The Morality Of Using Human Shields

Great Debates
1

This thread is inspired by this story in Salon. In it, the author quotes a Palestinian man, Mahmoud Huwaiti, who lost his wife and two of his children in Israel’s attack on the building housing Salah Shehada, the commander of Hamas’ military wing.

He says:

Another Palestinian man, Raed Matar, who lost three children and a niece, attributes some blame for their deaths to Shehada:

My question is about what portion of responsibility someone bears when using a human shield who is subsequently killed in an attack on the offender. Israel received a lot of criticism and blame for attacking Shehada, knowing that civilians would be killed. On the other hand, when we were told that Saddam Hussein was using human shields around critical military installations to prevent attacks on them by Coalition forces during the Gulf War, many reacted to it as a despicable tactic of war.

Consider the following scenarios:[list=1]
[li] A bank robber takes a hostage. He leaves the bank with the hostage in front, and starts counting down to zero from five, after saying that he would kill the hostage if the police didn’t back away to clear an escape path. The police know this criminal, and that he has killed in the past in similar situations. When the bank robber gets to two, a police sniper takes a shot. Unfortunately, he hits the hostage instead, killing her.[/li][li] The killing of Salah Shehada: Israel launches a missile from an F-16 at a three story apartment building in a residential neighbourhood, killing the top military commander of Hamas, who was responsible for many suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. Shehada is killed, along with 14 civilians. Presumably, this was the best opportunity Israel had to kill him. The means are disputable: more precisely targetted ammunition, like helicopter launched missiles, could have destroyed Shehada’s apartment without levelling the building; on the other hand, it would be less certain then that Shehada would be killed.[/li][li] In war against a foreign power, the government of that foreign power stations children at military installations and publicizes the fact to prevent bombing against those vital military facilities. Our government bombs those facilities anyway, directly contributing to victory, but also killing the children.[/li][/list=1]In the first and the third scenarios, I find it easy to assess the majority of the responsibility for civilian deaths to the power putting the human shields in place. In the second, it’s not so easy: Shehada didn’t gather human shields, he moved in with them. It’s also plausible that Shehada thought he was safe because Israel, while it has tolerated a certain number of civilian casualties, has not perpetrated outright civilian massacres during the Intifada; ergo, they would not attack him while he lived there, so he was not really putting them in danger.

On the other hand, he knew an attack against him of some kind was likely, if Israel ever discovered his location, so he must have been aware that his mere presence endangered civilians.

What think you?

2

I think the phrase “human shields” is often used instead of “civilians living their lives” because it sounds more sinister and places the blame on the attackee, instead of the attacker. People, even terrorists, live and work in populated areas, and hence are usually surrounded by civilians. One could just as easily argue that if the terrorists lined up and shot themselves in the head, those civilians wouldn’t have been bombed.

The U.S. and Israel chose to kill (or at least risk killing) civilians in order to accomplish their goals in the West Bank and Iraq, respectively. To me, it’s silly to blame the targets for being near civilians, until they reach the level of your #3. (However, to me, that’s something of a strawman – I’ve never heard a legitimate outcry over civilians who were locked in a SAM site (or other military target) and killed by U.S. bombs.)

3

If Shehadah moved into that neighbourhood just because he would be around civilians, which might dissuade the Israelis from attacking (either for moral or PR reasons), then I think they do indeed qualify as human shields.

4

Where should he have gone instead? A neon-orange shack in the middle of the desert? Trying to keep a low profile is different than holding a five-year old in front of you.

5

That’s fair: if he was living in an apartment among civilians, it could have been an attempt to hide by blending in.

6

Of course…

You need to weigh the possibility of future lives that might have been saved by taking out this guy.

Where is the outcry for the victims of the suicide bombings this guy helped plan?

This guy is just as responsible for the deaths of the children in the apartment building as he is for the deaths of the people who died because of suicide bombings he helped plan.

7

Yes, he was a guilty @#%, but how hard would it be to have a helicopter drop 20 commandos instead of blowing up babies? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.

8

If you are genuinely using a human shield, I’d say you bear equal responsibility for the consequences to said shield as the person who actually did whatever bad stuff he did; it’s an utterly reprehensible tactic. If you are merely hiding somewhere, a la Giraffe’s suggestion, this is no longer true.

It seems like a fairly straightforward issue of intent to me. If you intentionally endanger another human being in an attempt to save your own miserable hide, that’s by no means moral. If you incidentally endanger another human being in an attempt to save your own miserable hide, not so immoral (although to be fair, while pragmatically I too would hide in with the civilians, I would admittedly and knowingly be endangering them by doing so and hiding in an orange shack in the middle of a desert seems like the more moral choice to me even though it’s not such a bright one as far as self-preservation goes).

9

Well, if those civillians knew he was hunted and stayed or helped by staying, then they are agreeing with what he does. IMO They can leave till he does or gets caught. They knew that Isreal would try something. Would you have stayed there? If so, you know the risk.

Just an inflamatory statement with no understanding of what dropping people into that place would be like or the danger of doing so. “Blowing up babies”, is just hestrical retoric. ::: sheesh ::::

See sig…

10

Well, if those civillians knew he was hunted and stayed or helped by staying, then they are agreeing with what he does. IMO They can leave till he does or gets caught. They knew that Isreal would try something. Would you have stayed there? If so, you know the risk.

Just an inflamatory statement with no understanding of what dropping people into that place would be like or the danger of doing so. “Blowing up babies”, is just hestrical retoric. ::: sheesh ::::

See sig…

:smack:

11

It’s debatable whether those people were human shields - was this guy holding them at gunpoint? No! Did they all know who he was? Probably! In that case, they were either being extremely arrogant in thinking that no attempt would be made on this guy;s life, or more likely, they were prepared to become ‘martyrs’ to the cause.

In either case, they lost out big-time! That said though, it does seem to be a case of ‘Sledgehammers to crack nuts’…

12

Sledgehammers be damned… they dropped a 500 lb. bomb on it. And good for them, IMHO.

The man, knowing that he was a target for military action, lived in an apartment, surrounded by non-combatants, including his own wife and children. He KNEW at some point that the IDF would come for him.

Yes, the IDF probably should have waited for a better shot, but most of the press says that this was the best chance they had had in a loooong time.

13

This is pretty contorted logic. People rarely have the luxury of moving from place to place at the drop of a hat. Also, it assumes that the IDF has to attack Shehada irregardless of civilians being present. “Of course Israel will launch a missle at an apartment building containing a terrorist and a bunch of civilians – if you stay there, it’s your fault if you get blown up.”

I am not saying the IDF necessarily did the wrong thing in this case (I think it’s a complicated situation). However, they killed civilians to accomplish their goal, and that is their responsibility, no one else’s. They alone had control over whether or not a missle hit that building, and at what time. Blaming the victims for being in the building at the time they chose to fire is beyond idiotic, in my opinion.

14

Actually, that one works well for me! :smiley:

Personally, had I lived in that building, I’d have poisoned his coffee or something.

15

In the past, Israel has been fairly good about taking out targets with a minimum of killing civilians and children. But to me, it seems this most recent effort was a case of the hardliners saying it’s okay, and maybe even a good thing, to endanger the people nearby, in order to reduce the popularity of the targets. Thus, the overall message was “We will kill you. We will kill your wife. We will kill your children. We willl kill your neighbors. So beware.”

In theory, Palestinians response will be to see the error of their ways, and avoid associating with anyone with similar views. But, of course, the most likely response is actually “We will kill you. We will kill your wife. We will kill your children. We will kill your neighbors. So you beware.” AKA “cycle of violence”.

16

I bow to the veteren of Isreali commando combat here. :rolleyes: I’d argue against you more, but I’m launching a nuke strike against N/W Arkansas, i hear there was a murder there once. Anyone who still lives there knows the risk, so screw 'em!
Even though Isreal didn’t specificlly target the civilians in the area, they had to know some would get killed. IMO it makes them just as bad as the Palestinian bombers.

17

You mean as opposed to what they’ve been doing until now? Strange “cycle”

18

Indeed. The Palistinians are already killing indescriminantly. This act serves as a reminder to the pals that the the Isreali’s aren’t for the most part, but that they could.

I don’t believe the Isreali’s denial of intent to kill civilians. I think this prepresents exactly the message whitetho suggests: “Associating with known terrorist leaders just became fatal”. And to the leaders “Stay away from your family unless you want them to be dead too”.

I have to say I believe that this message will be at least party effective, but I wonder if the timing isn’t at least party designed to derail peace talks

19

Shehada was killed a day after Sheik Yassin, Hamas’ spiritual leader, outlined a possible deal where Israel withdraws from Gaza and Hamas stops the suicide attacks (ceases fire).

20

Killers are responsible for the lives they take no matter what the circumstances. Circumstance affect the degree of culpability. Criminal law generally uses the categories of “purposely,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” and “negligently” to describe a person’s state of mind and this culpability. In example (1), the cop acted either negligently or recklessly. In example (2), the Israelis acted either purposely or knowlingly. In example (3), the government acted knowingly.

IMO, there is no question that the Israeli government’s killing of civilians is clearly morally indefensible. Nor do I believe it’s morally defensible to kill someone just because he is accused of a crime.