PDA

View Full Version : 773 shot in Gaza


flyhardmo
1st Apr 2018, 04:33
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/31/palestinians-hold-day-of-mourning-after-773-shot-with-live-ammunition

Crickets.:confused:

meadowrun
1st Apr 2018, 04:48
I refer you and Hamas to one definition of insanity.


"Repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting different results."

Eddie Dean
1st Apr 2018, 04:57
The silence may be due to the indifference to this issue. It has been the state of play for so long that I do not care.

flyhardmo
1st Apr 2018, 06:31
Not everyone in Gaza is a supporter of Hamas. The people were protesting the illegal occupation of their land and 773 people were shot with live ammunition. 773! Most of them unarmed civilians. How is that justifiable?

meadowrun
1st Apr 2018, 06:52
The people abandoned their land so that they wouldn't be in the way as fledgling Israel was exterminated by their neighbours.
They lost that very large bet, big time.


Live ammunition seems to be mostly rubber bullets and who knows what and the protest had a lot of gasoline bomb hurling, rock throwing and who knows what. Bet there was a lot more going on than we have been privileged to be advised of. The Israelis historically tend not to fight for fun.
Dance with the devil.

flyhardmo
1st Apr 2018, 07:38
Live ammunition seems to be mostly rubber bullets and who knows what and the protest had a lot of gasoline bomb hurling, rock throwing and who knows what.

Like this kid with tyre who got shot in the head whilst running away from the fence. That’s cold blooded murder.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qZpKrXBMImU

KelvinD
1st Apr 2018, 08:09
flyhardmo: Well done for bringing this up.
I have been waiting for someone to broach this subject. Not because I thought it could do with waiting a few days, but because I wanted to gauge the hypocrisy on this board by seeing if this topic would be raised at all. (It would have been raised eventually as I was not going to ignore it).
Isn't it incredible that when a Russian spy is attacked, along with his innocent daughter, this forum is up in arms to the extent of 44 pages and 866 replies. I think the attack on the daughter is tragic but I don't care two hoots for the spy. (If you want to play with fire, don't be surprised if you get burned.)
Yet when people are killed wholesale while demonstrating in their own, Israel created, ghetto, only one poster has the balls to speak up about it.
So, again, well done to you.
meadowrun: You don't have a clue! Rubber bullets do not kill people. As far as I am aware, 16 people were shot dead. Your opening statement to the effect the Palestinians gave up their land is total baloney. Remember, before the establishment of Israel, British troops were being killed by them in large numbers. The British were carrying out the mandate placed upon them by the U.N. The UK never wanted to be involved in the place to begin with and it must have been particularly galling for the British troops who had been away from home, fighting the Jews' oppressors for years, only to have had them turn on their liberators.
The actions of the Israeli troops was unwarranted and barbaric.
And, while on the topic, how's this for a conspiracy theory:
Israel knew this demonstration was coming. They knew it was going to attract adverse comment. A couple of weeks before this, a campaign was begun in the UK, branding the Labour party as anti-semitic. The campaign was successful to the extent it is hogging a great deal of news time with all the accusations, denials and counter allegations flying back and forth.
As I write this, the BBC is reporting the Israeli version of events, including a claim that 10 of those killed were known terrorists. Yeah. Right.

meadowrun
1st Apr 2018, 08:21
Yup, they're all bad guys with a lot of nasty history.


Imagine this.
Britain transplanted to a place where the western border was sea but the northern, eastern and southern - in layers - were occupied by some other folks of a rogue religion who from time immemorial have had a frenzied hatred of your mere existence.


Not seeing any improvements of all these old stupid things.
(and I mean - everywhere)
Wish people would start tackling realities.

Tom Cundall
1st Apr 2018, 08:34
Britain transplanted to a place where the western border was sea but the northern, eastern and southern - in layers - were occupied by some other folks of a rogue religion who from time immemorial have had a frenzied hatred of your mere existence.


Sorry. When did we start talking about Wales?

under_exposed
1st Apr 2018, 08:51
I would have thought if you were going to describe any religion as rouge the CoE would be a prime example.

Fareastdriver
1st Apr 2018, 10:13
If you point a gun at somebody and tell him to go away or you will shoot him and he doesn't. What do you do?

Sallyann1234
1st Apr 2018, 10:32
The people abandoned their land so that they wouldn't be in the way as fledgling Israel was exterminated by their neighbours.
They lost that very large bet, big time.

Well I've heard some lousy excuses for stealing land, but that one just about wins the Easter egg. Well done! :mad:
People retreat from every war zone. They are called refugees.

meadowrun
1st Apr 2018, 10:35
The movement was orchestrated in concert with a purpose that ultimately failed. They were not refugees in the conventional sense - they were part of the plan.
The result is conquered territory, by force of arms, in defense.
Remember who attacked first.

Sallyann1234
1st Apr 2018, 11:37
The movement was orchestrated in concert with a purpose that ultimately failed. They were not refugees in the conventional sense - they were part of the plan.
The result is conquered territory, by force of arms, in defense.
Remember who attacked first.

Orchestrated?
In a war zone or potential war zone, innocent people caught in the middle don't follow plans. They just run for their lives. They have always done so and always will.

There were two groups of extremists spoiling for a fight over who controls the land. Whichever group won, the non-combatants in the middle were always going to lose, and they did.
Unsurprisingly, the strongest and best supported side won. And has had no sympathy since for the displaced civilians.

Dan Gerous
1st Apr 2018, 11:38
If you point a gun at somebody and tell him to go away or you will shoot him and he doesn't. What do you do?

First rule of guns, never point a gun at anybody unless you intend to use it. Once you point a gun at someone, you've kind of committed yourself.

racedo
1st Apr 2018, 12:15
When media and politicians are bought and paid for, they stayed bought and paid for.

Anybody raising this is quickly labelled as an Anti Semite and a supporter of Terrorism.

ORAC
1st Apr 2018, 12:39
Well, after seeing the rise of Hamas after they pulled out of Gaza, and the continued militarisation of Gaza with Iranian backing, I am willing to give the Israelis the right for self defence.

Particularly considering the prior preparation by Hamas for these preorganised protests.

Why Did Hamas Conduct a Wide-Scale Military Exercise in Gaza? (http://jcpa.org/why-hamas-conduct-a-wide-scale-military-exercise-gaza/)

https://www.newsmax.com/emerson/idf-land-day-tanks/2018/03/28/id/851360/

https://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=e1a00569-c739-4cb7-8167-1d1d7f0475c6&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600

cattletruck
1st Apr 2018, 12:59
ORAC, that prop looks like it's on back to front.

Some of the stories I've heard from former Israeli intelligence officers makes you feel sorry for the innocent on both sides. It really is a stupid war with the meat-heads bringing everyone down to their level.

fitliker
1st Apr 2018, 13:15
They deserve each other.
Spiteful nasty tribes of murderous maniacs .

Highway1
1st Apr 2018, 14:19
Israel knew this demonstration was coming. They knew it was going to attract adverse comment. A couple of weeks before this, a campaign was begun in the UK, branding the Labour party as anti-semitic. The campaign was successful to the extent it is hogging a great deal of news time with all the accusations, denials and counter allegations flying back and forth.



Well done Kelvin - the furore over Corbyns support for antisemtitic murals and his membership of 5 antisemtic facebook groups was all cooked up by the Jews.. :rolleyes:

Highway1
1st Apr 2018, 14:23
Well I've heard some lousy excuses for stealing land, but that one just about wins the Easter egg. Well done! :mad:
People retreat from every war zone. They are called refugees.

The Arabs were told to leave the area by their leaders so they didnt get in the way of the Arab armies destruction of Israel - of course that didnt go exactly to plan...

llondel
1st Apr 2018, 17:37
I'm afraid I saw the thread title and assumed 773 was an aircraft until I clicked on the link.

RatherBeFlying
1st Apr 2018, 17:38
If your house is invaded and the police do not evict the invaders, self defense entitles you to use whatever means at hand to evict them yourself.

Back in '67 I welcomed Israel's takeover of Gaza and the WB/Yesha in the now proven naïve expectation that a democratic state would institute peace, order and good government that would pave the way to a peaceful accommodation between the two peoples.

Instead we got slow motion ethnic cleansing abetted by underhanded bureaucratic léger de main and an Apartheid state as stated by a former US president.


Genetically the Palestinians have closer DNA to the biblical population than the later arrivals. They are Arabs no more than indigenous Central and South Americans are Latinos.

Pontius Navigator
2nd Apr 2018, 09:21
Like this kid with tyre who got shot in the head whilst running away from the fence. That’s cold blooded murder.]

Do we know he was shot in the head? Do we know he was killed?

Early in the clip we see a puff of sand to the left of screen near the first runner. We see him stumble, fall and recover. We see the person shot fall and roll. He didn't appear to have suffered an immediately lethal head shot.

Either way, your cold blooded murder is supposition.

KelvinD
2nd Apr 2018, 09:38
Opening fire with rifles on unarmed people is cold blooded murder, regardless of who fell or rolled. And don't fall for that "rubber bullets" toffee the IDF is putting out. There are other photos etc on the web showing holes in people's bodies, legs etc with copious amounts of blood. Rubber bullets don't do that.

ORAC
2nd Apr 2018, 09:44
All the outrage against Israel when less people have been killed and injured that’s by one bomb dropped by the Turks against the Kurds; or Assad against his own people; or a market car bomb in Iraq; or by one side against the other funded by either the Saudis or Iran in Yemen; or by the Egyptian army under Sisi in Sinai; or the 509 executed by the state in Iran in 2017; or by the continuing torture and murder of their opponents by Hamas?

I wonder what it is that makes some pick out the only democracy in the region, surrounded by dictatorships United in their avowed wish for its destruction, for criticism for defending itself whilst ignoring the behaviour of those wh9 surround and attack it?

Just asking.

meadowrun
2nd Apr 2018, 09:56
Israel's the only success story in the entire region and generally doesn't go around picking fights.
Worth defending against attacks.
What we are seeing is an attack. It's planned to go on for a month or so.

Gault
2nd Apr 2018, 10:02
If you point a gun at somebody and tell him to go away or you will shoot him and he doesn't. What do you do?


Your statement implies the very act of giving a warning validates a killing.
You are lucky to live in a country where if that happens there is a recourse, the palistinians have no recourse except to protest, they are not protected by law, be thankfull that you are.

Stan Woolley
2nd Apr 2018, 10:09
Opening fire with rifles on unarmed people is cold blooded murder, regardless of who fell or rolled. And don't fall for that "rubber bullets" toffee the IDF is putting out. There are other photos etc on the web showing holes in people's bodies, legs etc with copious amounts of blood. Rubber bullets don't do that.

I guess this is why people don’t want to ‘discuss’ this type of incident on Pprune.
There’s little point when you are dealing with closed minds.

While the IDF continue to spout their lies, they and their supporters are slowly but surely starting to starve themselves of credibility, as the social media shows people the truth.

ORAC
2nd Apr 2018, 11:33
ThT would largely depend on the social media you read - it might feature widely, for example, on the Facebook sites frequently by Jeremy (before he shut his personal Facebook profile in toto yesterday - now relying on his PR company managed Labour Party profile).

It’s called the echo chamber effect....

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Apr 2018, 11:42
the Facebook sites frequently by Jeremy (before he shut his personal Facebook profile in toto yesterday
Curious tactic that ... one the one hand it won't succeed in hiding his anti-Semitism, because people have got plenty of screenshots, but on the other hand people can now make up fake screenshots, and he can't disprove them by reference to the actual account, because it no longer exists!

I think that could best be described as a "lose-lose" tactic. Clever, eh.

Toadstool
2nd Apr 2018, 12:32
Makes Bloody Sunday look like a picnic.

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Apr 2018, 13:07
Makes Bloody Sunday look like a picnic.
And how many hand grenades have been thrown into Israeli cinemas recently? Or Israeli school buses machine-gunned? Or Israeli airliners hijacked? If the answer is "none" for the last several years now you do have to stop and think whether this is at least partly due to the security measures actually working.

BlankBox
2nd Apr 2018, 14:02
They deserve each other.
Spiteful nasty tribes of murderous maniacs .

...1000 years of this $hit kinda proves you're right...:p

scr1
2nd Apr 2018, 16:27
If we had a land border with a hostile group of people separated by a fence and 10,000's of people egged on by their leaders were trying to storm that fence demanding the right to enter and do what they want. I wonder what the calls on here would be for the government to do????

let them in or stop them with force if the police/defence forces throught necessary

Jack D
2nd Apr 2018, 16:33
16000 illegal migrants and or refugees will be sent to Canada, Germany & other EU countries. 16000 will remain in Israel pending status investigations .. curious that there are no migrants to all the other middle eastern or African countries, only escapees .. I wonder why the only democracy in the region is so popular ? .

flyhardmo
2nd Apr 2018, 17:14
Pontius

This article published in the Washington Post says he died. There is a mention of someone else getting shot in the head and I mixed the two up so for that I apologise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-threatens-to-expand-response-if-gaza-violence-continues/2018/03/31/aab4d494-3464-11e8-b6bd-0084a1666987_story.html?utm_term=.81be812d6fa0

Pontius Navigator
2nd Apr 2018, 19:36
Pontius

This article published in the Washington Post says he died. There is a mention of someone else getting shot in the head and I mixed the two up so for that I apologise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-threatens-to-expand-response-if-gaza-violence-continues/2018/03/31/aab4d494-3464-11e8-b6bd-0084a1666987_story.html?utm_term=.81be812d6fa0
Thank you.

Lonewolf_50
3rd Apr 2018, 16:53
I am so confused. How is being shot, but not being killed, turned into murder?
Opening fire with rifles on unarmed people is cold blooded murder You are using words either (a) with deliberate false intention, or (b) using them with no idea of what words actually mean. Which is it: liar or fool?

Simply opening fire is not, by itself, murder. Yes, some of the people shot at died. They were killed. But I do not read from the report that 773 people died from this shooting. The article suggests that 15 were in fact killed.
At least 15 killed when Israeli soldiers open fire during mass demonstrations in Gaza Whomever gave the "weapons free" order needs to account for/answer for that.

Whether that killing is murder (which is unlawful killing) or something else is a separate topic; we already note in the utterances in this thread that the topic itself has been contaminated by political Points of View and prejudices (not to mention the kind of hyperbole that your post is a fine example of).

From my PoV many thousands of miles from the scene:

If they wanted to disperse the crowd, why not use the tried and true tear gas method? It tends to be effective.

KelvinD
3rd Apr 2018, 18:07
Lonewolf 50: Shot, but not killed? The person referred to in these posts as having been shot in the head is dead. The BBC had a correspondent at the home of his family this morning where the family were mourning their loss. We know it was the same person as, prominent in the house was the original of the same photograph that featured widely in the news.
I shall take the opportunity to repeat here my previous post (as did you)
Opening fire with rifles on unarmed people is cold blooded murder
Now, what causes you indigestion with that statement? Your following question is either totally disingenuous or deliberately provocative. Where on earth did you get the idea I suggested 773 people died? In an earlier post I mentioned 16 deaths (as reported by the news here).
Oddly, your last sentence actually makes sense and I could agree with it.

ZeBedie
3rd Apr 2018, 20:39
I saw the title and thought someone had put a few rounds through a 777series300, but the reality is terrible. You'd think it would be within the power of humanity to sort things out for Israel and Palestine. I live in hope.

Lonewolf_50
3rd Apr 2018, 23:42
Now, what causes you indigestion with that statement? Because it is false.

Kelvin: if one bothers to read the lead in article, and then the title of this thread, there's a whole lot of lying going on.
That one person is dead (for sure, and it appears up to 15?) does not make opening fire murder. Killing someone? That may be murder. It may not be murder.

Murder is a subset of killing; the two words are not equivalent, except for someone using hyperbole and over-emotional rhetoric.

I am glad we agree on something: my question is from the perspective of someone who was not there. Not sure why deadly force rather than some other means of crowd control was the chosen action. (One hopes that after the first 48 hours or so an answer to that inquiry may be sifted from the various noise being made out of this incident).

meadowrun
4th Apr 2018, 00:50
You'd think it would be within the power of humanity to sort things out for Israel and Palestine.


Not when the best you can send in is a Jared.

KelvinD
4th Apr 2018, 07:43
Lonewolf: As has been discussed elsewhere, the only time a soldier raises and points his weapon at anyone is when they intend to kill them. Generally, when the weapon is raised and pointed, a loud bang follows and someone falls down. There can be no alternative. Therefore, opening fire on unarmed people is premeditated murder.
The answer to the question of the use of lethal, rather than non-lethal use of force is quite simple: it's what they do!
It is all academic though as there will never be an inquiry into events (at least in Israel). The only country in the world that tries to blame and try in a court for a soldier doing his job is the UK.

Pontius Navigator
4th Apr 2018, 07:49
We know it was the same person as, prominent in the house was the original of the same photograph that featured widely in the news.
No we don't. We know the original of the same photograph is displayed in the house.

Or did you mean a photograph of the same person when alive?

I thought there was some confusion between the one who fell in the video and the one shot in the head.

747 jock
4th Apr 2018, 08:26
Lonewolf: As has been discussed elsewhere, the only time a soldier raises and points his weapon at anyone is when they intend to kill them.

Unless of course, the intention is to shoot their targets in what is often a non vital area such as their legs.

If the intention was shoot to kill, I would have thought that of the reported 773 shot, a lot more than 15 would now be dead.

KelvinD
4th Apr 2018, 09:13
Pontius: Presumably you are saying the BBC reporter was lying? The photograph that featured in the news was one showing him being shot.
747 jock: Presumably you have not done time in the armed services? In the British Army, even to talk about aiming to hit someone in the legs will get you a thick ear! It is drummed into you as a recruit that the sole purpose of a firearm is to kill people.
And nobody has yet mentioned the first casualty of this incident; a farmer who was quietly driving his tractor around his field and was hit by a tank shell.

747 jock
4th Apr 2018, 09:29
As it wasn't the British army doing the shooting, what relevance does it have what they are told to do?

You didn't comment on my other point.
Do you really think it feasible that a well trained professional army armed with modern weapons would only manage to kill less than 2% of their targets if killing them was their intention?

Sallyann1234
4th Apr 2018, 09:36
I don't think anyone is denying that soldiers were shooting live ammunition at unarmed protesters. Some of whom were actually retreating and no threat to the soldiers.

Arguments about how many of their targets were hit in the head or legs, and what proportion of them were actually killed, is beside the point.

There were other non-lethal methods of controlling the protestors, if the soldiers wished to employ them.

Toadstool
4th Apr 2018, 10:39
Unless of course, the intention is to shoot their targets in what is often a non vital area such as their legs.

If the intention was shoot to kill, I would have thought that of the reported 773 shot, a lot more than 15 would now be dead.

Rubbish. Have you been to a shooting range, or been in the military? The military are taught centre of mass. At no time ever, including in NI, have I heard soldiers (not SF)being instructed to shoot anywhere else. IMHO This was a free fire order to use lethal weapons against rioting civilians. Think Kent State. Think Bloody Sunday. Would that be acceptable now?

This demonstration was known about in advance. As others have stated, with much more experience, non lethal methods could have been used.

Toadstool
4th Apr 2018, 10:48
As it wasn't the British army doing the shooting, what relevance does it have what they are told to do?

You didn't comment on my other point.
Do you really think it feasible that a well trained professional army armed with modern weapons would only manage to kill less than 2% of their targets if killing them was their intention?

As I've said. Well trained professional soldiers are taught to shoot at centre of mass. The exception are SF. 67 rounds were used at Kent State with only 4 fatalities. Not every round in a firefight kills.

747 jock
4th Apr 2018, 11:10
As I've said. Well trained professional soldiers are taught to shoot at centre of mass. The exception are SF. 67 rounds were used at Kent State with only 4 fatalities. Not every round in a firefight kills.
Fair enough but less than 2% of those hit were killed.
Considering the reports stated that the protesters weren't shooting back, why is this figure so low if the intention was to kill?

Toadstool
4th Apr 2018, 11:33
Fair enough but less than 2% of those hit were killed.
Considering the reports stated that the protesters weren't shooting back, why is this figure so low if the intention was to kill?

Their orders were to use lethal weapons against rioting civilians who, as you've stated, weren't firing back.

You've also stated that they were professional trained soldiers and I've told you, with the benefit of experience, that professional soldiers are taught to fire at the centre of mass.

Even a cursory glance at the thousands of clips on you tube, or contact reports will show you that professional soldiers don't hit their targets with every shot, never mind kill with every shot.

Why do you think casualty figures show WIA in addition to KIA.

Again, not every shot hits the target. Out of those shots that do hit the target, not every shot kills. Even from professionally trained soldiers.

Factor in moving targets, soldiers firing long barrelled weapons whilst standing rather than from the prone position, adrenalin, conditions, wind etc, other than being there and watching every single shot fired that day, I don't know why more weren't killed. 773 were injured. They would be part of the WIA figures.

As Per said below, perhaps these professionally trained soldiers were squeamish about trying to kill unarmed civilians. Especially when you consider that some of them would have been running away.

I'm not sure what their ROE was, but you can bet that some Nations'ROE prohibits the intentional targeting of people who no longer present a threat. Never mind the fact they were unarmed civilians.

Ancient Mariner
4th Apr 2018, 11:36
Fair enough but less than 2% of those hit were killed.
Considering the reports stated that the protesters weren't shooting back, why is this figure so low if the intention was to kill?

Maybe not every soldier liked the idea of killing unarmed people?
Per

Checkboard
4th Apr 2018, 13:21
If you are arming yourself with rocks and burning tyres - running up to a fence to throw them, and then running back to re-arm ... are you "no longer a threat" becuase you are running back to the group?

Toadstool
4th Apr 2018, 13:41
If you are arming yourself with rocks and burning tyres - running up to a fence to throw them, and then running back to re-arm ... are you "no longer a threat" becuase you are running back to the group?

Not much of a threat in comparison to lethal weapons.

Does the Israeli Defence Force use ESP now? Mind reading techniques? Perhaps their capacity was saturated by their lax ROE?

Who knows. Anyway, they're only Palestinians and judging by the replies on here, would reasonably expect to be met with lethal force. Not in my back yard.

Lonewolf_50
4th Apr 2018, 13:44
This demonstration was known about in advance. As others have stated, with much more experience, non lethal methods could have been used. This is the part where I had asked my question up thread a bit: why did the IDF chain of command not use these means, which they have used with some frequency in the past for various problems or incidents similar to this? What, about this particular incident, got the leadership into the point where "we need to use lethal force to deal with this" was the solution?

Sallyann1234
4th Apr 2018, 13:59
Tear gas and firehoses will only send them away, and they will just come back another day.
Shooting them is a more final solution.

KelvinD
4th Apr 2018, 14:37
Shooting them is a more final solution
Bit of an iffy phrase to use there! (Unless intended to be ironic)

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Apr 2018, 17:55
Not much of a threat in comparison to lethal weapons.
You have some magic means of knowing for sure that the next tyre coming at you isn't the one with the hand grenade in it, do you? Aren't you lucky ... but someone else may not be.

Sallyann1234
4th Apr 2018, 18:11
Bit of an iffy phrase to use there! (Unless intended to be ironic)
I thought it was appropriate.

Toadstool
4th Apr 2018, 19:20
You have some magic means of knowing for sure that the next tyre coming at you isn't the one with the hand grenade in it, do you? Aren't you lucky ... but someone else may not be.

Nope, I sure don't. In this instance there were no hand grenades. Disproportionate use of force they call it.

In a riot or a disturbance, nobody knows what's coming back. Are you suggesting that all demonstrations and riots are met with the use of lethal weapons? Just in case?

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Apr 2018, 19:31
In a riot or a disturbance, nobody knows what's coming back. Are you suggesting that all demonstrations and riots are met with the use of lethal weapons? Just in case?
Of course not. The history and threat needs to be taken into consideration - on the one hand I have taken part in demonstrations which were met by no force at all from the police, because none was necessary, and on the other hand the Palestinians have form when it comes to hiding deadly force amongst a crowd of apparently "peaceful" rioters.

You only have to hide snipers or hand grenades in crowds of schoolchildren once or twice in order to persuade the other side that the only safe approach is to shoot first when they see a crowd of schoolchildren. That way you can get sympathy from the world outside by sending your schoolchildren out to be killed without even bothering to deploy the snipers and hand grenades.

Pontius Navigator
4th Apr 2018, 19:45
Kevin, I was challenging the nature of your post, not questioning the veracity of the BBC reporter. BTW I haven't seen a BBC report.

Toadstool
4th Apr 2018, 20:09
Of course not. The history and threat needs to be taken into consideration - on the one hand I have taken part in demonstrations which were met by no force at all from the police, because none was necessary, and on the other hand the Palestinians have form when it comes to hiding deadly force amongst a crowd of apparently "peaceful" rioters.

You only have to hide snipers or hand grenades in crowds of schoolchildren once or twice in order to persuade the other side that the only safe approach is to shoot first when they see a crowd of schoolchildren. That way you can get sympathy from the world outside by sending your schoolchildren out to be killed without even bothering to deploy the snipers and hand grenades.

Got it. Palestinian schoolchildren need to be shot and killed. Just in case.

Pontius Navigator
4th Apr 2018, 22:09
Toadstool, that, sadly, is a safe option.

While it is true that most school children are just that, children and innocent, there are many examples of gun toting children.

Curious Pax
4th Apr 2018, 22:27
Toadstool, that, sadly, is a safe option.

While it is true that most school children are just that, children and innocent, there are many examples of gun toting children.

It’s perhaps fortunate that in the main the US forces don’t take that view otherwise their schools would be half empty!

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Apr 2018, 22:34
It’s perhaps fortunate that in the main the US forces don’t take that view
Well, not if the children are white, anyway.

parabellum
5th Apr 2018, 02:45
I don't call a youth, with a sling and a 1lb rock 'unarmed'. If a rock propelled by the sling hits a person in the head that person is most likely going to be killed. These youth practice frequently with their slings and can achieve great accuracy. Turning back to fetch another rock does not constitute 'going away' any more than a soldier taking time out to change magazines does.
The IDF have seen so called 'demonstrations' degenerate into riots with tyre burning before. If 773 shots or more were fired and sixteen rioters were killed it sounds as though the ringleaders were identified and shot by snipers, much as the IDF said happened on the day.

G-CPTN
5th Apr 2018, 06:56
I don't call a youth, with a sling and a 1lb rock 'unarmed'. If a rock propelled by the sling hits a person in the head that person is most likely going to be killed. These youth practice frequently with their slings and can achieve great accuracy.

Wasn't David a Jew (http://landofthebible.com/flights/David_Goliath/index.htm)?

KelvinD
5th Apr 2018, 07:02
He was indeed a Jew. And the Arabic term for Palestine sounds like "Philisteen"

Toadstool
5th Apr 2018, 11:05
Toadstool, that, sadly, is a safe option.

While it is true that most school children are just that, children and innocent, there are many examples of gun toting children.

It may be safe, but is it legal. I would suggest that certain parts of your training in your previous profession made that abundantly clear. That is, unless things have changed massively. ISTR the Geneva Convention or Protocols haven't changed much.

Proportionality and Distinction apply on ALL sides but, even when not adhered to by one, must be adhered to by the other.

You can't decide to not use them because children or adults are throwing rocks. Unless of course one thinks that we should scrap the Geneva Convention in which case crack on all despots while
we pay no heed.

If we allow countries, who are signatories to these conventions to break them then we may as well scrap them.

In which case, Saddam should be posthumously pardoned. All war criminals should be pardoned. Mladic, Karadic, etc. All or nothing. Adhere or scrap.

Lonewolf_50
5th Apr 2018, 13:19
All or nothing. Adhere or scrap

A false dichotomy is called false for good reason.

Toadstool
5th Apr 2018, 14:53
A false dichotomy is called false for good reason.

Of course there are alternatives. I understand you were an Officer in the US military. Under what circumstances if any were you permitted to disregard the Geneva Convention?

Should any Nation be permitted to do so?

Is Gaza different or do your republican leanings lend themselves to support Israel's actions whatever they may be?

Stan Woolley
5th Apr 2018, 15:55
This is just so wrong

I think this is a more appropriate title for this thread.

Lonewolf_50
6th Apr 2018, 02:15
Is Gaza different or do your republican leanings lend themselves to support Israel's actions whatever they may be? If you are going to be 1) rude and 2) false I am not obliged to respond to you. Your assertion and assumption on the italicized bit is offensive. It is because I understand RoE and the problems of crowd control by armed force that I have asked the questions that I have in this thread.

This event wasn't a matter of a few privates shooting at someone. Someone up the chain made the call on deadly force. Why?

I don't know, unlike some of you :mad:s in this thread who assume you can read minds from a few hundred or a few thousand miles away. Park you bias and your emotion, and try to look at this objectively.

What drove that call? I'd like to know, particularly when the IDF has well demonstrated over the years facility with non lethal means.

tartare
6th Apr 2018, 02:21
...and here I was thinking this thread was going to be about someone from Hamas putting a hole in an airliner...

Toadstool
6th Apr 2018, 08:23
If you are going to be 1) rude and 2) false I am not obliged to respond to you. Your assertion and assumption on the italicized bit is offensive. It is because I understand RoE and the problems of crowd control by armed force that I have asked the questions that I have in this thread.

This event wasn't a matter of a few privates shooting at someone. Someone up the chain made the call on deadly force. Why?

I don't know, unlike some of you :mad:s in this thread who assume you can read minds from a few hundred or a few thousand miles away. Park you bias and your emotion, and try to look at this objectively.

What drove that call? I'd like to know, particularly when the IDF has well demonstrated over the years facility with non lethal means.

Lone Wolf.

You whine about me being rude then go on to be rude about me and others. One can't take the moral high ground when you apply different standards to others than you have for yourself.

You take offence too easily, where none should be taken. Thicker skin required methinks.

Have your political leanings changed? I'm sure that you are a Republican, and the Republican stance on Israel is well known. Perhaps you differ. I will ask you another question which you will no doubt find an excuse to ignore. Do you think that this was justified or was this an excessive use of force?

I have no bias or emotion in this other than my humanity.

Adherence to the Geneva Convention and the Protocols should not be up for discussion. We either do, or we don't. My training on this is quite clear.

There is no bias in questioning whether or not armed soldiers should use deadly force against unarmed civilians.

Your country's ROE differ slightly to mine, but not to the extent whereby this incident would be allowed.

Nice try in attempting to squash my opinion on this by painting me as biased or emotional. On this occasion it doesn't wash. You won't ever find me changing my opinion on this or on any other incident like this anywhere else in the world. Irregardless of who commits such an act.

Lonewolf_50
6th Apr 2018, 16:09
Lone Wolf. Have your political leanings changed? I'm sure that you are a Republican, and the Republican stance on Israel is well known. That makes you wrong. It also makes you really foolish, since you are making some craptasticly bad assumptions about me. Read again my observation about the general inability for anyone to read minds. Your cavalier attitude otherwise displayed also makes you guilty of two more dishonest things:
1) Pigeon holing.
2) Building a straw man to argue against.
Recage your gyro, Toadstool, you have vertigo.

In other news today: 2 killed by Israeli fire, dozens hurt in Gaza border protest (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-latest-gazans-burn-tires-israeli-troops-open-fire/ar-AAvxrHL?ocid=ientp)

Pay attention to how the media are covering this story. They story lead in associates tires burning with gun shots. If you go a bit further in the story, you then get this observation about 7 paragraphs in.
The Israeli military said protesters hurled several explosive devices and firebombs in an attempt to damage the fence under cover of smoke. It said attempts to cross the fence were thwarted. The military said it brought in a huge fan to disperse smoke. Hmm, was the shooting triggered by the explosives and fire bombs being thrown, or the tire fire? There appear to be two sides to this story. So what's going on here? Or dare I ask, what's really going on here?

You appear to be one of the gullible sorts who doesn't read past paragraph two; I base this on your biased input. But come on, man, I think we are of a similar vintage and have been 'round the world a bit, seen a few things. Are you really falling for that style of story telling?


Your blinders-on crapfest towards me (apparently, for not agreeing with you) is not conducive to a productive conversation.
Either recage, or maybe accept that we are about done as we have no further room for a discussion due to your inability to get outside of your little box.


The politics of what's behind this looks pretty interesting.

In all, 24 Palestinians were killed in Gaza over the past week, including 18 protesters, according to Gaza health officials. The six other deaths included three gunmen killed in what Israel said were attempts to attack the border and three men who were struck by Israeli tank fire.
Last week's turnout was apparently driven by the organizational prowess of Hamas as well as the growing desperation of Gaza residents who live in what has been described as the world's largest open-air prison.
The crowd size was seen as a test for Hamas, an Islamic militant group that seized the territory in 2007 from its political rival, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Ahead of Friday's march, Hamas announced it would pay compensation to families of those killed or injured, ranging from $200 to $500 per injury and $3,000 per death.
The idea of mass protests was initially floated by social media activists, but was later co-opted by Hamas, with the backing of smaller militant factions. To whom is life cheap here?

glad rag
6th Apr 2018, 16:28
That makes you wrong. It also makes you really foolish, since you are making some craptasticly bad assumptions about me. Read again my observation about the general inability for anyone to read minds. Your cavalier attitude otherwise displayed also makes you guilty of two more dishonest things:
1) Pigeon holing.
2) Building a straw man to argue against.
Recage your gyro, Toadstool, you have vertigo.

In other news today: 2 killed by Israeli fire, dozens hurt in Gaza border protest (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-latest-gazans-burn-tires-israeli-troops-open-fire/ar-AAvxrHL?ocid=ientp)

Pay attention to how the media are covering this story. They story lead in associates tires burning with gun shots. If you go a bit further in the story, you then get this observation about 7 paragraphs in.
Hmm, was the shooting triggered by the explosives and fire bombs being thrown, or the tire fire? There appear to be two sides to this story. So what's going on here? Or dare I ask, what's really going on here?

You appear to be one of the gullible sorts who doesn't read past paragraph two; I base this on your biased input. But come on, man, I think we are of a similar vintage and have been 'round the world a bit, seen a few things. Are you really falling for that style of story telling?


Your blinders-on crapfest towards me (apparently, for not agreeing with you) is not conducive to a productive conversation.
Either recage, or maybe accept that we are about done as we have no further room for a discussion due to your inability to get outside of your little box.


The politics of what's behind this looks pretty interesting.

To whom is life cheap here?

Well said. :D

meadowrun
7th Apr 2018, 06:36
A life -$3,000 bucks.


"
The Israeli foreign ministry has said most of those killed last week were members of Hamas, which is designated a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and EU.
Hamas has acknowledged that some belonged to its military wing, but said they were protesting "side-by-side with their people".


The group has said it will pay $3,000 (£2,140) to the family of anyone shot dead by Israeli troops at the protests.
Hamas official Mohammed Thuraya denied the group was putting a "price tag" on casualties. "This is our duty to our people, to ease the suffering of our citizens," he told the New York Times."bbc

Hamas -
A thoroughly distasteful, lying organization worthy only of spitting in their general direction.

Stan Woolley
7th Apr 2018, 09:33
A life -$3,000 bucks.


"bbc

Hamas -
A thoroughly distasteful, lying organization worthy only of spitting in their general direction.

Hamas may be messed up, (of course I would have preferred to use the f word) but surely less so than the people that hold the people captive in a huge prison and treat them like less than dirt, killing them off at every possible opportunity. Basically the evil behind the young men in the IDF is a vile Idealism that wants rid of all Palestinians, and if and when that job is done, they will start on the next target. There is no shortage of targets.

This post is not aimed at you, meadowrun, sadly I think you will not be capable of seeing the situation without a gross distortion of the reality. Men and women’s minds are vulnerable to being blinded by hatred, but sooner or later those afflicted must realise that they are only harming themselves. Only harming themselves. It’s a sad situation.

Gertrude the Wombat
7th Apr 2018, 09:47
the people that hold the people captive in a huge prison and treat them like less than dirt, killing them off at every possible opportunity.
Well, to be fair, they want to close the prison - the Arabs have never given up their stated war aim to push the last Jew into the sea.

Sallyann1234
7th Apr 2018, 10:16
Well, to be fair, they want to close the prison - the Arabs have never given up their stated war aim to push the last Jew into the sea.
While the Zionists are busily achieving the opposite.

Gertrude the Wombat
7th Apr 2018, 10:21
While the Zionists are busily achieving the opposite.
Well, the last Jew hasn't been pushed into to sea (yet), so I guess that counts as success (so far). But to keep it that way requires, as ever, eternal vigilance, which is what has been happening recently.

Sallyann1234
7th Apr 2018, 10:57
There is not one whit of difference between the extremists on the two sides. Each wants to occupy totally a land that could with sufficient will, be shared by the two nations. Both sides should be equally condemned for this.

Hamas and its friends are of course totally wrong in wanting to destroy Israel and its people. There can be no question of this and fortunately there is little chance of it happening.

But as to who is currently being pushed 'into the sea', the answer is pretty clear although the well-known map is already out of date.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2010.jpg/1024px-Palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2010.jpg

And then of course there is the Yinon Plan for Greater Israel.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

Unfortunately, anyone trying to show balance in commenting on the situation will always be criticised by each side, as being in support of the other.

So be it.

Stan Woolley
7th Apr 2018, 11:40
There is not one whit of difference between the extremists on the two sides. Each wants to occupy totally a land that could with sufficient will, be shared by the two nations. Both sides should be equally condemned for this.


I think you may be right in one way, but not right when it comes to the big picture. On one side it’s really survival, on the other it’s the single minded promotion of a Zionist idea.(With survival being a overblown propaganda tool, supported by the few real examples of terrorism)

If there are extremists on both sides, ask yourself, what has really led them there? Propagandised fear or real fear.

In my mind there’s little doubt who the true victim is. Although in the really big picture, they’re both victims. And hate only breeds more hate.

Just a spotter
7th Apr 2018, 12:10
Unfortunetly the history of the region is complex and drenched in blood, with deep divisions, while the leaders on both sides often seem resolved to keep that coating fresh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

The "who's who" ...

http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/

JAS

meadowrun
7th Apr 2018, 12:14
I think you will not be capable of seeing the situation without a gross distortion of the reality
I've been following the reality of this part of the middle east, all my life. I observe what has actually happened and all the spoken words that follow, looking for the lies.
My observations indicate that Hamas and like organizations have a standard, rather infantile SOP. They simply respond with the directly opposite argument in any matter raised. And throughout their history that has most commonly been a pack of lies.


Their goals are plainly advertised - always have been - under the lies - the "just blame others - anyone else" mantras. They just want to kill. That is all their "national" effort is focused on - not building a viable state with what they have - just kill all the Israelis while totally supported by aid from other people. no need for a GDP when you live off charity and there is no need for most constructive work. Any accommodation is not possible - any compromise is never on the table. If they say otherwise - understand it's just another lie. Coming up on a century or so of Palestinian lies and subterfuge.


Some folks need to go live under that 75+ year black threat cloud for a little while.

Stan Woolley
7th Apr 2018, 12:41
I've been following the reality of this part of the middle east, all my life. I observe what has actually happened and all the spoken words that follow, looking for the lies.
My observations indicate that Hamas and like organizations have a standard, rather infantile SOP. They simply respond with the directly opposite argument in any matter raised. And throughout their history that has most commonly been a pack of lies.


Their goals are plainly advertised - always have been - under the lies - the "just blame others - anyone else" mantras. They just want to kill. That is all their "national" effort is focused on - not building a viable state with what they have - just kill all the Israelis while totally supported by aid from other people. no need for a GDP when you live off charity and there is no need for most constructive work. Any accommodation is not possible - any compromise is never on the table. If they say otherwise - understand it's just another lie. Coming up on a century or so of Palestinian lies and subterfuge.


Some folks need to go live under that 75+ year black threat cloud for a little while.

There will always be a small percentage on both sides that embrace the dark side meadowrun, and that area is the darkest in the whole world, I think, and that’s really saying something.

But is the average Israeli and Palestinian truly that far apart? If they were to find themselves on a desert island with one of the ‘opposition’, how many would fight to the death vs come to an understanding of the other?

I really don’t know. Maybe I am misjudging things, if so I weep for those involved, in fact anyone who cares probably does that already.

I never end with this, but I will now. Peace be upon you.

Now I’ve blown any credibility I had! Ever mind eh. :ok:

KelvinD
7th Apr 2018, 12:57
Stan: Well said. 2 good posts.
Meadowrun: You seem to be consumed. You say you have followed this all your life, then you refer to "coming up on a century or so of Palestinian lies". I was 1 year old when this all kicked off and I am nowhere near a century!
Have you actually been to the region. I have. I have seen the treatment of Palestinians on the West Bank. I have seen the despondency of the displaced persons in Jordan and Syria.
As for your condemnation of Hamas (not necessarily my favourite people), have you considered, just for a more balanced view, the actions of the Stern gang or Irgun?

meadowrun
7th Apr 2018, 13:23
KelvinD

Sorry. didn't kick off in 1947 - more like 47BC.


and history............Stern Gang and Irgun are part of that. Doesn't do well to dwell on history too much... Hamas and supporters are current events.


Consumed? No. Just observing.
What I see is a seething morass that has no clear or even faintly visible exit sign.
There is considerable, unchanging, history to back that up. I see intractable attackers and a defender.

ORAC
7th Apr 2018, 13:50
Now about those maps Sallyann1234...

The Mendacious Maps of Palestinian ?Loss? - The Tower (http://www.thetower.org/article/the-mendacious-maps-of-palestinian-loss/)

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/israel_and_palestine_0

“Jews, and the Israeli state, have, in fact, seized great quantities of Palestinian land in the territory of Israel/Palestine over the past 60 years. Israelis and Americans must acknowledge this fact to make any progress towards peace, and an accurate accounting of such seizures would be very valuable. But this particular map only confuses and distorts the issue, and seems clearly designed for propaganda purposes.“

Sallyann1234
7th Apr 2018, 14:34
Now about those maps Sallyann1234...

The Mendacious Maps of Palestinian ?Loss? - The Tower (http://www.thetower.org/article/the-mendacious-maps-of-palestinian-loss/)

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/israel_and_palestine_0

“Jews, and the Israeli state, have, in fact, seized great quantities of Palestinian land in the territory of Israel/Palestine over the past 60 years. Israelis and Americans must acknowledge this fact to make any progress towards peace, and an accurate accounting of such seizures would be very valuable. But this particular map only confuses and distorts the issue, and seems clearly designed for propaganda purposes.“

Of course. The maps are certainly not definitive and as I said are out of date anyway. From the press coverage from various sources they do seems to be illustrative of the general situation. Certainly Gaza is as isolated and surrounded as the map shows, or there is a lot of manufactured TV coverage about.

But as the text you quoted shows, there is a genuine issue of land being taken over. In defiance of UN resolutions. Although certain supporters will dismiss that by saying that of course the UN is biased/NFFP etc.

Curious Pax
7th Apr 2018, 15:37
Doesn't do well to dwell on history too much... Hamas and supporters are current events.


To most people it’s all about history. Who lived where, when over the last 5000 years, what the modern boundaries (UN sanctioned or otherwise) were in any given year since 1948.

It’s also about who loses if things settle down. The Israeli government may well do as their principal electoral appeal seems to be military strength, which would be less of an issue were peace to break out. Hamas would lose support as there would no longer be a belief that the Palestinians needed leaders who were prepared to head butt with the Israelis all the time. Defence industries in a number of places, but particularly Israel and the US would lose billions of dollars in custom. The list goes on, but those 3 examples alone give 3 good reasons why change any time soon is unlikely.

meadowrun
7th Apr 2018, 15:53
Yes and too bad.


Morass. Quicksand. Quagmire. Mire. Bog. Sargasso Sea. Clog. Imbroglio.
Comess . (a confused or noisy situation.
"we in dis land is really something else when it comes to talking; it is constantly from one comess to the next").
All within an old 1950's London fog.

Gertrude the Wombat
7th Apr 2018, 16:24
Some folks need to go live under that 75+ year black threat cloud for a little while.
I did so for a month, in 1973 (a few weeks before the Yom Kippur war).

The kibbutz I stayed on for a few days, in Galilee, had a trench and shelter system, so that when the shelling started you had a fair chance of being able to take cover from anywhere you were working in the fields.

And the trenches had six years' growth of weeds in them, because they hadn't been needed since the Arab guns had been removed from the Golan in the 1967 war. Which meant that a farmer could go out into the fields in the morning without his/her family routinely, all day every day, having to worry about whether they'd see them alive again.

parabellum
8th Apr 2018, 08:14
But as the text you quoted shows, there is a genuine issue of land being taken over.
Trouble is,you see, Palestinians are very rarely able to show deeds for the land they claim as theirs, in large part they have been long term squatters and share farmers. There are, scattered around the world some very rich Palestinians who did own land, from which they derived little or no income, so they sold it, with the deeds to the Israelis. Of course you won't find much support for those facts within the MSM today. If it is anything other than Palestinians victim and good v. Israeli Oppressor and bad the MSM don't want to know.

ORAC
8th Apr 2018, 08:42
Meanwhile in Syria over 70 die in one chemical attack using when Assad used a barrel bomb in Douma against his own people. First reports suggest Sarin.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaNXGdZWkAEAW7f.jpg

Toadstool
8th Apr 2018, 09:52
Meanwhile in Syria over 70 die in one chemical attack using when Assad used a barrel bomb in Douma against his own people. First reports suggest Sarin.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaNXGdZWkAEAW7f.jpg

I expect a massive strike against the base from where the helicopter came. Shayrat suffered an extensive Cruise missile attack after an earlier chemical attack.

Sallyann1234
8th Apr 2018, 10:06
Trouble is,you see, Palestinians are very rarely able to show deeds for the land they claim as theirs, in large part they have been long term squatters and share farmers.
Oh I do see, I see very well.

They have no deeds because they have never had need of them and there was probably no administration to whom they could apply or bribe for them. Their only evidence of ownership was the fact that they had lived there for more generations than they can remember, and that was always quite sufficient until the armed Israeli settlers arrived to turn them off.

So off they trek to Gaza, where they become fodder for the Hamas gang who promise them their land back if they will only dig tunnels or throw themselves against the Wall.

Plenty of examples of the same displacement of settled peoples happening around the world. I'm sure you can think of some not too far from home.

meadowrun
8th Apr 2018, 10:45
There is a difference.
Palestinian refugees are running into the third/fourth generations now. It's become a career funded by massive aid that does not get used to alleviate their lot. Like it or not "they" are Hamas and the like. Hamas would not exist without their very wide support. That means support for all its stated and unstated goals.
Hamas is still considered a "terrorist entity" is it not? Youtube Hamas children's programs sometime.

Highway1
8th Apr 2018, 13:37
Their only evidence of ownership was the fact that they had lived there for more generations than they can remember, and that was always quite sufficient until the armed Israeli settlers arrived to turn them off.


They may have lived there for generations but that doesn't mean they own the land. The UK had no shortage of sharecropping farmers up until the 19th century who had lived and worked the land for generations - they didn't own one square inch of it though.

Sallyann1234
8th Apr 2018, 15:03
They may have lived there for generations but that doesn't mean they own the land. The UK had no shortage of sharecropping farmers up until the 19th century who had lived and worked the land for generations - they didn't own one square inch of it though.
Of course - the same problem in both cases. There was no way for them to register ownership, and no concept of 'adverse possession' that allowed them to gain it however long they had lived there. So always vulnerable to someone bigger and stronger who could come along and claim that they really owned it.
Might is right.

Highway1
8th Apr 2018, 15:11
Of course - the same problem in both cases. There was no way for them to register ownership, and no concept of 'adverse possession' that allowed them to gain it however long they had lived there. So always vulnerable to someone bigger and stronger who could come along and claim that they really owned it.
Might is right.

Well most of the land in Palestine was owned by the Ottoman Turks until the British with assistance from the Arabs turfed them out. So did those Arabs have any claim on that land?

Might is right and all that...

Gertrude the Wombat
8th Apr 2018, 15:21
So did those Arabs have any claim on that land?
Yes, they claim all the land, and have promised to throw the last Jew into the sea, which is what a series of wars was about. This war aim hasn't been achieved yet, and hasn't been withdrawn, so is still policy.

Hempy
8th Apr 2018, 18:01
I don’t really care much for the ‘big picture’ side of the equation, it reminds me of how Soviet generals in WW2 would ask subordinate commanders how many ‘pencils’ were broken in the latest attack. It’s just another way of turning a blind eye to the human cost.

Now after spending 16 years reading the offerings and gaining an insight into the inner workings of a lot of our regular PPRuNeRs, I think it’s safe to say that, in the main, compassion and empathy aren’t their strong suite. Too huggy fluffy and all that. I’m not going to argue about which side in this conflict holds the moral and ethical ascendency, mainly because they’re both as bad as each other.

What I will say, though, is that if I lived a house passed down to me that had for centuries been home to a hundred generations of my family, until the day a group of armed men in uniforms broke down my front door, forcibly dragged me and my family into the backs of trucks and drove us away, leaving us possessionless and homeless and stateless, well, I reckon I’d be PRETTY PISSED OFF.

So, while I don’t agree with a lot of what Hamas or the PLO or any of the other terrorist/freedom fighting organisations have done, I don’t blame them at all for doing something. The Israelis sowed it, watered it, fertilised it, tended to it, and then blamed the seed for growing.

p.s If expressing anti-Israeli sentiment (more accurately ‘non- pro-Israeli’ sentiment) on here leads to me being labeled anti semitic, well that simply tells me that if you’re trying to shame me it’s purely because you don’t have a single logical counter to what I’m saying.

scr1
8th Apr 2018, 18:23
No as a supporter of Israel criticizing Israel is not anti semitic when people say the Jews/Zionist then they are. It is a fine line to tread. Not all Israelis are jews. On the subject of the people who want to return most (not all some were forced out) left of their own free will after encouragement from their leaders to give their armies space to drive the jews out. How about the 800,000 Jews driven out of other countries in the middle east after the creation of Israel?. Some of the settlements in Judea and Samaria were Jewish before the war of independence but they were expelled by the Arab armies. How about the Jewish quarter in the old city or the western wall?

sorry if a bit of a ramble had a few drams while watching the F1

Hempy
8th Apr 2018, 19:30
No as a supporter of Israel criticizing Israel is not anti semitic when people say the Jews/Zionist then they are. It is a fine line to tread. Not all Israelis are jews. On the subject of the people who want to return most (not all some were forced out) left of their own free will after encouragement from their leaders to give their armies space to drive the jews out. How about the 800,000 Jews driven out of other countries in the middle east after the creation of Israel?. Some of the settlements in Judea and Samaria were Jewish before the war of independence but they were expelled by the Arab armies. How about the Jewish quarter in the old city or the western wall?

sorry if a bit of a ramble had a few drams while watching the F1

Like I said, I’m not interested in whether it was ‘most’ or ‘some’, or historical ‘how about’ whataboutery. What’s done is done, and nothing can change it no matter how hard one side tries to justify their actions against the other.

That being the case, in 2018 there are only two logical solutions to the ending the Palestinian problem in Israel; either the Israelis stop taking and start giving some back, or they find a more ‘final’ solution to the Palestinian problem. The Israelis wont tolerate even a suggestion of the former, and the rest of the world won’t tolerate the latter. So it will all just go on.

Gertrude the Wombat
8th Apr 2018, 21:10
But how many times has Israel offered a peace deal only for the PLO say NO. How many times has the PLO offered a peace deal that Israel has said no.
Israel has concluded peace deals where there are willing partners.

parabellum
9th Apr 2018, 04:26
There was no way for them to register ownership,

Where that the case, which it isn't, there would have been no way for the rich Palestinians to have sold their land, with deeds, to the Israelis.

Sallyann1234
9th Apr 2018, 09:47
Where that the case, which it isn't, there would have been no way for the rich Palestinians to have sold their land, with deeds, to the Israelis.
What was the land registry system for 1950s Palestine? Did it extend to remote illiterate farmers?

Of course, if they were just ignorant Arab peasants they would not have been worth consideration. :ugh:

Doubless the rich educated class will have had ways to obtain suitable documentation.

Sallyann1234
9th Apr 2018, 09:55
That being the case, in 2018 there are only two logical solutions to the ending the Palestinian problem in Israel; either the Israelis stop taking and start giving some back, or they find a more ‘final’ solution to the Palestinian problem. The Israelis wont tolerate even a suggestion of the former, and the rest of the world won’t tolerate the latter. So it will all just go on.
Quite correct. Those are indeed the only two viable solutions. And the second one is well on the way.

The 'rest of the world' is not allowed to interfere in any meaningful way for fear of being condemned as anti-semitic. So it salves its conscience by sending money to Gaza which of course is promptly seized by the controlling Hamas.

Highway1
9th Apr 2018, 13:04
That being the case, in 2018 there are only two logical solutions to the ending the Palestinian problem in Israel; either the Israelis stop taking and start giving some back, or they find a more ‘final’ solution to the Palestinian problem. The Israelis wont tolerate even a suggestion of the former, and the rest of the world won’t tolerate the latter. So it will all just go on.

Israel has talked and has given up land for peace - unfortunately the Palestinian leadership are still demanding the total destruction of Israel.

Gault
9th Apr 2018, 20:48
"Israel has talked and has given up land for peace"

Some sort of alternative reality?, your name isn't Benthere is it?

Highway1
9th Apr 2018, 23:19
No - not an alternative reality at all..

https://image.ibb.co/bHEk4x/Israeli_land_concessions.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

parabellum
9th Apr 2018, 23:35
More than once, but at the Camp David talks specifically, the Palestinians were offered over 90% of their demands but every time Yasser Arafat refused the offer.

Sallyann1234
10th Apr 2018, 10:15
"Israel has talked and has given up land for peace"

Some sort of alternative reality?, your name isn't Benthere is it?
Gault, you asked for that one I'm afraid. Israel held a lot of land for a while after the 1967 six-day war.
It is to be hoped that the surrounding countries learned the lesson.

Hempy
10th Apr 2018, 10:39
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg/1200px-UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg

Gertrude the Wombat
10th Apr 2018, 12:29
but every time Yasser Arafat refused the offer.
And he was, as it turned out, one of the more reasonable ones ...

Sallyann1234
10th Apr 2018, 15:58
Back to the original subject of the thread...

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=91MeT_1523296931

parabellum
12th Apr 2018, 03:05
So always vulnerable to someone bigger and stronger who could come along and claim that they really owned it.
Might is right.

Think you had better go back and review the respective size of the combatants in 1967. Israel, 2.75 million totally surrounded by tens of millions of hostile Arabs and attacked by the national armies of countries like Egypt, Syria and Jordan, all backed by various terrorist organisations. Then and since then Right has shown itself to be infinitely superior to Might.