mecca.  They all fast on the same days and they all pray to Allah. Yet they slaughter each other by the thousands.

    You think any of these groups want to live in peace with the Jews of Israel? Are you kidding?

    You expect Israel to give them open borders? No way Israel can or will allow it. Israel has a right, and an imperative to respond to protect their citizens. Moderate secular Muslim leaders are as rare as hens teeth, if such a leader ever runs Gaza or the West Bank perhaps then there could be real peace.


    by NCD on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 2:02am

    Shimon Peres had come to an agreement with Abbas three years ago. The agreement addressed Israel's concerns. Netanyahu nixed the deal.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/israeli-president-says-netanya...

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 7:51am

    There are any number of snap shots one can take to buttress his or her assessment of whether the Israelis or Palestinians are more to blame for the failure to live together in peace.  But I'm not sure that Shimon Peres, whom you correctly IMO cast as a man of peace, would find common cause with your construction of the Hamas mindset and disposition. To the contrary, consider this report on what Peres said just yesterday in an interview with the BBC:

    Former president Shimon Peres on Wednesday challenged the international community to forcefully express its opposition to Hamas’s presence in the Gaza Strip and to strip the Islamist group of its armaments.

    “The world needs to decide whether it’s ready for a terrorist state in Gaza or not,” Peres said in an interview with BBC World.

    “Reconciling with terrorism in Gaza will be a tragedy for the Middle East and the entire world. Israel wants peace and believes in negotiations while Hamas –both philosophically and practically – proves that it is opposed to peace, opposed to talks, and in favor of terrorism.”

    The former president said Israel had made compromises in Gaza – a reference to the 2005 withdrawal of its military and settlers from the Strip – but that it received terrorism in return.

    “Gaza could have developed and thrived,” Peres said. “We don’t understand why Hamas chose the path of terrorism and rockets on innocent Israeli citizens over the path of peace and prosperity for the Palestinian people.”

    Peres called for the international community to ratify a document that would mandate the demilitarization of Gaza while also reinstalling Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas as its sole, legitimate ruler.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 8:35am

    Hamas does not want Israel to exist and Netanyahu dismisses them as a negotiation partner. Netanyahu has also rejected Abbas. Because neither Hamas or Abbas is acceptable, Palestinians have gained nothing from not using force. Hamas becomes the manly alternative to Abbas. Israel has to show that there is a benefit to the route taken by Abbas. If Abbás looks weak, Hamas benefits.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 9:31am

    Yes to most of that with the caveat that I think you overstate the personalities.  I don't want to get off topic, but Israeli politics are far more complicated than concluding that Bibi rejected Abbas.  Yes and no and maybe.  It's not a cliche' to suggest that you should be careful about snapshot assessments of where Bibi is now versus where he will be six months from now.  Believe it or not, he could be on the way out as prime minister, or he could be a hero and a man of peace.  But this topic deserves more attention and I don't want to interfere with what has been a good faith dialog in response to lulu's blog (which I don't have to agree with to appreciate). 


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 9:41am

    Your linked article notes that officials in Israel determine who gets paid in Gaza. They will decide whether or not Gaza gets a seaport? How is any of this not playing into Hamas' hands?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 10:43am

    It may or may not play into Hamas's hands, although the transfer of funds is more of a reflection of the dispute between the PA and it's cronies and Hamas and it's cronies.  Off topic, but Israel has been acting as conduit for transfer of funds.   Gaza won't get a seaport even if Israel was silent, until the international community can be satisfied that it won't be a conduit for additional arms shipments.

    I know it is relevant to ponder what does and does not play into Hamas's hands.  That's one of many considerations Israel undoubtedly takes into account.  But that alone is not a complete response to Israel's existential battle with Hamas and its supporters.

    I've written this to you at least once and don't mean to be repetitive, but let me reiterate that I think you assume that Hamas will retain support among Palestinians going forward.  I'm not certain.

    And, finally, in assessing the negotiating teams in Cairo, don't forget that Hamas asked to and was made part of the PA governing coalition.  The fight had been with Israel and it's refusal to recognize that coalition.  There is a disconnect caused by those who criticized Israel's consistent rejection of that coalition on the one hand and then criticize the role of the PA in seeking to negotiate the peace in Cairo at the moment.  Is the coalition real or isn't it?


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 11:17am

    The Wahington Post is reportig today about emerging signs of eroding support or Hamas already.  Even in Gaza you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.  We'll see.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 11:31am

    A lot may depend on whether the situation in the West Bank improves. More freedom in the a West Bank would put more focus and pressure on Hamas.

    The article notes underlying hatred of a Israel independent of Hamas, Gazans seen to dismiss the media claim that they are being used as human shields.

     

    Edited to clarify the last sentence


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 1:20pm

    It may possibly be that no Arab leader short of a Sisi or a Saddam can suppress and control the likes of Hamas or ISIS. Maybe Israel was more aware than anyone of the penchant for violence of far too many Muslims. Give them a reason or a cause and no amount of blood will turn them back. They have even come from abroad to take part in it. Abbas? An Arab weakling.  His response to this blood letting is to call for war crimes trials of Israel. He wants to fan the flames of anti-Israel Jihad. Hamas would depose him with one bullet.

    Perhaps this is why Israel never, ever, wanted to risk letting go of control of the West Bank.

    US, Australian and European Muslims are flocking by the hundreds or thousands to ISIS in Syria and Iraq to kill their fellow co-religionists.

    It should be abundantly clear to even the most naive non-Israeli that Israel is dealing with a set of very dangerous people.

    Did you read about the Australian Muslim who let his primary school kid hold up the decapitated head of a dead Muslim? What kind of people do that? And he is not a Gazan with a million excuses for his actions. And the Yadizis say their own Iraqi Arab neighbors in their home towns helped ISIS murder them.

    ISIS and Hamas are two one and the same. As I stated above these terrorists have no qualms about killing their fellow Muslims, and the Times of Israel reports that Hamas hires tunnel diggers, and, Hamas kills the tunnel diggers afterwards so they can't leak to Israel info on the tunnel.

    I back Israel 110% and believe the casualty figures of their troops show they are not using all the firepower they could use, causing more loss of life on their side.


    by NCD on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 11:01am

    I have been a critic of Hillary Clinton for a long time. I was for Obama instead first time around almost completely because I thought he would be better on foreign policy. When I, along with some others, became quite critical of Obama for various reasons and along with our critiques expressed disillusionment and disappointment, there were some others who then said [snickered?]  that we should have known what we were getting, it was available information. I don’t think it was all that obvious but then I suppose that could be credited to a combination of Obama being a good salesman and I being naive and less informed than I could have been when I projected so much hope onto him.
     Obama will not be running for President again but Hillary still is. Important information is available that anyone interested in foreign policy and the importance of who is the CiC should pay attention to. If she becomes President and it then looks like we elected John McCain in drag it won’t be a legitimate excuse to say we never saw either of them dressing themselves.
     I am linking to this article partly because several of the quotes are directly on the topic of this blog but also to emphasize what we can expect if we get Hillary. I am aware that it is what many people, some obviously, some only apparently, want.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/11/quiz-said-hillary-clinton-...


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 1:02pm

    FWIW, here is a piece by defense expert Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute, presenting six concrete steps that he asserts Hamas could take to substantially reduce civilian casualties.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 2:02pm

    Here is my reaction to the article. The author’s advice consists mainly of suggesting that Hammas put on bright colors and walk out into a field with their rifles and face off like men against IDF soldiers, tanks, artillery, and F-16s. I agree with him that that probably won’t happen.   

    I have already said what, IMO, it means when a human shields gets killed. Somebody made the choice to kill the shield[s]. If the Palestinian was shielded by Israeli children I am guessing a different choice would be made. Serious investigations have some serious people saying that Hammas is not using human shields. The IDF, on the other hand, has been caught numerous times using Palestinian human shields.

    Ironically, it is Israel that has a well-documented history of using Palestinian civilians, including children, as human shields. In what is referred to as "the neighbor procedure," Israeli soldiers force Palestinian civilians to approach armed suspects and homes potentially rigged with explosives to protect the lives of soldiers.

    Israel was condemned by the United Nations as recently as last year for its "continuous use of Palestinian children as human shields and informants."

    More recently, Palestinian civilians have accused Israeli forces of using them as human shields in the Khuzaa neighborhood in Gaza, which has been the site of heavy shelling.

     

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25362-israel-uses-palestinians-as-hum...


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 8:15pm

    'Serious people say'? Your continual devotion to excusing or extolling the actions and motives of blood thirsty Muslim terrorists is remarkable for it's unwavering, bland consistency.


    by NCD on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 9:36pm

    "Serious people" include the Israeli court system citing the IDF for using human shields. The UN has also issued complaints.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/13/2014 - 11:37pm

    I have complete respect for the Israeli justice system. Whatever crimes were committed by individuals in the IDF will be fairly dealt with, and will surely pale in comparison to Muslim terrorism which many here appear to either condone or ignore.

    The UN is another matter. Their operations in Gaza, ruled by a terrorist tyranny with no justice except that of the gun, are like a welfare/daycare center, and R&R retreat for terrorists.

    The UN should spend some time and investigate their own crimes.

    In my opinion, particularly with their recent record, for instance introducing cholera in Haiti and then denying it, and with complaints about 'Gazans human rights' and Israel, the UN has very little credibility. How about the rights of Israel not to be bombarded with rockets made, stored, hidden or fired from UN property?

    Why doesn't the UN investigate the long lists of those Hamas dispatches on an almost daily basis, with no justice or public trials?


    by NCD on Thu, 08/14/2014 - 1:27am

    During the Clinton years, Netanyahu said that US public opinion was easy shifted. Now the WSJ reports that Israel accessed weapons without full approval of the White House. Apparently Mr. Netanyahu views the United States as his lapdog.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sway-over-israel-on-gaza-at-a-low-140...


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/14/2014 - 1:27pm