Reflection on Assertions of Israel - Essay Example

This paper is a reflection of an article by Anne Barnard and Jodi Rudoren which appeared on 23rd ofJuly 2014 in New York Times. This article talks about the assertions of Israel, in accusing Hamas of using human shields in their confrontations in Gaza. Hamas, the militant group in Gaza continuously fires rockets to Israel, from their crowded neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are near schools, hotels, and apartment buildings. Barnard and Rudoren (2014) further assert that Hamas militants have been able to place traps for soldiers of Israel in the homes of civilians, and stored weapons in schools and mosques. They have also dug tunnels beneath the private property of individuals. This is with an aim of preventing Israel from attacking them, or destroying their weapons. This is because by using settlements where people live, Hamas is able to use them as human shields. Under International Law, it is a crime and illegal for soldiers to attack and kill unarmed civilians. Due to this tactic initiated by Hamas, the death toll of civilians in Gaza was so high, that Barnard and Rudoren identify as 650 people. This is by the time that this article was written. Barnard and Rudoren (2014) explain that under international law, Hamas has a legal obligation of minimizing its military operations near areas where civilians are living. Furthermore, they believe that Hamas is committing a war crime, through their action of firing rockets indiscriminately. Barnard and Rudoren (2014) also maintain that Israel has an obligation of identifying specific military targets in Gaza, and ensuring that civilians are not threatened by their military actions. The tactics of using civilians as human shield by Hamas, and storing weapons in civilian neighborhoods, is an example of urban warfare. Under international law, urban warfare is not illegal, but the law requires that the parties to the conflict must ensure that civilians are protected from harm. Barnard and Rudoren recognize that Israel is a more powerful army, as compared to Hamas, and hence to level the field, Hamas had to protect its weapons by hiding them in civilian areas, and engaging Israel in those areas (Barnard and Rudoren, 2014). However, after Barnard and Rudoren (2014) quoting thee extensive use of human shields by Hamas, they point out that there is no evidence that Hamas forced civilians to stay in such areas. Through this assertion, Barnard and Rudoren (2014) were trying to denote that Hamas was not committing an international war crime. To judge on whether this implied assertion is true or not, it is essential for us to understand the definition of human shield, as per the international law. For example, Rule number 97 of the Red Cross international committee defines the concept of human shield (Cassimatis, 2007). Human shield is an action that involves utilization of the presence of a civilian, or any other protected individual, to offer certain points or protection from military operations. This is therefore an example of an international war crime that can take place in an armed conflict. This definition by the Red Cross was borrowed from a statute that formed the International Criminal Court (ICC). This therefore means that use of human shields, is an offence that the ICC can prosecute. Through this definition, it is therefore possible to conclude that an individual is guilty of using human shields, when he or she uses civilians as a shield in a military confrontation, whether the civilian agrees or not. Under this article, Barnard and Rudoren (2014) assert that Hamas did not force civilians to act as human shields. However, this assertion is not correct, and this is mainly because by storing weapons beneath mosques, hospitals, areas of residence, then Hamas was involved in using civilians as human shield. This is because the intention of such an action was to protect such equipments from military strikes that emanated from the Israeli army. This is an international crime, that had to be condemned, and an investigation initiated by the International Court of Justice (ICC). This is because whether the use of human shield is coerced or not, it still qualifies as an example of an international crime. This is an aspect that Barnard and Rudoren (2014) did not support. It is therefore prudent to denote that their view of the legal definition of this concept of human shield is narrow, and uncalled for. It is important to understand that in as much as the use of human shields is a crime, under the International Law, it is a popular tactic that is normally used by terrorist organizations, and militant groups that fight powerful enemies. Organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers have on most occasions used human shields, when fighting their enemies. The intention of this action is to weaken the capability of its enemies through propaganda in the print and electronic media. This is by exploiting the harm that civilians face, thus encouraging an international outcry, against their enemies. This is a strategy that Hamas used against Israel, and in their bid to destroy weapons stationed by Hamas, Israel was able to kill unarmed civilians. This prompted an international condemnation of the actions of Israel, even without condemning the actions of Hamas. This was therefore a propaganda strategy of Hamas, aimed at portraying Israel, as a country that did not follow the principles of international law, regarding unarmed civilians. However, resolution 107 introduced on 16th of July in the American congress was aimed at condemning the use of human shield b Hamas (Khalek, 2014). This was recognition by American Congress men on the breach of international law by Hamas, through their use of human shields. In conclusion, to discourage the use of human shields by militant groups, it is essential for the international community to take initiate a series of tough punitive measures against such groups. This is by sponsoring a collected military approach against such groups. Furthermore, there is a need of encouraging civilians to be more assertive, and oppose any attempts by these militant groups in hiding weapons under their residences. Through these actions, chances are high that the militant group would be deterred from using human shields in their military endeavors. References: Barnard, A., & Rudoren, J. (2014, July 23). Israel Says That Hamas Uses Civilian Shields, Reviving Debate. The New York Times. Retrieved August 5, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/middleeast/israel-says-hamas-is-using- civilians-as-shields-in-gaza.html?_r=0 Cassimatis, A. E. (2007). International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and Fragmentation of International Law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly , 56(03), 4298-4307. Khalek, R. (n.d.). Israel Uses Palestinians as Human Shields but US Lawmakers Condemn Hamas. Truthout. Retrieved August 8, 2014, from http://www.truth- out.org/news/item/25362-israel-uses-palestinians-as-human-shields-but-us-lawmakers- condemn-hamas Read More