Israeli forces kill dozens in Gaza as U.S. Embassy opens in Jerusalem

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

 

So... the Greeks can also return to their Trabson and Smyrna ( now Izmir), the Turks back to (Thes)Salloniki see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey , the Germans back to Memel, Koenigsberg, Breslau, Danzig and Stettin, the Poles back to were they originate from, and same for MANY nations in Eastern Europe see https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/forced-population-transfers.htm and 

see https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Population_exchange_between_Poland_and_Soviet_Ukrai...

1.  
2. 
    

, the Pakistani back into India, the Indians back into Pakistan see https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/BigMarchOct2008.pdf , and the Taiwanese mainlanders... back into Mainland China...

 

Bye-the-way: Americans ( N, M+ S), go home to Europe , together with the Australians and New Zealanders etc...

 

The main mistake was made by leaving the Palestinians semi-locked up, instead of a refugee-swap jews ex the Arab world into Israel versus Palestinians into the Arab world.

 

When the Palestinians did not start their terror in the end of the 80's... there would be now no problem, but Israëli's and Arabs mixed up over all that area.

 

For history... I look to publications like of the UN, NOT one--sided of any party. 

Maybe you missed the start of his post: 21st century.

[puipuitom]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your argument that the victims of systematic oppression brought it on themselves is not new, look it up.

 

I guess you are right though, the Palestinians could have sat quietly as they were systematically stripped of their homeland. 

Ask the Greeks from Pontus, the Turks from Saloniki, Germans from eastern Germany, the Poles, the Ukraines, the Pakiastani, The Indians, the Chinese: when you lose a war... you are pity. When you continue your war, you might loose everything...  In 1971 I went - with Israëli's to an Arab wedding on the West Bank , same the opposite. With an Israëli "Chicken docter" I went to a Palestinian donkey in birth needs... ( did not see a border line). In 1984 to several factories on the West bank, with again... no borders... There was no stripping of land... but a crossing over as between the State of Lanna and of Sukhuthai...

But thanks to especially HAMAS, who have only ONE wish: Kill all Jews... donot be astonished, that after 25 years experience with that, the Israëli army does not take any risk anymore...

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

Your usual fence sitting language "not quite supportive" of course disingenuously belies the fact that Hamas have agreed to recognize (not Jewish)  Israel within the 67 borders. More to the point when is Israel willing to recognize a Palestinian state.

 

Hamas did not agree to recognize Israel,  Jewish or otherwise. That either a lie or misconception. Hamas agreed, under certain conditions, to accept a temporary situation in which the Palestinians control the territory as it was in 1967. It is not outlined as a permanent solution, but a step in the direction of having the whole cake.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you make statements and when asked if you have verifiable evidence to back up what you’ve said you respond with more unverified statements and attack the credibility of my simple request for you to provide evidence of the claims you make.

 

Conclusion, you’re making stuff up in defence of Israeli forces killing people.

 

 

 

 

No, I'm saying in a polite way that you're trolling. Most of the "evidence" you pretend to seek was posted on previous topics (some of it, numerous times). That you pretend otherwise is disingenuous, at best. I haven't made up anything, whatsoever.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

You yourself have in the past advocated mass peaceful demonstrations by Palestinians against illegal occupation. If 40,000 Palestinians walked towards the fence which divides them from their former homes, it would be very easy for the IDF to turn a peaceful demonstration violent. That's what has been happening for the last weeks of demonstrations.

 

I did. And the original plan for the demonstrations, before Hamas hijacked them, was indeed along these lines (even without the march on the fence). Under such hypothetical circumstances, the shooting by the IDF would have received much more condemnation, and it would have been more deserved.

 

Describing the protests as peaceful, or as resembling anything related to something I advocated is out of touch with reality, whether by choice or not.

[puipuitom]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Maybe you missed the start of his post: 21st century.

Rohingya and Kachin ex Myanmar, Ukrainans from Krim and Lugansk, Christians from Northern Iraq and Syria, Yazidi's and many other non-muslims from Syria, ..

Bye-the-way: in the 21st century not one Palestinian is forced to leave Gaza by the Israëli's... 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

What is your view of moving the Embassy? 

Against.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As do the Zionists nes pas?!

 

That's a lame deflection. Your claim was that "the protests are a response to politics not religion." Hamas leaders often freely mix the two, and this case was no different. As for "Zionists", some do, and some don't, not all are religious. But be that as it may, not a whole lot to do with your wholesale wide brush assertion.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

For example by using rubber bullets instead of live ammunition ... ?

 

That's the reason I specified "serious accounts". As in from those having expertise in such matters, and familiar with conditions and means. I'm not opposed to such views as you air - I'm pointing out that I'm not sure how effective such means would be, and I am aware (linked on a couple of previous topics) that the IDF isn't actually armed that well in this regard.

 

For example, if using non-lethal means (or, well, less-lethal, rubber bullets can kill, for example), would not have deterred the protestors, and a mass charge at the fence and IDF soldiers would have ensued - IMO, the death toll would have been way higher. And that's for a single instance.

 

My point isn't that the way the IDF handled things is good, commendable or whatever. Just that other than general comments such as above, I haven't seen many professional assessments offering great alternatives.

[wabothai]

2 hours ago, Justfine said:

They have a death wish.

No they don't troll

[wabothai]

2 hours ago, Justfine said:

Well done Israel. They have balls to take care of themselves and their 1 nation.

Above .......seems to be just fine with the cowardly killing of 50+ demonstrators. 

In the meantime some nasty folks in Jerusalem are partying. Is Justfine.

[stevenl]

Just now, wabothai said:

Above .......seems to be just fine with the cowardly killing of 50+ demonstrators. 

In the meantime some nasty folks in Jerusalem are partying. Is Justfine.

Seems the whole world except for US and Israel are condemning the actions of the IDF and their snipers. Oh, and Morch, Jingthing and Justfine.

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a lame deflection. Your claim was that "the protests are a response to politics not religion." Hamas leaders often freely mix the two, and this case was no different. As for "Zionists", some do, and some don't, not all are religious. But be that as it may, not a whole lot to do with your wholesale wide brush assertion.

 

The case has been made in this discussion that the Palestinians are driven by religion In the specific post I referred to religious motives are attributed to Palestinians because Hamas and the PA occasionally call up religion.

 

Well heck so do Zionist but as has been demonstrated by responses in this discussion ‘let’s have no suggestion at all that Israel acts on the basis of religion’

 

I say, let’s not have a double standard.

 

Attributing Palestinian actions to religion undermines the legitimacy of their claims by placing their arguments in belief, not law, not international law, not human rights.

 

It also opens the door to the kind of obscene arguments put forward by geriatrickid: he stated here on TVF (I paraphrase) ‘the Palestinians want to die and go to paradise more than they want to live’.

 

Let’s have less double standards and end to dehumanizing the Palestinians, and certainly an end to the obscene views we’ve had on TVF today.

[fanjita]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Seems the whole world except for US and Israel are condemning the actions of the IDF and their snipers. Oh, and Morch, Jingthing and Justfine.

I understand, Steve.  Just let them invade and kill Jews with their knives.  Is that better? 

[kev1n]

7 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

 

 

Jerusalem is a very ancient City that has its origins 3500 years before Christ was born - it has been the capital for Jews for thousands of years.  In all the time that has elapsed since then, by any reasonable measure, the Hebrew/Jewish people have a far greater right to claim it is their City, than any other peoples/religion. 
 

2

Jews are as legitimate to claim it their City, as Italians are legitimate to claim that London is their City because they owned it during the Roman Empire. And if the jews abandoned their city, because yes they abandoned it and where never hunted, that's not the palestinian fault. 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, fanjita said:

I understand, Steve.  Just let them invade and kill Jews with their knives.  Is that better? 

They weren't even across the boarder. 

 

So please, there was no immediate threat to anyone, other than the victims of the mass killing, and that was committed by the Israeli forces. 

[billd766]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Some of the those shot were shooting at the IDF troops or trying to sabotage the fence. Definitely not all. Not quite following the mindset of expecting casualties on the Israeli side as well, but eh. As for excessive force - that's a valid point. On the other hand, I'm yet to see a serious account on how protests of such intensity and scope are to be handled. Especially considering the consequences for things getting worse if the masses of protestors manage to cross over.

 

Israel is a pariah country only in the minds of some posters. In the real world, it is neither shunned nor sanctioned. The "land theft" tag does not apply to the Gaza Strip, and the same goes for illegal settlements. I'm not aware that there's much popular support in Israel for the notion of retaking the Gaza Strip, so again, the "more land" bit is off mark in this case.

 

Netanyahu's comment relates to the Embassy thing.

 

 

If the Palestinians were shooting at the Israeli forces, or civilians for that matter what has happened to the casualty reports from the Israeli side?

 

How could not one Israeli have no as much as a scratch yet over 55 Palestinians were slaughtered by snipers and over 2,500 wounded? Was minimum force applied?

[fanjita]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They weren't even across the boarder.

Good idea not to approach the border then one would not get shot.  Surely everyone understands the rules?  No point complaining afterwards.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

The case has been made in this discussion that the Palestinians are driven by religion In the specific post I referred to religious motives are attributed to Palestinians because Hamas and the PA occasionally call up religion.

 

Well heck so do Zionist but as has been demonstrated by responses in this discussion ‘let’s have no suggestion at all that Israel acts on the basis of religion’

 

I say, let’s not have a double standard.

 

Attributing Palestinian actions to religion undermines the legitimacy of their claims by placing their arguments in belief, not law, not international law, not human rights.

 

It also opens the door to the kind of obscene arguments put forward by geriatrickid: he stated here on TVF (I paraphrase) ‘the Palestinians want to die and go to paradise more than they want to live’.

 

Let’s have less double standards and end to dehumanizing the Palestinians, and certainly an end to the obscene views we’ve had on TVF today.

 

Hamas is an Islamic movement. It doesn't try to hide it, so it's odd (or maybe not) some posters try to muddy the waters. Hamas leaders routinely rely on religious references, especially when things are concerned with Jerusalem. This was the case with many of the speeches related to the current protests.

 

Things are somewhat different with the PA (or rather, the Fatah), which tags a more secular line.

 

One the Palestinians side, this topic mostly deals with the Hamas, hence bringing up the religious angle is appropriate. I don't know that this undermines the legitimacy of their claims or not as you assert. I'm also not aware that it cancels out other aspects of their grievance based on other arguments and elements - that's something you claim, not a fact.

 

Arguments by both sides (or groups within each side) may have on multiple facets. Denying, or ignoring, that religious groups are religiously motivated, is again, odd.

 

I am not responsible for what @geriatrickid posts, and its not often that I agree with his posts, even. IMO, he goes too far one way, you do the same in the opposite direction.

 

It should be noted, though, that the concept of martyrdom is strongly present within Palestinian society, and more so with regard to religiously motivated groups, such as Hamas.

 

[puipuitom]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t forget to call them terrorists first, you don’t want anyone getting the wrong idea.

seen the experiences of the last 25 years... they are NOT the Martin Luther King protesters... who won in a quite quick time

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, fanjita said:

I understand, Steve.  Just let them invade and kill Jews with their knives.  Is that better? 

There was no threat at all, hence the UN and many other countries' condemnation.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They weren't even across the boarder. 

 

So please, there was no immediate threat to anyone, other than the victims of the mass killing, and that was committed by the Israeli forces. 

 

Since the current protests began (mid-late April), there were several instances in which Palestinians managed to cross over. Not, I think, today - but that's probably a good thing, seeing as if they'd reach nearby Israeli towns and settlements things could go badly one way, and if a mass of them managed to charge the fence - the death toll would have been way higher.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Justfine said:

Yes the Invaders were.

 

You are absolutely correct.

 

The Isrealis were and still are the Invaders.

3 hours ago, midas said:

So  which country (or countries) can possibly act as a credible intermediary in any future potential peace talks now that the credibility of the USA in that role has been totally shot to pieces.?

Paddy Ashdown was interviewed on sky News earlier and mentioned the Secretary-General of the United Nations was calling for an independent enquiry into the killing of so many Palestinians. But of course as one expects now such independent enquiry immediately denied by Israel. So what possible hope is there for Israel to accept another country other than its closest ally to act as a true independent mediator?

 

It will also be vetoed at the UN by the USA.

 

For an independent and trustworthy mediator try Switzerland or perhaps Sweden.

[puipuitom]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 By example: Police forces in Europe have frequently faced large scale riots in which rioters have used petrol bombs, and in some cases small arms. They have very rarely needed to resort to live arms fire and have never in modern history killed dozens of protesters or rioters.

Yes, and because of that, we are still in the shit here in Europe.

 

But these protesters were NOT rioting to KILL Europeans... This happenes only those from a small and peacefull religion, originated from... Hindu-India? Wrong, Buddhist Thailand...wrong, Shinto from Japan..wrong, Confusianists from China... Voodoo Haïti...again wrong...

