Israeli media says Israeli troops are using Gaza civilians as human shields, undermining Israel’s campaign against Hamas

Haaretz’s investigation exposed the Israeli army’s use of Gazans as human shields, but this was not justified by the explanations given by the Israeli army at the beginning of this century. These practices violate international law and the ruling issued by the Israeli Supreme Court in 2005, which banned the use of the “neighborhood procedure” and “early warning procedure” in the West Bank. As a result of this decision, the army’s manual of orders and instructions explicitly prohibits these practices.
The logic behind the Palestinians’ use of tunnel searches and investigations is clear: it is better to endanger the lives of Gazans than the lives of our soldiers, even if the invaders are civilians and not fighters. Yet, for the reasons we have mentioned, this is exactly what should be avoided. The primary goal of international law is to protect civilians who are not taking part in combat and to preserve their humanity, even in war. But using civilians as human shields leads to exactly the opposite result, as it puts them at risk of death against their will. Evidence of this is that the army, in its response to the Haaretz investigation, did not try to claim that this practice was legal, but rather confirmed that it conflicted with army orders, and it is a good thing that it is so.
If proof of the clarity of this prohibition is needed, we should consider the opposite scenario: suppose that a foreign army occupied our lands and used us as human shields. What would we think and say then? Moreover, one of Israel’s main arguments against Hamas is that if we behave well, it illegally uses its civilians as human shields, then would we lose the basis of this “just and important” argument at the international legal and moral level. In a similar way? Now, let’s think about Gaza, which managed to escape the fate of being a human shield for the Hamas movement, and this time was forced to become a human shield for the Israeli army.
In this case, two major issues arise: The first concerns the responsibility of the leadership (including senior leadership) for these behaviors, which are said to be not exceptional or rare and are seen by senior officers. In any hierarchical organizational culture, the military being an obvious example of such a system, when people form the impression that leaders who know about a certain behavior or suspect it is happening will not do anything to condemn and prevent it, this information is conveyed to those in charge that these behaviors are allowed. Therefore, leaders who teach and ignore, in order to keep their “hands clean”, take full responsibility for the behavior of their subordinates, just as if they had given explicit orders.
In terms of the severity of the behavior, the commander’s responsibility is heavier, because the commander has the obligation to ensure that the work of his subordinates is carried out within the legal framework and has the power to stop violations from occurring. More important than the soldiers who are carrying out their mission. Leaders who can prevent and stop these behaviors but do not do so bear a greater responsibility than their subordinates who deviate, and the subordinates also bear responsibility for their prohibited behavior. The investigation of these incidents should not be limited to the perpetrators. The behavior of the command chain, all the way to the top, must be investigated in order to hold all participants accountable for knowledge or suspicions that they did not bother to verify, whether through advice, silence or inaction.
• • •
The most important question is how the army ended up in this situation, and not only in this case, but also in other aspects, such as how to deal with surrendered or suppressed enemies. The range of people who bear moral responsibility is wide, and the root of the problem lies in the refusal to make the necessary distinction between Gazans who take part in the fight against us and others who do not. After October 7, various statements became very common, including statements such as “there are no innocents in Gaza” and “all Gazans are enemies who must be killed”, in addition to the idea that completely starving the people of Gaza could mean that Israel is involved in genocide.
These dialogues are repeated over and over again from every pulpit, not only by marginal figures but also by senior analysts. In the face of such massive attempts to dehumanize all residents of Gaza, the voices of opposition and protest are no more than faint whispers. As for the political leadership, which should be a role model, either joins the chorus of the masses or remains silent. However, the army does not operate in a vacuum. Even when the army is in Gaza, its heart is still in Israel, and it is clear that the rhetoric on every platform has a devastating effect, and it confuses the right path.
Whoever appointed Ben Gvir and Smotrich as senior government ministers is the one who encouraged the dehumanization of Israeli society itself. In true calculation, not all those who are ready to take the planet to use humans as tools of the war machine will survive. Israeli society as a whole must purify itself from this tendency sweeping through society, which is to dehumanize others and accept collaboration with the worst villains, as long as the victims are Arabs. This challenge is so great for society in general and for the education system in particular that it requires a completely different kind of leadership than the existing one.
It is not surprising that this vile method of using civilians as human shields began in the West Bank. In a situation of occupation, no judicial ruling will do any good, as the occupier will always find reasons to control others, treating them as enemies and inferiors. This is where the evil begins and the soil for corruption is formed, culminating in the systematic persecution of Palestinians with the support of the state and the use of people as human shields.

Mordechai Kremnitzer
Haaretz
Palestine Institute