55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

And more of your usual inconsistent rubbish. If the Palestinians are a "majority", then the supposed "ethnic cleansing" doesn't seem to have been quite as dramatic as your post portray. Regardless of the spins you put on things - there is no obligation to uphold the supposed "right of return" without returnees doing so on peaceful terms and recognizing Israel's sovereignty. Despite your insistence on ignoring reality, countries are no expected to commit national suicide in order to accommodate your extreme views.

Without the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians, many of whose descendants at the fence are demonstrating to return home, there could never have been a state of Israel in the first place. How could you have a Jewish state when the majority are non Jews? The founding fathers of Israel knew why they created the Nakba.

 

And that is still the case today when you look at all the land Israel controls and occupies from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

 

"Palestinians Will Outnumber Israeli Jews in 2016 - Report
Report published by Palestinian Bureau of Statistics says even as the average Palestinian family decreases in size, number of Palestinians living in both Israel and territories will exceed that of Jews beginning in 2016."

https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-palestinians-will-outnumber-israeli-jews-in-2016-1.5353644

And that is not even counting Palestinians living in refugee camps outside historic Palestine!

 

>>there is no obligation to uphold the supposed "right of return" without returnees doing so on peaceful terms and recognizing Israel's sovereignty. 
...there is no reason that with appropriate security checks and balances returnees could not be gradually integrated peacefully into Israeli society starting with some elderly Palestinians who were actually born there unlike many of the parents and grandparents of the snipers currently killing protesters.

 

If you mean by Israel's sovereignty ..Jewish sovereignty ..that's unacceptably racist... a minority ruling over a majority based solely on religion. But that wouldn't pre-empt a constitution that allotted 50% of Knesset seats to Israeli Jews along with other mechanisms to ensure a peaceful balance and reintegration of returning Palestinians for decades to come.

 

If you mean by "national suicide" that Israeli Jews should give up the artificial racist supremacy they have killed and ethnically cleansed to create, then so be it. They need to get over it just as other apartheid and segregationist nations have done.

Edited July 1, 20188 yr by dexterm

1 hour ago, Morch said:

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

And more of your usual inconsistent rubbish. If the Palestinians are a "majority", then the supposed "ethnic cleansing" doesn't seem to have been quite as dramatic as your post portray. Regardless of the spins you put on things - there is no obligation to uphold the supposed "right of return" without returnees doing so on peaceful terms and recognizing Israel's sovereignty. Despite your insistence on ignoring reality, countries are no expected to commit national suicide in order to accommodate your extreme views. 

@dexterm

 

 

" And more of your usual inconsistent rubbish.... "

Here in Asia we consider somebody who is insulting or agressive towards other people in public as " non mature " .

Your usual comments are an attempt to justify Israels politics , nothing more , always the same efforts by you and never new ideas .

You can talk a lot , but you will never change the facts of what happened .

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses

 

" At least five categories of major violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law characterize the occupation: unlawful killings; forced displacement; abusive detention; the closure of the Gaza Strip and other unjustified restrictions on movement; and the development of settlements, along with the accompanying discriminatory policies that disadvantage Palestinians. ..."

 

There are hundreds of articles of what happened in the net , if you want more , no problem ...

 

You do not need to answer my post , I am not interested in communicating with you .

Edited July 1, 20188 yr by nobodysfriend

 

 

@dexterm

 

Your extreme positions and views regarding Israel are nothing new. Regardless, this doesn't quite make the case for your inconsistent arguments - on the one hand harping on the Nakba being of a tragedy of a unique scope, while on the other, asserting that Palestinian are still a majority. If Israel was even half as badass about "ethnic cleansing" as you try to portray - this wouldn't be so. There wouldn't even be Arab citizens in Israel (about 20%), and they would not have political representation. 

 

Your usual waffle about "there is no reason...." got little to do with both my post or reality. Spin this as much as you like, but the so-called Palestinian right of return is not a one sided affair, and implementing it is not solely Israel's responsibility. Whether you like to acknowledge it  or not, the requirements for declaring or demonstrating peaceful intentions, and accepting Israel's sovereignty relate to the Palestinian side. The tone of the protests does not indicate that either is much on the menu. There are actually plenty of reasons as to why this is very hard to accomplish, or not even wise, but expecting a factual discussion is futile.

 

As addressed on previous topics, the assertions made regarding IDF soldiers' ancestry are both bogus and pointless.

 

What you choose to term and call "unacceptable" is irrelevant. There requirements related to the  so-called "right of return" do not afford conditional or partial acceptance of Israel's sovereignty. That you make a bold statement on behalf of the Palestinians , just to rehash your views regarding Israel as an illegitimate construct carries very little weight. If the Palestinians were to adhere to your stance, they are in for a long waiting. This may seat well with those invested in the ongoing "struggle", of course.

 

The rest of your crapola is just the usual extreme vehemence nonsense.

 

 

@nobodysfriend

 

Comments about civility from someone tossing abuse on a regular basis is kinda funny, if expected.

 

My comments often come in response to extreme views, pretending to "support" the Palestinians, but actually more to do with bashing Israel. I am well aware that for a segment of posters, anything which doesn't fall in line with such bashing, or fails to include the emotional drama element is considered a "defense". Whatever.

 

The claim regarding no "new ideas" is bogus. Most of what passes for "new ideas" on these issues isn't "new". And as you and the other wannabe pro-Palestinian contingent reject most ideas relating to the Palestinian side, that's not much of a comment anyway.

 

The usual general rehashing of the wrongs represented by the Israeli occupation doesn't automatically support each and every hyperbole claim made on these topics. And, of course, my posts do not actually feature a wholesale denial of either said wrongs or Israel's responsibility. The point made on many of them is that it's not just Israel's. But guess that for some that's either unacceptable or too hard to comprehend.

 

If you're "not interested in communicating" with me - refrain from commenting, quoting or replying to my posts. Since you've declared me on "ignore" at least a couple of times, guess that just another nonsense bit for the list.

 

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

More rubbish.

 

Replace Myanmar with Syria. Next door. Huge geopolitical implications. More casualties, more displaced people. Even the current week amounted to more (on both counts) than the current Gaza Episode. International reaction? Nada.

 

There's no shortage of examples. Only someone keen on not seeing the bias would miss it.

To suggest there is no international reaction to the war and atrocities in Syria is a complete and utter fallacy.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

To suggest there is no international reaction to the war and atrocities in Syria is a complete and utter fallacy.

 

May want to check how many UN resolutions actually deal with the situation in Syria, and how many revolve around Israel's part in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The current topic is a good example - Palestinian casualties receive wide coverage. At the same time, in Syria, there were over a 100 (a conservative estimate) dead and thousands displaced. In Iran, more demonstrators were shot dead by security forces. But guess that going on about "disproportionate" only applies when referencing IDF actions. Quite acceptable when it related to UN resolutions or media coverage.

 

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

May want to check how many UN resolutions actually deal with the situation in Syria, and how many revolve around Israel's part in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The current topic is a good example - Palestinian casualties receive wide coverage. At the same time, in Syria, there were over a 100 (a conservative estimate) dead and thousands displaced. In Iran, more demonstrators were shot dead by security forces. But guess that going on about "disproportionate" only applies when referencing IDF actions. Quite acceptable when it related to UN resolutions or media coverage.

 

There’s a civil war in Syria, members of the international community are taking active part in attempts to limit the Assad regimes violent excess.

(I know of no civil war that has been brought to an end by international action and extremes of violence are characteristic of civil wars) 

 

Israel claims to be acting within the law and in defence of a ‘democratic society’.

 

In a democracy the actions of the government can withstand examination for their legality.

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

So your "argument", such as it is, does not relate to the fact that there is a disproportionate focus on Israel's actions, but rather deals supposed legal definitions involved as pretext. Guess we have another nitpicking "win". And to be clear, I wasn't referring to the effectiveness of such efforts, which is often dismal. Spin away, that's all you've got on this one.

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

So your "argument", such as it is, does not relate to the fact that there is a disproportionate focus on Israel's actions, but rather deals supposed legal definitions involved as pretext. Guess we have another nitpicking "win". And to be clear, I wasn't referring to the effectiveness of such efforts, which is often dismal. Spin away, that's all you've got on this one.

No not my argument at all.

 

My argument is, pointing at other conflicts when Israeli killings are criticized is Whataboutary.

 

If Israel’s actions are legal and just they can stand any amount of open criticism.

 

Transparent investigation and reporting would undermine any unfounded accusations.

 

A catalogue of transparency more so.

 

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Standard issue waffle and deflection.

 

Pointing out that Israel's actions (regardless of whether one justifies them or not) receive disproportionate attention in terms of international bodies and media coverage is a relevant issue. One would need to be truly biased in order to ignore or justify this. The only reason this is strongly rejected, whenever it comes up, is simply because there the usual suspects cannot provide a reasonable reply.

 

There wasn't anything whatsoever said about avoiding criticism of Israel. The point made was that the sheer amount of criticism, relative to actions, is not reasonable. A similar comment could be made on the often one-sided nature of such "criticism". The accompanying hyperbole and vehemence are another familiar feature. There's criticism, and then there's what many of the usual suspects engage in - which is more to do with bashing.

 

I don't think most violent conflicts in the world, domestic or otherwise, result in headlines as often, and the same goes for the level of resolution involved.

 

It is not extremist to wish for peoples of different faiths to live peacefully together in a society respecting one another's cultures and beliefs. It's how I was brought up. Quite frankly I regard it as bizarre to think otherwise.

 

What is extremist and weird is requiring young men to lie entrenched behind a double fence and ditch and ordering them to pick off in a turkey shoot children, paraplegics, medics and journalists all in the name of preventing them from returning to the land in which they or their parents or grandparents were born. Their bosses the politicians' ultimate aim being to prevent the dilution of the religious supremacy and purity of the ones with all the guns, if the indigenous people of a different religion were allowed to cross the fence.

 

It must have a very damaging brutalizing effect on the IDF soldiers to be ordered to carry out such atrocities, unless of course they were already inclined that way and volunteered. It must also have a very damaging effect on Israeli society cheering them on with their elected politicians congratulating the snipers.

 

I don't know how they can go home to their families to lead normal lives after spending their days deliberately shooting at children. Now that's what I call extremist. Far far removed from the long tradition of Jewish liberal thinking.

Edited July 1, 20188 yr by dexterm

Just now, Morch said:

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Standard issue waffle and deflection.

 

Pointing out that Israel's actions (regardless of whether one justifies them or not) receive disproportionate attention in terms of international bodies and media coverage is a relevant issue. One would need to be truly biased in order to ignore or justify this. The only reason this is strongly rejected, whenever it comes up, is simply because there the usual suspects cannot provide a reasonable reply.

 

There wasn't anything whatsoever said about avoiding criticism of Israel. The point made was that the sheer amount of criticism, relative to actions, is not reasonable. A similar comment could be made on the often one-sided nature of such "criticism". The accompanying hyperbole and vehemence are another familiar feature. There's criticism, and then there's what many of the usual suspects engage in - which is more to do with bashing.

 

I don't think most violent conflicts in the world, domestic or otherwise, result in headlines as often, and the same goes for the level of resolution involved.

 

You believe it a relevant issue, many agree with you many do not, that’s a matter of opinion and almost certainly bias on both sides.

 

But it is irrelevant to Israel’s claims to be acting lawfully.

 

If, by example, this recent killing of a 14 year old boy is lawful, then Israel

will have no problem providing a transparent, open investigation and report.

 

Israel can add this to all the other transparent, open investigations and reports of other ‘legal’ Israeli killings.

 

The resulting catalogue of transparent investigations and reports will dismiss false accusations with transparency and facts.

 

All of that is completely within the power of Israel to enact.

 

So let’s not get distracted by claims that Israeli killings are receiving unfair focus.

 

Transparency and the light of open investigation and reporting is the friend of truth.

 

@dexterm

 

What you're on about got little to do with your actual views or the implications of the agendas you push. How you were supposedly brought up (discounting the obsessive hate dripped bile your post on these topics) got little to do with how things are in the Middle East. What's bizarre is the faux insistence that this isn't a factor, or that a set of Western ideals (or rather, your version of) can simply be imported and applied.

 

Considering the amount of disparagement your pour on Israel, Israelis, Israeli society and IDF soldiers allow me to take any fake concern you may show as just another dishonest display. And, of course, no meaningful comment or discussion as to how them decades of pointless violent "struggle" or following failed leaderships effects the Palestinian side. Guess some have to stay one-sided at all costs.

 

Your views are extreme. How you lamely try to market them is another issue.

 

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Keep them deflections coming, by all means.

 

It is not a matter of "belief". A simple count of UN resolutions and headlines  dealing with Israel, relative to other conflicts and issues makes the point clear enough. That's without even getting into the severity of crises or to whether such statements are balanced or not. The volume of commentary and reactions generated is clearly out of sync with the issues themselves.

 

You have nothing of substance to counter this with, hence you try to focus on the supposed "lawful" angle, painting it as the center point issue. The whole "transparency" waffle is always brought up and applied in a one-sided manner - which goes back to the former point. You and the other usual suspects habitually refuse to acknowledge any accountability or responsibility applies to the Palestinian side. This makes the whole "argument"  hollow.

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Keep them deflections coming, by all means.

 

It is not a matter of "belief". A simple count of UN resolutions and headlines  dealing with Israel, relative to other conflicts and issues makes the point clear enough. That's without even getting into the severity of crises or to whether such statements are balanced or not. The volume of commentary and reactions generated is clearly out of sync with the issues themselves.

 

You have nothing of substance to counter this with, hence you try to focus on the supposed "lawful" angle, painting it as the center point issue. The whole "transparency" waffle is always brought up and applied in a one-sided manner - which goes back to the former point. You and the other usual suspects habitually refuse to acknowledge any accountability or responsibility applies to the Palestinian side. This makes the whole "argument"  hollow.

The topic under discussion is, as suggested in the heading and OP, Israeli forces killing and injuring Palestinian ‘protestors’

 

I’m arguing against the distractions of whataboutary and strongly in favour of Israel conducting transparent open investigation and reporting of the legality of those killings.

 

I’m not at all sure why you have a problem with me suggesting ‘transparent, open investigation and reporting’.

 

Israel claims to be acting lawfully, if so transparent, open investigation and reporting will demonstrate the truth of the claim.

 

..

On a personal note: 

 

I do not resort to invective language, nor do I express the vile views of racism and hate. 

 

As human being my stomach truns to see and read reports of armed forces firing live ammunition into any crowd, more so when children are killed.

(again the subject is killings by Israeli forces).

 

I do accept that these are complex circumstances and that awful decisions need sometimes be made. I can and do support the Israeli right to defence where that defensive action is legally and justly acted upon.

Hence my call for the Israelis to back their claims that they are acting legally by providing transparent, open investigation and reporting.

 

Your comment ‘you [me] and the usual suspects’ has no place in adult discussion, though it may have some value as a prop to dismiss my views.

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-the-idf-committed-4-war-crimes-in-recent-weeks-but-who-cares-1.5883568

 

" Yasin al-Saradih, a 36-year-old Palestinian, was shot on February 22 when he tried to attack a group of soldiers with the rim of a car wheel with an iron bar stuck through it. He was immobilized and no longer posed a threat to the armed soldiers. But this didn’t stop them from attacking a man wallowing in his own blood, beating and dragging him into a nearby alley. For half an hour he lay there with no medical assistance before being evacuated, after one of the soldiers fired a tear-gas canister into the alley where he lay. "

 

There are more stories like this : "

An  incident involving legless demonstrator, Ibrahim Abu Thuraya, who was in a wheelchair when he was shot and killed  on the other side of the fence along the Israel-Gaza Strip border. It was decided that he was inciting and posed a security threat.

" the case of Mohammed Tamimi, half of whose skull was crushed by a rubber-coated bullet, and decided that he'd been hurt when he fell off his bicycle ..."

 

Israel uses demagoguery that rejects acts of “exceptional” violence against Palestinians, but avoids severely punishing the “exceptions,” which it claims are only those caught on B’tselem’s cameras. Obviously there’s nothing serious to discuss about dealing with most of these atrocities.

 

The IDF is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and most of the perpetrators are never called to account.

 

These actions have a name: They are war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under the Geneva Convention the definition of such crimes includes political, racist or religious persecution and/or other inhuman treatment.

 

The list appears endless ... and that is exactly why the UN does not stop investigating

Edited July 1, 20188 yr by nobodysfriend

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Allow me to doubt the "adhere to the topic" angle being genuine. Don't see you having issues with supposedly pro-Palestinian posters' commentary going all over the place. In a way, just an extension of the bias issue - which you consider is a "distraction".

 

Even a discussion of the headline along the lines you suggest exhibits the same bias. Somehow, Israel is supposed to meet stricter standards of inquiry, transparency and justice. Don't see a whole lot of that from the other side, or even demands for such. And yes, the same would apply to many of them cases you try labeling away as "whataboutary". As said, your comments would be a tad more credible if some balance would be applied. My "problem" is not so much with your "suggestion", but with it's one-sided nature and unrealistic standards. 

 

Note that I'm not one of the posters making the case Israel is a prefect, western-style democracy. Democracy is a matter of degree. Israel's version is probably not among the best of them, without making it the worst or even near that. Certainly not in comparison to the neighborhood. As such, my expectations are realistic rather than idealistic in nature. Some posters read this as an excuse or a justification. From my point of view it's just how things are.

 

On a personal note, my memory is not entirely impaired yet, hence I recall you getting borderline abusive on previous topics. Especially when berating posters on emotional grounds and virtue signaling. And its not like you refrain from expressing support for posts which do contain "invective language, nor do I express the vile views of racism and hate", so yeah... Similarly, complaints about such things as "usual suspects" would carry more weight when if and when objections would be raised to the much more abusive and vehement language used by other posters (even when their views are aligned with yours).

 

And here we go with that "obligatory" virtue signaling bit: "as a human being....". As a human being, doesn't it make your stomach turn when a cynical leadership (even a Palestinian one) makes such use of the populace it is supposed to care for? Guess not as much.

 

I'll air some views made on many past topics (both related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and others):

 

There are many cases in which rules, laws and treaties fail to realistically address current circumstances and conditions. In this instance as they relate to asymmetric warfare (but the same could be applied for asylum seekers and other issues). IMO, this stems from two main factors - One, the main body of such coming into being decades ago, and not current conditions not being favorable for a review. Two, an unrealistically optimist (if being charitable) "liberal" (and granted, this can mean a whole lot of things) approach being dominant in such matters ever since. The first factor implies that fundamental changes are hard to apply, while the second ensures that the progression would be (supposedly) in line with certain world view (which in effect is easily co-opted for political goals).

 

On top of that (and partially due to the dominance of the approach mentioned as the second factor) perceptions as to what the law actually allows and what is, in fact, a violation (or how severe a violation) can be easily muddied. That makes related issues all the more ripe for co-opting, and manipulating of views.

 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

 

" Some of those killed were shot while attacking Israelis or suspected of intending an attack. Many, including children, were shot and unlawfully killed while posing no immediate threat to life. Some killings, such as that of Yacoub Abu al-Qi’an, shot in his car by police in Umm al-Hiran in January, appeared to have been extrajudicial executions...."

 

Human rights watch , the UN , Amnesty International ... they are all wrong , no ?

Israel is only defending itself against the palestinian aggressor ... right ?

 

They really think the whole world is stupid and blind ...

 

@nobodysfriend

 

More waffle.

 

Can't actually address the topic, hence bringing up and rehashing other instances, whether they apply or not - and whether the facts cited are correct or not. No context needed for a bash.

 

Doubt your legal expertise amounts to much, especially when it comes to determining war crimes or crimes against humanity. What I do not doubt is that you do not consider Palestinian actions to be such, even though there's solid enough reasons to see them as such. For example, putting their people in harm's way, knowing full well the dangers involved.

 

The UN does not "investigate", the UN mostly condemns. UN "investigations" mostly exempt the Palestinian side.

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

 

" Some of those killed were shot while attacking Israelis or suspected of intending an attack. Many, including children, were shot and unlawfully killed while posing no immediate threat to life. Some killings, such as that of Yacoub Abu al-Qi’an, shot in his car by police in Umm al-Hiran in January, appeared to have been extrajudicial executions...."

 

Human rights watch , the UN , Amnesty International ... they are all wrong , no ?

Israel is only defending itself against the palestinian aggressor ... right ?

 

They really think the whole world is stupid and blind ...

 

Well, I don't know about the whole world....

 

22 hours ago, dexterm said:

I don't suppose when you are the parents of a 14 year old child shot through the head one pauses to consider the relative atrociousness of atrocities on a worldwide scale.

 

You are dehumanizing real Palestinian victims. We are all the same species.

Interesting to note the very same parents were not overly concerned for the 14 year old when they allowed him to be in the front lines instead of back home studying.

 

is it possible the very same concerned parents were there also and encouraged the youngster while being fully aware of the possible consequences?

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, I don't know about the whole world....

 

Of course not ... no doubt about that .

 

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Allow me to doubt the "adhere to the topic" angle being genuine. Don't see you having issues with supposedly pro-Palestinian posters' commentary going all over the place. In a way, just an extension of the bias issue - which you consider is a "distraction".

 

Even a discussion of the headline along the lines you suggest exhibits the same bias. Somehow, Israel is supposed to meet stricter standards of inquiry, transparency and justice. Don't see a whole lot of that from the other side, or even demands for such. And yes, the same would apply to many of them cases you try labeling away as "whataboutary". As said, your comments would be a tad more credible if some balance would be applied. My "problem" is not so much with your "suggestion", but with it's one-sided nature and unrealistic standards. 

