COMPARING ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN USE OF HUMAN SHIELDS

Human shields vs shielding humans By Rachel Raskin-Zrihen (Political Mavens)
When I read Friday that Israel’s army had suspended a commander whose troops used a Palestinian civilian as a human shield, I had to think for a minute to figure out why this was not as egregious a violation of the Geneva Conventions as the use of human shields by the other side.

I mean, I knew there was some reason why the way the Arabs use the practice is different and worse, but it took me a little while to put my finger on it, mostly because the Associated Press article focused only on Israel’s alleged use of the practice, particularly this recent incident caught on tape.

It noted the Palestinians have long complained of Israel’s army using human shields, and the international courts having ruled it unacceptable. It doesn’t mention Israel’s having long complained about the Arab’s use of their own civilians as shields.

However, there’s a difference between using human shields to provide cover for one’s own actions and to prevent return fire and using it to prevent violence entirely.

In seems to me that when the Arabs, like Hezbollah, employ human shields, it’s to hide behind their own civilians as they fire at Israel and prevent Israel’s returning fire for fear of hurting them.

The Israelis, on the other hand, are accused of putting Arab civilians in front of their tanks in the hope of discouraging the shield’s Arab brethren from shooting at them, thereby perhaps preventing anyone having to shoot anyone.

Placing Israeli civilians in front of their tanks would clearly not produce less violence, since the Palestinian extremists seem to have little or no compunction about killing innocent Jews. In fact, I believe the Islamist rule of thumb is that there is no such thing as an innocent Jew.

But Israeli hope evidently springs eternal that the terrorists might be less inclined to kill their own people, though I don’t know why they’d think this of the folks who brought you the suicide/mass murder bomber.

The story said these soldiers had forced some Palestinian youths to stand in front of their vehicle to protect it from stones locals were throwing.

Not letting them do so doing seems to leave the soldiers two options — direct some form of violence against the stone throwers or let themselves be injured.

Of course, as usual, the world would prefer to vilify any Israeli attempt at self defense, no matter what it is. In fact, the more effective the method is, the more vehemently the world objects to it. The non-violent separation barrier, for instance, and the destruction of terrorist’s homes (as opposed to their families).

I myself have been called a racist for publicly suggesting hanging pouches of rendered pig fat in every building and bus in Israel and lining the borders with pig farms as a non-violent way of discouraging suicide bombers. The rationale here is that most of these mass murders are operating under the strange delusion that killing oneself in the murder of Jews is an express ticket to heaven. But Islam forbids contact with pig, such contact precluding entrance to heaven. So the promise of being sprayed with pig fat in the commission of the deed should give at least temporary pause to the potential “martyr.”

The very suggestion caused apoplexy in many a terrorist apologist. I know. I got the hate mail.

The story notes that “the incident in Nablus on Wednesday, captured on video, is the latest sign that the army continues to use human shields in violation of international law and a landmark Israeli Supreme Court ruling in 2005 barring the practice.”

The army has defended the practice, which was apparently used in operations following a rash of suicide bombings, saying it kept civilians out of harm’s way and encouraged militants to surrender peacefully.

It must be remembered, also, that mass murder by suicide bomb is pretty much the ultimate abuse of civilians, though this is seldom noted in the mainstream press.

The army says it never allowed troops to use civilians for cover during battles.

As proof otherwise, the story cites a 2002 incident in which a 19-year-old Palestinian student was killed in a gunfight that erupted after he was made to knock on the door of a building where a fugitive was hiding.

What this actually proves, of course, is that the terrorists will shoot through their own people if they think it will bag them some Jews. But we knew that, didn’t we?

On the other hand, we also know the Israelis not only would never intentionally shoot at their own, they do whatever they can do avoid shooting at the enemy’s civilians, which is why the use of human shields is so effective against the Israelis in both practical and public relations terms, and so useless against the Arabs.

The story doesn’t mention any of that. What a shock.