Women used as human shields to protect Hamas

[RHFC_piper]

19-hour Gaza standoff ends with civilian's death
Updated Fri. Nov. 3 2006 8:46 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A 19-hour Gaza standoff ended Friday when Israeli forces opened fire on a group of women acting as human shields to protect Hamas militants.

One woman was killed and 10 more were wounded according to Palestinian officials and witnesses who were on the scene.

The women were attempting to protect Palestinian gunmen who were hiding out in a Gaza mosque. Several hundred women came to the mosque after militants asked women to form a ring around the mosque in Beit Hanoun, a northern Gaza town.

More on Link




I can only ask 'why'?

 

[Trinity]

Don't you stop being a civilian and become some form of combatant once you
actively promote aid or openly assist the enemy?

What I'm trying to say.. is you stop being a civilian or lose your rights as...?

 

[vonGarvin]

I tend to agree, Trinity.

 

[RHFC_piper]

Without dipping into ROE's (as they are OpSec), if I were in the same place, I probably would have returned fire aswell.

In my book, as Trinity said, once you aid a combatant you become a combatant.

What bothers me is not that they used them as human shields (as they were willing) but that a radio announcer urged these women to go and do it... whats next? insergents wearing baby helmets.

In my mind, its speaks to the morals of the militants and their supporters if they're willing to put the people they're supposedly fighting for in harms way.

(kinda like the Taliban killing Afghans.... hearts and minds)

 

[Trinity]

If insurgent X was holding the woman in front of her against her will.......

totally different situation.

 

[kincanucks]

I probably would have returned fire aswell

not the same as

when Israeli forces opened fire on a group of women

 

[Gunnar]

In my mind, its speaks to the morals of the militants and their supporters if they're willing to put the people they're supposedly fighting for in harms way.

Spokesmen for radical muslims have said on more than one occasion that they "worship death".  They mean it.

Wonder how Allah feels about them worshipping death, not him?  ;-/

 

[George Wallace]

This is really nothing new.  We have to look closely at the culture and religious beliefs of the people in this Region.  Anyone who has time in Cyprus will no doubt remember the "Woman's March".  There were also similar demonstrations in Bosnia.  Not a new thing, but a statement on that Region that was just BUMPED to the top of the news again.

 

[George Wallace]

This is all part of what 'Asymmetric Warfare' is all about.  Hamas is using this as a statement to the weak Western World civilian populace and intelligentsia.  They are not strong enough to defeat us militarily, so they will destroy us by turning our Fifth Columnists in the Universities and Press on us.  They will use propaganda against us to destroy our will to fight to defend ourselves.

Just think of what the CPA and NDP are spewing in their literature.  What organizations are involved in these movements.  Many are easily manipulated Peace Movements, young impressionable students, and Islamic organizations. 

Put yourself in their position and then imagine what you would do to defeat an enemy when you do not have the military strength to do so, and you will begin to see what they are up to.

 

[booted]

once you aid a combatant you become a combatant

I agree with Trinity. There's no more to add. It's well said.

whats next? insergents wearing baby helmets

It makes you wonder what will be next. It's hard to tell what's going to happen next.
But this is really nothing new. It's been done before.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Don't you stop being a civilian and become some form of combatant once you actively promote aid or openly assist the enemy?

>What I'm trying to say.. is you stop being a civilian or lose your rights as...?

Yep.  There doesn't seem to be any such thing in law as a voluntary human shield.  What you become is not merely a combatant, but an unlawful combatant.

 

[Kirkhill]

>Don't you stop being a civilian and become some form of combatant once you actively promote aid or openly assist the enemy?

>What I'm trying to say.. is you stop being a civilian or lose your rights as...?

Yep.  There doesn't seem to be any such thing in law as a voluntary human shield.  What you become is not merely a combatant, but an unlawful combatant.

And if unarmed, a particularly ineffective combatant - not to mention probably dead.

And for today's historical interlude - British officer in Palestine got his name in the papers because he instructed his men to aim at the legs of a crowd when confronted with a crowd of men sheltering behind a phalanx of women and children.  The unfortunate thing is that when the legs are shot out from somebody they tend to fall into the field of fire.......  This isn't new for the area.  Only some of the combatants have changed.

 

[spud]

There doesn't seem to be any such thing in law as a voluntary human shield.  What you become is not merely a combatant, but an unlawful combatant.

And this is gleaned from some instances of international law applicable to the situation?

I'm only asking as this is a pretty broad and sweeping statement to make; the next time a Greenpeace tree hugger is shot while shielding a tree somebody better have their ducks in a row!

potato

sorry, back on track. ......

 

[tlg]

This is a Geneva Convention that I'm pretty sure fits the situation.
"Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attacks. ( Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."

So according to this, the Hamas broke a Geneva Convention.

 

[spud]

This is a Geneva Convention that I'm pretty sure fits the situation.
"Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attacks. ( Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."

So according to this, the Hamas broke a Geneva Convention.

Does the Geneva Convention even apply in this situatjon? I thought it only applied to "armed conflict".  Is this shooting an act of "war" or an act against "terrorism"?  I don't think they are the same thing.

potato

 

[Brad Sallows]

Here is what the CF manual on LOAC has to say:

"318. CIVILIANS ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES
1. Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities (other than a levée en masse) are unlawful combatants. They lose their protection as civilians and become legitimate targets for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
HIVR Art 2; AP l Art 51 (3); AP ll Art 13 (3)

2. If captured, civilians who take a direct part in hostilities are not entitled to PW status, but they must nevertheless be treated humanely. They may also be punished as unlawful combatants but only following a fair trial affording all judicial guarantees.
AP l Arts 44 (4), 45 (3) & 75"

The oddball letters and numbers are references to the Hague conventions and Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.  I leave that as an exercise for the reader.