As the war in Gaza intensifies and the world bears witness to harrowing images of civilian casualties, the argument that Palestinian militants, particularly Hamas, use civilians as “human shields” has become a central justification for Israel’s military operations. But how true is this claim, especially when examined through the lens of international law, on-the-ground realities, and Gaza’s unique urban structure?
Let’s take a look at the validity and limitations of the “human shield” argument in the Palestinian context, critically assesses recent events, and outlines how international humanitarian law—particularly the Geneva Conventions and the principle of proportionality—applies in such conflicts. We also have to challenges the prevailing narrative by drawing attention to the forced immobility of civilians in Gaza, whose dense urban environment and siege conditions negate the simplistic assumption that militants are deliberately hiding among civilians.
A Densely Populated Urban Environment
Gaza is often described as one of the most densely populated places on Earth. With over 2.3 million people packed into just 365 square kilometres, much of which is urban or semi-urban, the very concept of separating fighters from civilians is inherently problematic. In fact, Gaza’s population density is more than 6,000 people per square kilometre—far greater than that of New York City or London.
In this context, resistance movements like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and others operate within communities not necessarily as a tactic of shielding but rather as a byproduct of geography and necessity. This makes the accusation that these groups use human shields—defined legally as the intentional use of civilians to deter attacks on military targets—difficult to prove and often overly simplistic.
Unlike traditional state militaries, which can station themselves in remote bases or border outposts, resistance groups in Gaza do not have the luxury of vast open spaces. As such, militants live, operate, and fight from within their communities—not necessarily out of choice, but because there is nowhere else to go.
The Blockade and Civilian Immobility
Since 2007, Gaza has been under a land, sea, and air blockade imposed by Israel and partially enforced by Egypt. This blockade prevents nearly all movement of people and goods into and out of the territory. While Israel often advises civilians to evacuate conflict zones within Gaza, the reality is that civilians cannot leave the territory entirely, and even moving to so-called “safe zones” within Gaza has often resulted in death.
During the current war, which began in October 2023, Israel issued evacuation orders to over a million people in northern Gaza, advising them to flee to the south. Yet humanitarian organisations like the United Nations warned that there was no safe place left in the Strip. Indeed, airstrikes and artillery barrages soon followed people to southern cities like Khan Younis and Rafah, killing hundreds who had obeyed evacuation orders.
This forced immobility renders the “human shield” claim hollow in many cases. Civilians are not willingly remaining in combat zones to protect militants—they are trapped. They have no escape routes, and the borders remain firmly shut. Gaza has become a pressure cooker of humanity, hemmed in by concrete walls, drones, and patrol boats.
Recent Events: A Pattern of Civilian Targeting
Several key incidents from the ongoing conflict help illustrate the misuse of the “human shield” narrative and the tragic consequences of urban warfare:
1. Al-Shifa Hospital, November 2023
Israel alleged that Hamas was operating a command centre beneath Gaza’s largest hospital, Al-Shifa. Following several airstrikes and a ground raid, Israeli forces presented limited evidence: a tunnel entrance and a few weapons in a storage room. While this may have pointed to some level of militant presence, the scale of the attack and the damage to the hospital’s operations raised international outcry.
Thousands of civilians were sheltering in the hospital, including patients and displaced families. The World Health Organization and other aid groups condemned the siege, stating that targeting such critical infrastructure, even with suspicion of militant presence, likely violated international law.
2. Jabalia Refugee Camp, October–November 2023
The Israeli military struck Jabalia refugee camp multiple times, claiming it was targeting Hamas fighters in underground tunnels. However, the explosions leveled entire residential blocks and killed scores of civilians, including women and children. The presence of fighters did not justify the scale of destruction, prompting Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to raise serious legal concerns regarding proportionality.
3. “Safe Zones” That Aren’t Safe
Perhaps most damning are the repeated strikes on designated “safe zones” in Rafah and Khan Younis. In February 2024, an airstrike killed over 100 people in a location that Israeli authorities had earlier identified as safe. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said that such incidents made it “impossible for civilians to trust evacuation orders.”
Understanding International Humanitarian Law
Under international humanitarian law (IHL)—which includes the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols—civilians are to be protected at all times. Two key principles underpin the legality of military actions: distinction and proportionality.
The Principle of Distinction
Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians. Civilians must never be intentionally targeted, and civilian infrastructure (homes, schools, hospitals) is presumed to be protected unless proven to be used for military purposes.
The Principle of Proportionality
Even if a military target is present, an attack is prohibited if the expected civilian harm “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
For instance, killing 40 civilians to eliminate a mid-level militant commander is widely considered disproportionate, and thus illegal.
Use of Human Shields under IHL
- Intentional use of civilians to deter attacks is prohibited under Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I.
- However, even if one side violates this rule, the opposing side remains bound by all rules of IHL.
- Crucially, IHL does not require civilians to leave their homes or relocate, especially if evacuation is impossible or unsafe.
The Weaponisation of the “Human Shield” Narrative
There is growing concern that the “human shield” label is being used as a public relations tool to justify high civilian death tolls. In many Israeli briefings, mention of “human shields” precedes or follows reports of airstrikes that resulted in mass casualties.
Yet when pressed for evidence, Israeli officials often fail to provide transparent or verifiable proof that civilians were deliberately being used to protect combatants. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, “repeated invocation of ‘human shields’ without verifiable evidence risks creating legal impunity for indiscriminate attacks.”
This concern was echoed by legal experts from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who stated in January 2024:
“In urban warfare, civilian proximity does not automatically equate to shielding. Attacks must still comply with proportionality and precautionary principles.”
Voluntary vs. Involuntary Shields: Legal Distinctions
International law distinguishes between:
- Voluntary human shields: Civilians who intentionally protect military assets (rare and often unproven).
- Involuntary human shields: Civilians who are trapped or living near militants without choice. These civilians retain full protection under IHL.
- Deliberate misuse by fighters: If proven, this is a war crime. But proof must be credible, specific, and verifiable—which is often lacking.
In Gaza, most cases are involuntary. Families live in apartment blocks, some of which may house fighters. Hospitals and schools may have tunnels nearby, but that does not nullify their protected status under IHL—especially if civilians are present.
International Reactions and Legal Concerns
Numerous international voices have called for independent investigations into the conduct of the war.
- Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, December 2023:
“Even if armed groups are operating nearby, it does not justify the use of heavy explosives in civilian areas.”
- Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories:
“The narrative of ‘human shields’ is used to rationalise collective punishment operations.”
Moreover, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently reviewing a genocide case against Israel, brought by South Africa, which includes allegations of disproportionate force and the systematic targeting of civilians.
Conclusion: Beyond Narratives, Toward Accountability
The “human shield” argument, while legally grounded in theory, becomes deeply problematic when used as a blanket justification for large-scale military assaults in a besieged urban environment like Gaza. Civilians who cannot leave, who live shoulder-to-shoulder in overcrowded neighbourhoods, cannot be casually dismissed as protective cover for militants.
International law places the burden of proof on those making shielding claims, and even when such claims are substantiated, the attacking force must still adhere to the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality.
The reality is that Gaza’s civilian population is not shielding militants by choice—they are caught in a conflict from which they cannot escape. The world must not accept oversimplified justifications for the deaths of thousands. Legal accountability, transparency, and respect for international humanitarian law must prevail, regardless of narrative.
