Israeli Court Bans Use of ‘Human Shields’

Israel’s Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction Sunday barring the army from using unwilling Palestinian civilians to knock on suspicious doors, enter buildings it believes might be booby-trapped and pick up dubious packages.

The ruling came in response to a filing earlier in the day by a coalition of seven human rights groups.

Charges that the army has been using “human shields” hit the headlines last week when a 19-year-old Palestinian, Nidal abu Muhsein from the West Bank village of Tubas, was handed a bulletproof vest and sent by the army to knock on the door of a nearby house. Wanted Hamas leader Nasser Jerar was holed up inside.

Muhsein--who had no police record and was never under suspicion--knocked, the door opened, and the teenager fell dead in a hail of bullets. It’s a matter of debate who started the shooting. The Israeli military then bulldozed the house and killed Jerar, who was wanted on suspicion of planning several attacks against Israelis, as Muhsein’s body lay amid the rubble.

The high court will decide at an as yet unscheduled hearing what limits, if any, should be placed on the army’s growing use of Palestinian civilians to serve against their will as deterrents, advance scouts and early warning systems.

The seven human rights petitioners, led by the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, or Adalah, say such tactics are illegal under both the Geneva Conventions and Israeli law.

The army, which terms its use of civilians a “neighbor practice,” argues that the policy provides a necessary and effective deterrent under extreme circumstances, and one that saves both Palestinian and Israeli lives.

Muhsein’s family sees the matter differently.

“We’ve lost our eldest son. We are in so much pain,” said Abdul Raouf abu Muhsein, Nidal’s father, who says his child was chosen at random because of his sturdy physique. “I can hardly bear to go into my own house anymore. I still see him here, even though he’s gone.”

Capt. Jacob Dallel, an army spokesman, said the military will abide by whatever decision the high court hands down. He declined to comment further, citing the ongoing judicial review.

The seven human rights groups first filed a petition opposing the use of human shields on May 4. Five days later, the army pledged to stop all use of “living shields,” and in response the groups set aside their petition.

The army now argues that it hasn’t reneged on that pledge because, according to its own definition, the civilians it continues to use aren’t human shields. A military official who requested anonymity said human shields are civilians put in a direct line of fire, as for instance when someone is tied to the front of a jeep that’s being shot at.

When Palestinian civilians “help out” by entering houses ahead of soldiers at the behest of local commanders, on the other hand, they’re not human shields since there’s no imminent danger, military officials argue. Furthermore, their use helps defuse a volatile situation by making armed Palestinians think twice before shooting, these officials add.

“The ‘neighbor practice’ has a calming element,” one military official said. “Rather than having a soldier barge in and create tension, this has been proven very effective. Often the wanted person comes out.”

Others don’t buy it.

“It’s clear from what happened in Tubas that the [military] broke its promise,” said Haaretz newspaper columnist Zeev Schiff, under an article headlined “A Totally Unnecessary Death.” “The army can win and tactically overcome various obstacles without having to resort to using civilians as ‘human shields.’ ”

The petition before the Supreme Court, drawing on material from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, cites 40 recent examples in which Palestinians from young boys to elderly grandmothers were reportedly put in dangerous situations against their will.

In one of the examples, soldiers had 43-year-old Kamal Tawalbi and his 14-year-old son stand in front of them on a balcony while using their shoulders as gun rests to shoot at Palestinian gunmen.

“These are all cases of human shields,” said Marwan Dalal, an Adalah staff attorney. “Calling this a ‘neighbor practice’ is a most banal definition of human shields.”

Analysts say the army has expanded its use of Palestinian noncombatants in recent months.

“They’re using it quite a bit,” said Amos Harel, military correspondent with Haaretz. “Their giving an answer to the Supreme Court and still doing it says they think it’s important. It probably saves some lives, but it also costs some lives.”

Arafat Hinno, a 36-year-old Palestinian, says he was forced by the army on April 8 to enter a series of houses as soldiers patrolled his neighborhood in the West Bank city of Nablus. He scoffs at the idea that such practices save Palestinian lives.

“How can they say they’re saving Palestinian lives when they’re taking me, an innocent civilian, who has nothing to do with the resistance,” he said Sunday. “They’re saving their lives by putting mine in danger. They believe Israeli lives are worth more than Palestinians, which is not true, of course.”

A broader question that Israel, and indeed the United States, is grappling with these days is how far to go in suspending civil liberties in the name of security.

Gerald Steinberg, head of conflict management at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, said that Israel is at war and that its primary concern is to kill or capture terrorists. Ultimately, this is a heavy counterweight to any human rights objection, he argues.

“Obviously there are red lines,” he said. “You don’t carpet-bomb Gaza. But you also don’t say you’re not going to bomb anyplace where you’ll kill civilians.”

Others are more skeptical.

“Every time you further bend the rule of law, it’s a slippery slope,” said Uri Dromi of the Israel Democracy Institute. “It’s never enough. You find yourself in a place where democracy doesn’t like to be.”

Many ordinary Israelis seem to see little need for debate, however.

“I haven’t seen any polls on this, but I’d venture a guess that the public is quite indifferent to the loss of Palestinian life,” said Joseph Alpher, a political analyst. “They’re so security-minded at this point.”

Michael Grossini, a 48-year-old electrician juggling a cell phone en route to his next appointment, said that it’s easy for outsiders to sit in judgment but that Israel needs a strong hand. “If I can’t get my kids to school safely, I’ll do what I have to do,” he said.

Also Sunday, Israeli security forces arrested 16 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip suspected of being militants. And Israel’s national bus cooperative, Egged Co., announced that it plans to sue Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat this month for damages caused by Palestinian attacks on its vehicles, including suicide bombings.

*

Times staff writer Tracy Wilkinson in Jerusalem contributed to this report.