Here the European police starts to understand now: shoot to kill, especially when Allahu Akbar sounds...

 

 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

Yes, and because of that, we are still in the shit here in Europe.

 

But these protesters were NOT rioting to KILL Europeans... This happenes only those from a small and peacefull religion, originated from... Hindu-India? Wrong, Buddhist Thailand...wrong, Shinto from Japan..wrong, Confusianists from China... Voodoo Haïti...again wrong...

Here the European police starts to understand now: shoot to kill, especially when Allahu Akbar sounds...

 

 

If we're in the shit in Europe because we don't use live fire on protesters and just kill them, Israel should be perfectly ok by now. 

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

If the Palestinians were shooting at the Israeli forces, or civilians for that matter what has happened to the casualty reports from the Israeli side?

 

How could not one Israeli have no as much as a scratch yet over 55 Palestinians were slaughtered by snipers and over 2,500 wounded? Was minimum force applied?

 

Because they failed. Shooting does not automatically imply hitting.

 

As for you second point, I'm not sure if what you miss is some eye-for-an-eye balance in casualties. The IDF is obviously way better equipped and positioned compared to the protestors. That some expect things to be sorted in a boxing match or such is neither interesting, not relevant.

 

IMO, the Hamas leadership refrains (to a degree) from taking things too far - the Israeli response would be too harsh, and may risk Hamas's rule in the Gaza Strip. Instead, they egg their people onward, knowing  full well that the effort and the deaths are largely futile. The only playable angle here is milking the casualties figures into concessions allowing their rule of the Gaza Strip to be maintained a bit longer.

 

With regard to "minimum force"  - nope. But as posted earlier, there quite a shortage of reliable assessments of using minimal force under given conditions and available means. That people toss "non-lethal means", "rubber bullets", "tear gas" and whatnot, is not quite that. I'll bring this up again - say "minimal force" is applied, fails to deter, and a mass charge on the fence commences - do you imagine casualty figures (for but a single instance of this) wouldn't top the entire death toll since the protests began?

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There was no threat at all, hence the UN and many other countries' condemnation.

 

As far as I'm aware (and correct me if I'm wrong), not the UN, but the OHCHR. Many countries did condemn Israel's actions, while others issued balanced responses (among them the EU, and I think, Australia).

[puipuitom]

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They weren't even across the boarder. 

 

So please, there was no immediate threat to anyone, other than the victims of the mass killing, and that was committed by the Israeli forces. 

When these 40.000 were OVER the fence, only many machineguns would stop them,...

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Seems the whole world except for US and Israel are condemning the actions of the IDF and their snipers. Oh, and Morch, Jingthing and Justfine.

 

In your fantasies, perhaps. While there is  wide international condemnation of Israel's actions, some of the responses acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself, and similarly condemned the Hamas for putting the populace at danger, while exploiting the deaths.

 

https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/japan/44510/statement-high-representativevice-president-federica-mogherini-violence-gaza-and-latest_en

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/malcolm-turnbull-us-blame-hamas-for-gaza-deaths/news-story/33b0f13802211bd05358b91ec3098d29

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You said:

 

”The arabs who are dying at the Israel border have decided that  their future in paradise is of more value than life here on earth.”

 

This is arguably the most overtly offensive, certainly the most egregiously callous statement I’ve read on TVF.

 

The person made that choice for them is the person who killed them.

 

Your callous assumption about these dead people, is very clearly based on a bigoted line of thought:

 

They’re Palestinians/Arabs, they must be Muslims, the Koran has got something in it about dying a marter and being sent straight to paradise ergo these people wanted to die more than they wanted to live.

 

Why don’t you take the next step and explain to us how the Israelis were doing them a favour?!

 

Its seldom I wish I were having these discussions close up and personal, but this is one occasion I wish I were.

 

You sir need to have a word with yourself.

 

I would say that their own leadership bears at least some responsibility for the deaths. Inciting people to confront a vastly superior force, with no tangible attainable goal attached is, at best, reckless. At worst, cynical.

 

Whether you like to accept it or not, the population of the Gaza Strip is almost entirely Muslim. It is also ruled by an Islamic organization. And, yes - the concept of martyrdom is very present in Islam, perhaps more so in the ME. Certainly within Palestinian society and especially with the Hamas. "Martyrs" are honored, their families taken care of and it does, sometimes, serve as a way out.

 

It doesn't mean all those killed were looking to be killed. It doesn't mean all were seeking martyrdom.