The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Hamas Uses Civilians as Human Shields

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,396 times Debate No: 61799
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




My argument will be based on Hamas using the Gaza population as "Human Shields". Con must be able to counter this argument and provide solid examples of Hamas in fact not exploiting its civilians, but ensuring their protection (as Israel does with its own) and not placing them at risk.

First round is acceptance.


Hamas is not using them as human shields, the civilians are using them as spooning partners.
Debate Round No. 1


The provided link is further proof that Hamas use "human shields", and exploit the people of Gaza.

Hamas itself has given interviews/speeches in which they endorse this policy.

In this video Hamas MP Fathi Hammad makes these statements:

("The enemies of Allah) do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its (methods) of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people death has become an industry, at which women excel and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life".

In this clip, when asked by the interviewer what he thought about people "reverting to the human shield method", Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zahri responded by saying:

"This attests to the character of our noble, Jihad-fighting people, who defend their rights and their homes with their bare chests and their blood. The policy of people confronting Israeli warplanes with their bare chests in order to protect their homes, has proven effective against the occupation. We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy".

This interview was recorded during the recent 2014 conflict between Israel and Gaza.

Other Examples of Hamas Using Human Shields

1. Firing rockets and other forms of weaponry from civilian areas. This in itself is a categorised war crime.
A number of rockets have also been misfired by Hamas, into Gaza's own buildings.

2. Storing rockets and other forms of weaponry in public places. During this summers conflict 3 UN run schools were found to have rockets in them. In addition to that, mosques were found with guns stored inside, and booby traps were discovered in homes. Anyone that watched footage of Gaza in the news recently would've noticed thick black waves of smoke coming from buildings and other areas within the city, this is caused by rockets, weaponry and booby traps.

Here you can see the IDF finding a booby trapped home:

3. Another instance of Hamas purposely placing civilians in danger is the encouragement of its population to ignore warnings given by the Israel Defence Forces. Thousands of text messages, phone calls, and leaflets were sent out by the IDF advising people to leave dangerous areas and take shelter.

One such statement by Hamas demanding that people stay in their homes is here:

"To all of our people who have evacuated their homes, return to them immediately and do not leave the house. You must follow the directives of the Interior Ministry. This is psychological warfare, random messages to instill panic in people."

4. Forcing civilians to participate in war, by the strapping of bombs over them. Both Hamas and Fatah have been responsible of this.

5. Using the Al-Shifa hospital (Gaza city hospital) as its headquarters. Again, this proves that Hamas has committed war crime(s) by exploiting public domain and placing its civilians in danger.

(6.) the building of tunnels in neighbourhoods and under homes. The 35 tunnels discovered by the IDF this year were constructed in neighbourhoods and under civilian homes. Making it extremely difficult for the IDF to successfully destroy the tunnels and minimise civilian damage.

Supporting Links





Debate Round No. 2


Right, well that was the actual purpose to the debate. I'm outlining my argument.


Fine, I concede.
Debate Round No. 3


Can you concede to the fourth round?


Strawberry Jews...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Emilirose 3 years ago
What's a Strawberry Jew?
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Well that was an easy vote.
Next time con, look up the definition of human shield. Several arguments fall to meet the definition. Others had no source references. The argument was strong but not impossible to beat.
Pro, your argument would be stronger if you show how each of those tactics meet the definition for human shield. Don't leave it to the voters to define human shield. Define it in round 1. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see sources for points 4-6.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Baring unexpected events, I promise to vote on this before the time expires. I'll read it tonight and sleep on my decision.
Posted by Emilirose 3 years ago
Of course, that is exactly what Netanyahu says :)
The problem is with militant Islam, and the enduring refusal of Hamas (and others) to accept the existence of Israel.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
I have said this before. If hamas would lay down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel would lay down their arms,there would be no Israel.Because islam itself has death and destruction as its foundation.I can not remember any war that the opposing army would hide behind the skirts of mothers with babies.
Posted by Emilirose 3 years ago
Yes, was meant to go there in the first place.
Posted by Badman 3 years ago
you posted a comment.. now paste it into the 'post an argument' section.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jellon 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It appears that pro's argument convinced con to concede before making opening arguments.
Vote Placed by kasmic 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Good arguments and sources by pro. Con conceded. Pros arguments stand. Cons conduct clearly inappropriate.