I’ve always thought the term “human shields” was a misnomer that should instead be “human swords” in the context of jihadists. I’ll explain: The concept of asymmetrical warfare refers to two belligerents who have disproportionate powers and capabilities, and therefore the weaker uses the stronger’s strengths against them. That strength is typically greater military capabilities. How do jihadists use this against them? By hiding itself and its weaponry in sensitive (& protected) spaces to strategically maximize human casualties so that the world draws condemnation for & directs consequences to the stronger power & urges a ceasefire, leaving jihadists unscathed & able to continue their mission for conquest with impunity and with the world’s sympathy. A double win. Yahyar Sinwar admitted maximizing civilian casualties was part of their strategy in leaked audios. There is a reason they say they love death more than they love life, but nobody pays attention to that part. Ironically, then, the world’s mass condemnation against the stronger power—such as exclusively attributing the death toll to that power as a reflection of its inherent evil and making no mention of the jihadist role—actually reinforces the strategy and puts more civilians at risk. Putting the spotlight on jihadists for their role would keep civilians safer by minimizing the value of the human swords strategy. The world needs to dispense with its bigotry of low expectations in believing that Middle Eastern militants don’t have long-term, deeply nefarious strategies. When will they wake up and see what is right in front of them? The munitions didn’t make their own way into school playgrounds and safe zones.
See Tweet