This is from bbc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2195155.stm Thursday, 15 August, 2002, 15:58 GMT 16:58 UK Israel under fire over 'human shields' Witnesses say the teenager was forced to the house at gunpoint The Israeli army has been bitterly condemned for its alleged use of Palestinians as "human shields" for soldiers trying to seize militants. Local Hamas leader Nasser Jarrar was killed during the operation A teenage Palestinian, Nidal Abu M'khisan was shot dead on Wednesday night after being forced by Israeli soldiers to go to the door of a house sheltering a Hamas militant in Tubas. Leading Israeli human rights group B'Tselem issued a statement denouncing the action, shortly before the army sparked fresh condemnation by shooting dead a five-year-old Palestinian boy. The child, Ayman Fares, was hit in the head by a bullet when Israeli forces opened fire on the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis. 'Hail of bullets' According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, the army has been using Palestinian civilians to shield them from hostile gunfire since the current uprising started nearly two year ago. "Using civilians as if they were bullet-proof vests and turning them into objects whose sole purpose is to protect soldiers is neither legal nor moral," the group said in a statement. "Whatever the circumstances, soldiers must not endanger the lives of civilians to protect their own." Palestinian witnesses said Nidal was forced at gunpoint to the house, where the wheelchair bound Hamas commander, Nasser Jarrar, was hiding. Some Israelis justify the practice by saying their country is at war with militants The army has denied the 19-year-old had been deployed as a shield, saying they hoped to prevent deaths by having the teenager warn any civilians who may have been inside the house. When he knocked on the door he was killed by a burst of bullets, although Tubas residents claim they came from the soldiers, not the house. The use of Palestinian human shields became a particular issue during Israel's sweeping military operations in April, when human rights organisations - including B'Tselem - petitioned the supreme court to order a stop to the practice. The government did then outlaw it, but drew a distinction between human shields and, what it called "neighbourhood procedure". This involves deploying civilians to help soldiers enter Palestinian homes, or approach besieged militants to negotiate an end to a standoff. B'Tselem said Wednesday's incident proves this procedure is just as dangerous as the one which was banned. But many prominent Israelis do not agree. A number of government ministers told Israeli media that the country was in a war situation, and sometimes the lives of Palestinian civilians had to be endangered, to prevent attacks in Israel, or to protect Israeli soldiers.
Another half-a$$ "Israel is such a bully" article from the BBC... what about Palestinians using their kids as human shields? Talk about one-sided journalism.
Actually the other side has been covered extensively. This is the first article I've read about this from the ISraelis. Either way I think it's wrong when either side uses human shields. In addition some of the Palestinian using civilians as shield stories state aren't really true. Unless using ten people in a building that you aren't even in can be considered using civilians as shields. What's amazing about this story is that it's part of official Israeli procedure to use civilians as shields. Could you imagine a hostage negotiation team in the U.S. sending a civilian into a bank to talk to the criminals inside? It's atrocious.
Gee, maybe the Palestinians shouldn't open fire when somebody knocks on their door. When they bomb a building you say to go in with an assault team. Then they try to have someone go in and get the innocent people out and you say they are using him as a human shield. Maybe the IDF can just stand there unarmed and ask the militants nicely to come and face justice in Israel.
Going in with an assault team is different than forcing a civilian to heading up to the door. As for who killed the nineteen year old both sides are claiming the other did it, but to me it doesn't really matter. If a group of armed bank robbers is hold up in a bank, the police and swat teams don't send innocent civilians in to open doors, or carry out negotiations. Also the Israelis were sending the kid in to get out other people as well as to get the gunman to surrender. They intentionally sent an innocent civilian into harms way. And to make matters worse that's official standard procedure.
using them is worse...because if they aren't there then you can't blast through them. you put everybody at risk with a human shield. of course blasting through one is horrible, but nobody should risk their life like that when there is a risk on somebody blasting through. however, both are horrible.
I don't know of a proven case of Palestinians blasting through a human shield. Israel claims that's what happened in the case of the 19 year old, but other claims in similar incidents such as the monks in Bethlehem by Israel also turned out to be wrong. But assuming it was the Palestinian gunman who shot the youth, and assuming that sleeping in a residential neighborhood like the Hamas leader did is considered using a human shield, then both sides are guilty. Like I said, I don't care which side is doing it, it's wrong no matter what. But when a military makes it standard procedure it's abhorable. And while plenty of people have criticized Palestinians for doing this, there hasn't been an equal criticism of Israel for doing it. It's a double standard that I think is unfair. So to answer your question, I imagine shooting through a human shield, and both sides are perhaps guilty of both things.
If this has any modicum of truth then the Israelis have dropped a peg in my eyes. I don't mind the collateral damage, but this would be unnacceptable. DD
i can never understand the Pro Israel sentiment felt on this board... we hear of how these guys are using freakin people as sheilds and we only have a few people realizing just exactly what that means.
DaDakota, I have to give you credit. I know we disagree a lot about what goes on over there, but I'll give you credit for not having a double standard on this issue.
I'm guessing that when the Israelis shoved this kid to the door they didn't knock on it say "Avon calling." It was probably pretty damned clear to those inside who was coming. They probably didn't know they would shove kid through the door first rather than doing their job like men. True enough DaDakota. We don't agree on the collateral damage issue. Mainly because, as this article shows, the Israelis often create the collateral damage where none needs to exist either intentionally or through indifference.
Whether the teen was literally shoved through the door, or just forced at gunpoint is the least of the human rights violations in the story. It's arguing semantics to the extreme. If the Israelis never laid a hand on the youth but still forced him at gunpoint, is not less reprehensible than if they physically shoved the kid. Either way it's wrong.
Hydra, What part of "forced by Israeli soldiers to go to the door of a house sheltering a Hamas militant " do you not understand? Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that some of the ugliest and basest human behavior on the planet takes place in the "Holy Land"? I wish the ******* place would fall into the Mediterranean so nobody could fight over it.
It's not ironic at all. For centuries, some of the ugliest and basest human behavior on the planet has taken place in the name of religion. It's only logical that the Holy Land would be Ground Zero for this sort of behavior.
