By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An Israeli soldier, speaking anonymously, alleges that he was ordered by his commander to use Palestinian civilians as human shields during operations in Gaza, a practice reportedly called the “mosquito protocol.” This soldier’s testimony, corroborated by other whistleblowers through the organization Breaking the Silence, claims the use of civilians to check for explosives in buildings was widespread policy. While the IDF denies using human shields and requests more information for investigation, similar accounts of using Palestinians as human shields have also emerged from the occupied West Bank. The IDF’s actions in both Gaza and the West Bank have resulted in numerous civilian casualties and widespread displacement.
Read the original article here
An Israeli soldier recently recounted to CBS News a deeply disturbing experience: he was ordered to use Palestinian civilians as human shields during operations in Gaza. The soldier explicitly stated that his commander directed his unit to send Palestinians into buildings ahead of soldiers to check for explosives and booby traps. This wasn’t a matter of using civilians incidentally as cover; it was a deliberate protocol, replacing the standard use of trained explosive detection dogs.
The soldier described the Palestinians as visibly terrified, trembling and shaking as they were forced to undertake this life-threatening task. This raises serious concerns beyond simply the use of human shields, which is itself a grave violation of international law. This specific instance represents a calculated disregard for human life, utilizing civilians for inherently dangerous tasks that soldiers themselves were unwilling to perform.
The testimony has triggered a range of reactions, from disbelief to outrage. Some commentators suggest that the soldier’s account is not only credible but unsurprising, citing years of documented evidence pointing to similar tactics employed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Others dismissed the report as antisemitic, a common tactic to deflect criticism of the IDF’s actions.
The “I was just following orders” defense, a common refrain in cases of war crimes, is rightly challenged. This argument, while understandable from an individual perspective, fails to address the systematic nature of the alleged practice and the clear violation of international humanitarian law it represents. The claim highlights the need for accountability at all levels of command.
The analogy to World War II’s atrocities, specifically the treatment of German civilians, is frequently invoked. The comparison is striking, particularly considering the justifications employed – the assumption that all inhabitants of an area support the actions of combatants. Such reasoning dangerously simplifies a complex reality, leading to the dehumanization of an entire population.
The debate extends beyond the immediate incident. There’s a persistent tension regarding the responsibility for actions of the IDF and their implications for the Israeli population as a whole. Many critics emphasize that the IDF is not representative of all Israelis, highlighting that a significant portion of the Israeli populace is appalled by the IDF’s conduct. However, the ability of leaders with such views to obtain and maintain power suggests a broad tolerance, if not support, for such practices within significant sectors of Israeli society.
The historical context is also critical. The founding of Israel involved groups who engaged in acts of violence, adding a further layer of complexity to the current situation. This historical legacy undeniably contributes to the current conflict, and ignoring this would be a disservice to understanding the situation.
The specific use of the term “human shields” itself is often scrutinized. Some argue that it’s used to obscure the more egregious nature of the actions described; others point to Hamas’s own use of human shields as a form of projection, arguing that the IDF’s actions, while reprehensible, are not a unique practice. However, the sheer scale and systematic nature of alleged IDF actions are crucial differentiating factors.
Several accounts, including that of a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, Omri Salem, detail similar experiences. He recounted being forced, along with his younger cousin, to search a building at gunpoint, subjected to violence and leaving him deeply traumatized. This incident corroborates the Israeli soldier’s account, demonstrating the pervasiveness of alleged IDF actions.
This highlights the shared trauma experienced by both the perpetrator and victim of the reported actions, the soldier expressing moral injury and profound remorse for his actions. This shared suffering, however, does not diminish the responsibility of those who issued the orders.
The debate also brings forth the responsibility of the United States and other Western governments for their support of Israel, a support frequently cited as enabling such actions. There’s a call for accountability not just for the IDF, but also for the international community that facilitates its actions.
The issue of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex and deeply sensitive one, requiring careful consideration of all perspectives and evidence. While the IDF’s alleged actions are unequivocally reprehensible, it’s essential to acknowledge the broader context of violence and the need for a just and lasting resolution that prioritizes the protection and well-being of all civilians. The soldier’s testimony serves as a stark reminder of the devastating human cost of conflict and the urgency of promoting accountability and reconciliation.