https://arab.news/yj8kx
In the dense urban landscapes of Gaza, where homes, schools, hospitals and humanitarian offices blend into the same war-ravaged blocks, a chilling narrative has taken root: the justification of civilian deaths through the term “human shields.” It is a phrase that, with calculated frequency, surfaces in military briefings and international news coverage — offered up as explanation, defense or even absolution for airstrikes that leave families buried beneath the rubble.
But what does it mean to accuse an entire population of serving as human shields, and who benefits from this framing?
This terminology has become a central rhetorical device in the ongoing war in Gaza. Israel, backed by several Western allies, repeatedly claims that Hamas embeds itself within civilian infrastructure, using hospitals, schools and densely populated areas as cover. These claims are used to justify strikes that result in high civilian casualties and the destruction of critical infrastructure, including the deaths of aid workers and UN personnel.
Yet, to critically assess this narrative, we must examine not only its implications but its very foundations.
International humanitarian law prohibits the use of civilians as human shields. It also mandates that all warring parties distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and take every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians. But the invocation of “human shields” creates a dangerous legal gray zone — one that permits the reclassification of civilian-heavy areas as legitimate military targets, even in the absence of transparent evidence.
In effect, the accusation of ‘human shields’ becomes a post hoc shield for military action, not a verified truth
Hani Hazaimeh
This ambiguity is often exploited. When a missile strikes a refugee camp, or when a humanitarian convoy is targeted, the fallback explanation is often a vague claim of militant presence in the vicinity. Rarely are these claims independently verified and often they are retroactively provided. In effect, the accusation becomes a post hoc shield for military action, not a verified truth.
This language erodes accountability. It transforms war crimes into tactical necessity and leaves civilians in Gaza with no safe haven — not even within the walls of a UN school or beneath the tents of an aid organization.
Labeling civilians as human shields does more than justify their deaths — it dehumanizes them. It subtly shifts blame from the aggressor to the victim, implying that civilian suffering is not only inevitable but strategic. This framing creates a moral detachment, desensitizing the world to scenes of bloodied children and shattered homes.
It also reinforces a false dichotomy: that the people of Gaza are either combatants or collaborators, shields or threats. This dichotomy ignores the basic truth that the majority of Gaza’s population are children, mothers, elders and aid workers — people who have nowhere to flee and nothing to shield but their families.
Nowhere is the cost of this language more tragically evident than in the rising death toll among aid workers. The UN Relief and Works Agency, Doctors Without Borders and other humanitarian organizations have seen their staff killed while delivering food, administering medical care or sheltering refugees. These are not military operations. They are lifelines.
Yet when these convoys or compounds are hit, the same justification often resurfaces: alleged militant proximity. This deflects outrage and inhibits meaningful investigations. More importantly, it contributes to the breakdown of humanitarian corridors and the paralysis of relief operations — leaving an already besieged population even more vulnerable.
Nowhere is the cost of this language more tragically evident than in the rising death toll among aid workers
Hani Hazaimeh
Words matter. They shape public opinion, influence international policy and determine whether tragedies are investigated or ignored. The language used to describe the war in Gaza must reflect the reality on the ground — not political agendas or military talking points.
The international media must rigorously interrogate claims of human shields being used and resist the urge to parrot official narratives without evidence. Human rights organizations must push for independent investigations into all strikes that result in civilian deaths, particularly those targeting or affecting aid agencies.
Governments and international bodies must hold all parties accountable to the standards of international law — not selectively or symbolically, but consistently and transparently.
And most of all, we must remember that beneath the euphemisms and geopolitical calculus are real people — families that grieve, children who fear and communities that endure trauma that no terminology can justify.
The people of Gaza are not shields. They are human beings. And their suffering should not be rationalized — it should be stopped.
• Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh