Good answer. None of us can understand the desperation least of all @Fearless
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Really? It is good to hear justification of killing teens and children by "why were they there"? It is good to hear "what do you want them to do, throw rocks back"? It is good to hear such an approach and mindset of killing people? They are talking about the Palestinians as some sub human pests and you think it is good to hear this.
We're not going to have threads where everyone always agrees with one another. If the content of a thread offends you or anyone else then use the ignore feature or the new "ignore thread" feature.
I wasnt specifically talking about children, but the protestors as a group. You seem to acknowledge that there was dense smoke therefore the snipers couldnt be sure of who they were firing at but you seem to think its ok to go ahead and fire anyway when they could not have been sure of their targets. Strange.
And as the poster above mentioned I also wouldnt bring my child to something like this but I also dont live in what is essentially a human pig pen. Maybe you need to reflect on the other side of things.
There is a reason people are asking for him to banned and not the other posters, its not just about disagreeing.
So in that case why ban anyone? Like I said if he was propagandising an agenda you did not agree with, he would have already been banned ages ago.
I am not offended by it but please. So if I go on about how the Orlando killer perceived things to shoot all those people in the night club, defending him, would I also be given a the same treatment of “guys just ignore him if you’re offended but he has a right to his opinion”?
Again I don’t care about banning someone or not. A ban won’t help with the delusion but the hypocrisy here really stands out in my view
That's why we have the report, ignore and now the ignore thread features - you can tune out any content that's annoying or objectionable and still use the rest of the site, while allowing others who don't find it annoying or objectionable to continue to participate.
You are missing my point. Would you have the same replies if I justified the Orlando night club killings?
Making some false equivalence between defending the random violence of a murderer to an entire country is absurd. You just want to shut down conversation because you don't like another side of the debate.
Somewhat hard to compare as I'm not sure if I see the connection between the two.
So you are justifying it. Btw, Hamas just stopped ISRAELI humanitarian supplies entering Gaza.
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-...eli-humanitarian-aid-destined-for-Gaza-556565
Seeing as that post was quoting mine I'll answer. No I'm not condoning it. I'm saying that I don't understand it because I haven't lived the life they have. I stated quite clearly that I wouldn't go let alone bring my child.
Its pointless discussing this with you as I can see by browsing back through the thread.
You seem to have a flippant disregard for the sanctity of human life. The rights and the wrongs dont really matter at the end of the day. Why they were there, whos fault it was they were there, none of that really matters at the end of everything.
You do realise Children have died - CHILDREN. And you disgustingly describe their deaths as "unlucky".
No wonder that part of the world is in the mess it is in. Go and take a good hard look at yourself rather than trying to point score on every single comment on here with some sick twisted logic.
Debating the justification of civilian children and teenagers dying is not a debate I will allow my moral code to take part in.
If you refuse to condemn Hamas's human shield policy then I'm afraid your moral code means nothing to me. But don't worry, you've plenty here who equally don't give a toss.
This article, written before Monday, seems to do a good job at thrashing out the questions surrounding the legal measures available to Israel in attempting to prevent breaches of the fence:
Is Israel Justified In Shooting Protestors On Gaza Border?
https://forward.com/opinion/398307/is-israel-justified-in-shooting-protestors-on-gaza-border/
This is the crucial bit for me:
On the other hand, I wonder if official membership of a hostile movement such as Hamas or PIJ would alter the reasoning in any way, given that they explicitly exist in a state of war with Israel? In that case, could their actions be deemed part of a military operation, but not their fellow unaffiliated protesters who may be carrying out identical actions?
Is Israel Justified In Shooting Protestors On Gaza Border?
https://forward.com/opinion/398307/is-israel-justified-in-shooting-protestors-on-gaza-border/
This is the crucial bit for me:
"even if the marchers are civilians taking a direct part in hostilities, the 2009 guidance document insists that targeting them with lethal force would be unlawful if other, less harmful means of neutralizing them are available. What this means is that Israel may only use live ammunition against protestors approaching the fence if it can demonstrate that the marchers cannot be stopped from crossing the border fence through any less-lethal crowd control measures.
Having failed to meet these conditions and show the “Great Return March” is part of a military operation, Israel should rather respond to the marchers with law enforcement measures, which are not governed by the laws of international humanitarian law (the laws of war), but rather by the laws of international human rights.
Under the law enforcement paradigm, the default manner of responding to violent riots, including riots in border areas, should involve methods of crowd control (such as tear gas, water cannons or rubber bullets) and not live ammunition. Only when the rioters present an imminent risk to life of limb can lethal force be resorted to, and even then, only if no less harmful means for neutralizing the risk is available. Note however that under this paradigm, Israel is entitled to take a variety of law enforcement measures, including detention, and multiple non-lethal alternatives, to protect its legitimate security interests, including the protection of the integrity of its borders.
Lethal force can be used against civilians participating in marches only as a matter of last resort and only against armed militants posing a threat to Israeli soldiers or civilians. The images that emerged over the past week and a half showing Israeli snipers targeting unarmed individuals retreating from the border fence back towards Gaza with lethal force, suggest, absent further explanation, an unlawful use of force."
It seems unlikely to me that, even putting aside the cases where protesters were shot while back from the fence, Israel can plausibly show that lethal measures were the only means available to them to prevent breaches of the fence, except perhaps in cases where explosives were being planted or where protesters were armed and preparing an attack on soldiers (which would remove them from the question anyway).Having failed to meet these conditions and show the “Great Return March” is part of a military operation, Israel should rather respond to the marchers with law enforcement measures, which are not governed by the laws of international humanitarian law (the laws of war), but rather by the laws of international human rights.
Under the law enforcement paradigm, the default manner of responding to violent riots, including riots in border areas, should involve methods of crowd control (such as tear gas, water cannons or rubber bullets) and not live ammunition. Only when the rioters present an imminent risk to life of limb can lethal force be resorted to, and even then, only if no less harmful means for neutralizing the risk is available. Note however that under this paradigm, Israel is entitled to take a variety of law enforcement measures, including detention, and multiple non-lethal alternatives, to protect its legitimate security interests, including the protection of the integrity of its borders.
Lethal force can be used against civilians participating in marches only as a matter of last resort and only against armed militants posing a threat to Israeli soldiers or civilians. The images that emerged over the past week and a half showing Israeli snipers targeting unarmed individuals retreating from the border fence back towards Gaza with lethal force, suggest, absent further explanation, an unlawful use of force."
On the other hand, I wonder if official membership of a hostile movement such as Hamas or PIJ would alter the reasoning in any way, given that they explicitly exist in a state of war with Israel? In that case, could their actions be deemed part of a military operation, but not their fellow unaffiliated protesters who may be carrying out identical actions?
Granted, rejectionism will always be a prevalent mantra that a substantial core of Palestinians will clutch on to in the best of times, but I don’t think an increased inclination towards it is accidental.
The way I see it from a Palestinian perspective, if it seems that your diplomatic prospects and leverage are futile at best, then it’s easy to see why you’d be seduced by the empowering notion of flat out rejecting the existence of your adversary.
If there was a genuine atmosphere of compromise on both sides then I’d wager one such compromise the average Palestinian would possibly submit to is acceptance of an Israeli state provided they were given reasonable terms for the foundation of their own state. The US symbolically gifting Jerusalem to the Israelis does little to help that.
But it is the capital. Secondly, the last thing the Palestinians have ever wanted is compromise - their own rejectionism from day one is proof enough. I'm yet to be convinced that they want a (another) state more than the destruction of Israel. And recent actions - including Trump's sign off and Abbas' cat out of the bag antisemitism - have flushed them out.
A broken clock is right twice per day. And I don't know where the debate is about that statement. One day of research by anyone would confirm that Israel is indeed an apartheid state.
Surprised they didn't include Bombdogs.
That's like saying I crashed the car on purpose cause I knew it had airbags. Maybe 40+ years ago the state of Israel would have gotten away with stuff like this but people are way more informed now. No one's buying their innocence bullshit anymore.
Wonder how much we're paying for this trip, or maybe we've already negotiated it as part of the last arms deal.
You just can't take the truth. I can smell your cognitive dissonance from here.
It's just a fundamental difference between how we view the conflict. I don't think Palestinian aspirations can be bought off with a token 22% of the land which wouldn't anyway be allowed to exercise the full rights of a sovereign state. I actually tend to agree with @Super Hans and @Mozza here - the proposed Palestinian state as envisioned in even the most generous Israeli offer (and you can read here how the 'peacemaker' Rabin envisioned it) falls well short of what a Palestinian leader could be expected to accept, given what the Palestinians have actually been fighting for throughout the conflict.
Where I guess I'd differ from them is that I don't think any offer an Israeli leader could plausibly make would be acceptable, or not under any circumstances that have existed up to now anyway. I think Jabotinsky's famous assessment of the Arab response to Zionism is still remarkably valid:
"The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage...Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators...We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached...As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people."
Where I would differ with Jabotinsky is on his assertion of the moral primacy of Zionist aspirations in defiance of conflicting claims.
So as I see it the only way the Palestinians might come around to the idea of accepting the Israeli offer of a limited state is if they believe that measures aimed at achieving their actual goal have no hope. And I think, for a variety of reasons, they're a long, long way from that point at this moment.
Pro-Israeli sources are abuzz with this interview with a Hamas guy in which he seems to claim that 50 of the dead were Hamas members:
But as you can see, the 'interview' is just a tiny clip which ends suspiciously abruptly right after the claim is made.
However, the original video is down near the bottom of this page - http://alaqsavoice.ps/news/details/203028
Are there any Arabic speakers here who would translate what he says before and after the clip above? A google translation of the article says "The leader of Hamas Salah al-Bardawil [said] that 50 martyrs of Hamas rose during the million return on 14/05/2018."
But as you can see, the 'interview' is just a tiny clip which ends suspiciously abruptly right after the claim is made.
However, the original video is down near the bottom of this page - http://alaqsavoice.ps/news/details/203028
Are there any Arabic speakers here who would translate what he says before and after the clip above? A google translation of the article says "The leader of Hamas Salah al-Bardawil [said] that 50 martyrs of Hamas rose during the million return on 14/05/2018."
I agree with you both. Just imagine a poster justifying genocide on jews. Any degree of perceived anti-antisemitism has zero tolerance but it doesn't work both ways. I've read some disgusting posts from the posters in question.
The clip is over an hour long. It would help to know what part the 12 second bit was lifted from.
By nobody condemning Hamas (even insisting it go to a separate thread!) thats pretty much whats going on here.
Ah right, I couldn't see the length, extra suspicious so. Well I'm sure someone somewhere will track it down.
Just to add, even if that is what he says, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true - a large part of Hamas' PR campaign on this seems to be directed against Fatah and aimed at a recruitment drive. These types of claims would go towards furthering that.
Like I said the only reason he has survived so long is because raoul agrees with his agenda, the whole you can ignore if you dont like what he say stuff is bs. If that was the case no one would be getting banned.
Randall got a warning, which finally led to him being banned, for calling homeless people scum and here you have fearless spouting shit with the mod going you can ignore him.
Please tell how one sore shoulder equats to genocide.
Isn't there some sort of election promised before the end of this year?
Not sure, but it seems to be on the cards every year, then never happens.
Abbas is in the 15th year of a four year term
Only if you tell me how Hamas equates to killing Jews.
If you want to have a discussion on hamas, you can take it to the relevant thread.
Who did Hamas kill the other day? I have stated that the members of Hamas that were killed were legitimate targets.
Fatah in the West Bank, and Israel isn't interested in negotiations with them either
@Fearless would probably find some way to excuse what happened at Deir Yassin if given enough time.
Last edited: