Opinionhaver

I’m not here to deny the atrocities committed by the IDF - I’m simply questioning the legitimacy of the term in this specific context, while somewhat provocatively trying to highlight the fact that accusing Israel of using human shields is a bit like accusing Ukraine of killing civilians. While both may be technically true, it still paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality - which, in this case, is that using human shields is Hamas’ number one tactic, and no intellectually honest person can seriously claim otherwise.

when they tie Palestinians to the front of their vehicles, I think we can say they’re using literal human shields.

That would absolutely count as using them as human shields. However, the example used in the article, in my opinion, doesn’t. What they’re doing is still just as immoral and still a war crime, but I don’t think it qualifies as an example of using someone as a human shield.

This has nothing to do with defending the IDF - don’t be ridiculous.

I don't see how this is relevant to what I said.

What's your point?

I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here. That implies using the civilian population to deter your enemy from shooting at you - which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning. It would make zero sense for the IDF to do that, since it wouldn’t deter anyone.

EDIT: It may be more accurate to categorize this as using a protected person to perform military duties, which is also prohibited under international humanitarian law - but it’s a different category of war crime.

Human shield is defined under Geneva Conventions as "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations"