39 minutes ago, Morch said:

Let protestors breach the fence, and have an almost assured bloodbath?

I am unsure whether this matter is likely to occur with usual riot control methods. Is it factual that rubber bullets, water cannons, tear gas and so on would be ineffective with controlling the pressure points. Were IDF personnel actually in immediate fear of death to justify it being necessary to deploy live fire with hundreds injured

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Acting disproportionately? How else do you propose that the Israeli security forces respond to armed arabs intent on killing Israelis?

How many who were shot were armed. Yes I do  think unarmed civilians being shot dead by the IDF or deliberately targeting their legs with live fire is disproportionate.

 

Killing known Hamas terrorists is a different matter.

Edited April 9, 20188 yr by simple1

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I am unsure whether this matter is likely to occur with usual riot control methods. Is it factual that rubber bullets, water cannons, tear gas and so on would be ineffective with controlling the pressure points. Were IDF personnel actually in immediate fear of death to justify it being necessary to deploy live fire with hundreds injured

 

Unsure how? It's not like the fence wasn't breached, and there were attempts made to sabotage it. Instead of going on about "usual riot control methods", perhaps better if an appropriate precedent supporting such claims was provided.

 

As linked in one of my previous posts, the IDF is not adequately equipped and stocked when it comes to riot control means. That Israeli firms produce and market such is not the same thing. With regard to effectiveness, see the comment above.

 

I don't think IDF soldiers were under direct threat, other than in several instances (which are glossed over) during the protests so far. So no, most of the shooting was not under such circumstances. As far as I understand, the rationale is to prevent a situation in which a way more severe response would be required. That such a reasoning may very well be morally questionable is one thing, to comment thus without a clear, realistic alternative is another. Not seeing a whole lot of moral conduct demands leveled on the other side - even though there's obvious room for that.

 

Consider that the protest was originally envisaged as truly non-violent, and that the tone changed the further Hamas got involved. Going for true non-violence (as the organizers planned) would have been far more effective in terms of international public opinion and the moral arguments offered. I'd urge a bit more attention to Palestinian domestic politics in this regard.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

an appropriate precedent supporting such claims was provided.

Visiting N.I. during the height of the "Troubles" should answer your question.

 

EDIT>

It's not like the fence wasn't breached.

 

Wasn't aware of any border breaches in the current situations. How were they handled?

 

Edited April 9, 20188 yr by simple1

21 minutes ago, simple1 said:

How many who were shot were armed. Yes I do  think unarmed civilians being shot dead by the IDF or deliberately targeting their legs with live fire is disproportionate.

 

Killing known Hamas terrorists is a different matter.

 

It is, perhaps, "disproportional" as far as individuals go. But the response is calculated not based on individuals, but on there being tens of thousands of them protesting. I don't know that waiting for a stampede to commence is the right way of dealing with such things, and no - I don't like them shootings either. Doubt there's a "correct" textbook answer of how to deal with such situations.

Just now, simple1 said:

Visiting N.I. during the height of the "Troubles" should answer your question.

 

No, it wouldn't. Been addressed both on these topics and privately, I  think.

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It is, perhaps, "disproportional" as far as individuals go. But the response is calculated not based on individuals, but on there being tens of thousands of them protesting. I don't know that waiting for a stampede to commence is the right way of dealing with such things, and no - I don't like them shootings either. Doubt there's a "correct" textbook answer of how to deal with such situations.

As you know I do not have a security / armed forces background. My responses, for want of a better description, are by way of emotional optics. The Israeli responses don't resonate (nor Hamas manipulation) with me to reduce violence, just seems to be compounding, perhaps better to say, cementing positions with no light at the end of the tunnel.

 

Pity the leadership and population on both sides of the conflict cannot have soma introduced into their water supply

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

As you know I do not have a security / armed forces background. My responses, for want of a better description, are by way of emotional optics. The Israeli responses don't resonate (nor Hamas manipulation) with me to reduce violence, just seems to be compounding, perhaps better to say, cementing positions with no light at the end of the tunnel.

 

Pity the leadership and population on both sides of the conflict cannot have soma introduced into their water supply

 

Doesn't have anything to do with background. The circumstances are not similar, so drawing direct parallels is dubious. As far as the emotional optics go, no argument. On that front, the Palestinian "case" is easier to make. I don't think Israel's responses are designed to "reduce violence" per se. Nothing to do with fostering a better atmosphere and such. More about conflict management, with the usual accumulated price involved. Same goes for attempts to paint the protests as being entirely non-violent or as not including elements alien to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

 

There is a level of political symbiosis between leaderships involved, most of which, IMO, does not play to the people's benefit. Considering which party gains the most from this mess, I think it's odd many choose to leave it out of their posts, though. But as you said, them emotional optics do work.

 

 

 

 

If a single person has an imiginary friend..they're insane..but if a group of people have an imaginary friend..IT'S CALLED RELIGION

Just saying

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

4 minutes ago, malagateddy said:

If a single person has an imiginary friend..they're insane..but if a group of people have an imaginary friend..IT'S CALLED RELIGION

Just saying

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Hmm....that applies to a whole lot of people on both sides there.

On 4/8/2018 at 11:16 AM, lungbing said:

Given all the sympathy for Israel killing people who approach their border,  maybe the British could shoot the illegal immigrants pouring in from the continent and then quote the inaction over Israel as precedent.

Where's the difference?

One set of standards for Israel and another for everyone else

One set of standards for Israel and another for everyone else

At the UN yes that is true. They go after Israel more enthusiastically than other nations doing much worse things. Sad isn't it?

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

A couple of off topic posts from a Dec 2017 incident have been removed