Political Crossfire Forums

In recent military conflicts, US and Israel have condemned their enemies for using human shields. I guess it refers to a situation where the militants operate within a civilian population so that when their enemies strike, it also kills civilians. But when a strike kills civilians does it mean the other side is using human shields?

But in historical context who used human shields and who didn't? Was the US using human shields during the revolutionary war? Did the communists use human shields? What about the current Syrian rebels who fight from hotels and homes?

And in the case of the Palestinians, in what situation can they operate without using human shields? Can they establish a military base outside of Gaza so that they are separated from the civilians?

It's lose/lose.

You could argue there IS no unpopulated area from which Hamas could operate but on the other hand, they certainly do play dirty tricks like shooting from hospitals or use ambulances to transport arms. And then scream when civilians get killed because they need to prove they're the "victims."

And that's what this all boils down to: both sides in this have spent decades chaining themselves to the idea that they're the victims in all this with no liability.

Of course it doesn't help that you have the U.S. backing Israel no matter what and the entire Arab or Muslim world defending the Palestinians no matter what.

Zero sum game. Stalemate. Cul-de-sac. Hopeless.

In my view, human shield implies that one side is intentionally putting civilians in their enemy's line of fire. Just because civilian casualty occurs does not necessarily mean human shields were used.

It's forcing civilians to remain in a location in the hopes that location will not be attacked. Coercion is the key element.

>BOTH SIDES< needs to get their act together. Their 1500 year old bickering is getting a bit old. The Xanax bomb needs to be invented, then used.