Human Shields

The Children of Amalek, Ch. 3

Go to chapter 2

Human Shields

When people start talking about killing “Amalek” because they are such an existential threat, the children of Amalek don’t tend to matter much. There are a few common arguments people make when defending Israel’s behavior and are a reflection of that sentiment.

One is that Hamas is uniquely evil; they point out that Hamas has a history of suicide bombing civilian populations, or using their own civilians as “human shields”. But such arguments should not be relevant as to whether Palestinian infants should be starved; such arguments can only be compelling if a person feels the “human shields” that Israel will inevitably kill to get to the supposed targets are not worth the effort to keep alive. There are undoubtedly people who belong to Hamas in Israel itself, as well as the U.S., but Israel is not killing innocent Israelis or innocent Americans in Israel or the U.S. to get to those “Amalekites”. If the “human shields” were Israeli Jewish children or American Christian children, I don’t imagine the IDF would be so careless about blowing them up. The moral calculation becomes that Amalek is so evil and dangerous, and the innocent lives that will be destroyed in the process of getting to Amalek are so minimal in value, that whatever is done to get to Amalek, which includes systematically starving millions of people, is worth it. The U.S. government would not tolerate Likud bombing a neighborhood in New York to maybe kill one Hamas commander. Yet, the U.S. government doesn’t just tolerate it when it comes to Gaza, it supplies the bombs. There may be some exotic philosophical thought experiments where such utilitarian calculations might make moral sense, but what’s happening in Gaza isn’t one of them. There’s also the troubling fact that the Israeli military has been documented using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

From the New York Times:

After Israeli soldiers found Mohammed Shubeir hiding with his family in early March, they detained him for roughly 10 days before releasing him without charge, he said.

During that time, Mr. Shubeir said, the soldiers used him as a human shield.

…The Times interviewed seven Israeli soldiers who observed or participated in the practice and presented it as routine, commonplace and organized, conducted with considerable logistical support and the knowledge of superiors on the battlefield. Many of them said the detainees were handled and often transported between the squads by officers from Israel’s intelligence agencies, a process that required coordination between battalions and the awareness of senior field commanders. And though they served in different parts of Gaza at different points in the war, the soldiers largely used the same terms to refer to human shields.

Israel also has military infrastructure in civilian areas; from Haaretz:

Israeli military headquarters hides behind the civilian residents of central Tel Aviv and the patients at Ichilov Hospital just 450 meters from the office of the commander in chief. Sheba Medical Center outside Tel Aviv protects the Tel Hashomer military base. The navy base in Haifa hides in the shadow of the Rambam medical center. Even “our nuclear family” hides among the resolute and pastoral rural population.

And Israel's leaders? The prime minister hides behind the civilian residents of Jerusalem’s Talbieh neighborhood, and his designated successor does the same in Ra'anana. The defense minister hides in Rosh Ha'ayin, and the military chief on Moshav Adi. His deputy is surrounded by a wall in the form of the civilians of Hod Hasharon. And so on; they're all sheltering behind civilians, as if they were Hamasniks.

Some people also argue that “war is hell” — and they point to the fact that in other military conflicts, such as World War 2, the U.S. and other allied forces carried out operations that killed enormous numbers of civilians, such as the bombing of Dresden, the fire bombing of Tokyo, or the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ignoring the fact that these operations were carried out after millions of people had already died years into a global war that included the occupation of much of Europe by Nazis — after the war, during the Geneva convention, countries including the U.S. agreed that such acts were horrendous and that they shouldn’t happen again.

The “war is hell” argument relies on the notion that because other countries commit and have committed what international agreements now define as “war crimes”, Israel should somehow have the right to as well. The problem with that argument is that people condemned operations like Dresden or Hiroshima when they occurred, and still do, both from a strategic and moral line. The only reason countries get away with it is because they are too powerful to be held accountable, not because there aren’t people who find the acts detestable. There is no “double-standard” being applied to Israel — at least by the people who have the highest integrity who are opposing what Israel is doing. Right now Israel is getting away with it precisely because it is being supported by the U.S. military, which is the most powerful in the world.

I'd wager the same people who are fond of the war is hell argument would not have expressed the same sentiment after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And of course they are not expressing the same sentiment about what Hamas did on October 7th. The war is hell argument is typically only expressed by a person who is defending the actions of their own preferred party. Thus the war is hell argument leads to the question of why Israel is morally justified to carry out savageries and Hamas is not. And that tends to lead back to the argument that Hamas is uniquely evil.

Another argument made is something like “if Hamas just gave back the hostages it could end the massacre and destruction”, and that suggests it is morally justified for Likud to starve and terrorize millions of people because the ruling faction in Gaza, Hamas, holds Israeli hostages. Essentially, the lives of all Gazans are made hostage to Israel, and the bargaining chip becomes massive numbers of Palestinian lives: “We will allow food and medical supplies for Palestinian infants, our hostages, and stop sniping random civilians, if you return the hostages you captured.”

But Hamas is a monster—so why would anyone expect to have a monster care about innocent infants? Palestinians are often presented as victims of Hamas, rather than Likud. If that is the case, why would there be any leverage gained for Likud by starving innocent Palestinian infants? Why would a monstrous regime care if the people it ruled got slaughtered and starved? We are told that Hamas steals aid—if that is the case, then how is a starving Palestine infant something that’s going to affect their actions? Israel may as well be starving Canadian infants. Would that be okay? Because it seems like it would be around as effective. How much food and supplies does Hamas have stored in its tunnels? If Hamas doesn’t care about Gazans, what reason, other than cruelty or complete callous stupidity, could explain why Likud is massacring Gazans? And if Likud is concerned about the hostages Hamas has why is it starving the whole population or bombing “indiscriminately”, as even Biden has said (while incoherently continuing to give weapons)? Does Likud and the American politicians who support Likud believe that the hostages who are held are going to be miraculously fed or avoid being hit by the same indiscriminate bombing that the Palestinian civilians are being killed and maimed by?

Furthermore, Hamas could make the same argument: if Israel just releases the Palestinians it has in its prisons, Hamas won’t kill their hostages. How is that a moral argument? That is simply an argument from power. A threat. Before October 7th, Hamas members and Palestinians were in Israeli detention centers, often “kidnapped” without any meaningful due process. Hamas then attacked. If Hamas had, before carrying out its massacre, first told Israel that it would carry out its massacre if Israel didn’t release their hostages, would that have made the massacre alright if Israel didn’t capitulate to their demands? Because that’s essentially the argument of “if Hamas returned the hostages, the massacre would cease.” If Hamas is to blame for not releasing hostages, would Israel be to blame for Oct 7 if they didn’t release the prisoners they held before Hamas attacked? And, after all, since the West Bank and Gaza have been occupied by Israel, if Hamas had simply demanded that the occupation ended before carrying out its attack, would Israel be entirely at fault for the atrocities of Oct 7 if it didn’t end its occupation?

We are dealing with perverse conditions. The only reason Likud and their supporters can make that [very bad] argument is the massive power differential between Likud and Hamas. Had Hamas told Likud what it was going to do before October 7th Likud could have stopped it. Hamas does not have the power to stop an aerial bombardment and a blockade even as Likud announces it to the whole world. Actually scratch that — according to Israeli news sources the IDF knew about Hamas’ plans, down to meticulous blueprints, but somehow the IDF didn't prevent it. So, perversely, even if Hamas had sent a personal letter to Netanyahu with the blueprints the IDF already had, Likud would plausibly “accidentally failed” to stop it. From Haaretz:

A newly surfaced document reveals that Israel Defense Forces and Israeli intelligence systems had detailed knowledge of Hamas' plan to raid Israel, including the number of hostages to be taken and specific instructions for their treatment while in captivity.

According to a Monday night report presented by Israel's public broadcaster, Kan, the document, which is based on information from military intelligence's 8200 Unit, began circulating on September 19, less than three weeks before the October 7 massacre.

Go to chapter 4