 

Note that I'm not one of the posters making the case Israel is a prefect, western-style democracy. Democracy is a matter of degree. Israel's version is probably not among the best of them, without making it the worst or even near that. Certainly not in comparison to the neighborhood. As such, my expectations are realistic rather than idealistic in nature. Some posters read this as an excuse or a justification. From my point of view it's just how things are.

 

On a personal note, my memory is not entirely impaired yet, hence I recall you getting borderline abusive on previous topics. Especially when berating posters on emotional grounds and virtue signaling. And its not like you refrain from expressing support for posts which do contain "invective language, nor do I express the vile views of racism and hate", so yeah... Similarly, complaints about such things as "usual suspects" would carry more weight when if and when objections would be raised to the much more abusive and vehement language used by other posters (even when their views are aligned with yours).

 

And here we go with that "obligatory" virtue signaling bit: "as a human being....". As a human being, doesn't it make your stomach turn when a cynical leaden a Palestinian one) makes such use of the populace it is supposed to care for? Guess not as much.

 

I'll air some views made on many past topics (both related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and others):

 

There are many cases in which rules, laws and treaties fail to realistically address current circumstances and conditions. In this instance as they relate to asymmetric warfare (but the same could be applied for asylum seekers and other issues). IMO, this stems from two main factors - One, the main body of such coming into being decades ago, and not current conditions not being favorable for a review. Two, an unrealistically optimist (if being charitable) "liberal" (and granted, this can mean a whole lot of things) approach being dominant in such matters ever since. The first factor implies that fundamental changes are hard to apply, while the second ensures that the progression would be (supposedly) in line with certain world view (which in effect is easily co-opted for political goals).

 

On top of that (and partially due to the dominance of the approach mentioned as the second factor) perceptions as to what the law actually allows and what is, in fact, a violation (or how severe a violation) can be easily muddied. That makes related issues all the more ripe for co-opting, and manipulating of views.

 

Is that an attempt at baiting me? I sure reads like it.

 

I feel no need to respond.

 

 

I’ll abide by my arguments in favour of  Israel providing transparent, open investigation and reporting of Israeli killings that Israel itself declares legal.

 

 

 

 

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Baiting how? By not accepting your contrived premise? By addressing your post from a different angle than the one you "approve" of? Refusing to accept your position as balanced or objective? Or perhaps it was the bit about not playing along with your virtue signaling? The one-sided hypocritical comments about style?  

 

More about you not having anything other than standard-issue deflections to add.

44 minutes ago, BestB said:

Interesting to note the very same parents were not overly concerned for the 14 year old when they allowed him to be in the front lines instead of back home studying.

 

is it possible the very same concerned parents were there also and encouraged the youngster while being fully aware of the possible consequences?

No school in Gaza on Fridays. And just as when we were all teenagers my parents did not fit me with an electronic tag.

 

You are willing to fantasize about parents' motives, and their knowledge of the boy's whereabouts, blame the 14 year old victim (some sources say 13), but not a single word of condemnation for the fully protected entrenched unthreatened Israeli psychopath who actually made the cold blooded choice to shoot a child through the head. Apparently this is all "in accordance with the standard operating procedures"..ho hum par for the course in the IDF.

 

Speaks volumes about the immoral attitudes of Israeli apologists and the hateful regime they attempt to defend.

Edited July 1, 20188 yr by dexterm

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

Baiting how? By not accepting your contrived premise? By addressing your post from a different angle than the one you "approve" of? Refusing to accept your position as balanced or objective? Or perhaps it was the bit about not playing along with your virtue signaling? The one-sided hypocritical comments about style?  

 

More about you not having anything other than standard-issue deflections to add.

You’ve put an awful lot of effort today into trying to drown out my suggestion that Israel provide a transparent, open investigation and report into Israeli killings of Palestinians; killings which Israel claim to be legal.

 

Transparency and openness are the friends of truth.

42 minutes ago, BestB said:

Interesting to note the very same parents were not overly concerned for the 14 year old when they allowed him to be in the front lines instead of back home studying.

 

is it possible the very same concerned parents were there also and encouraged the youngster while being fully aware of the possible consequences?

Pure conjecture.

 

@dexterm

 

It doesn't really matter whether it's a school day or not.

 

Considering you are perfectly willing to fantasize about the motives of Israeli soldiers, politicians and general populace, complaining about others applying such reasoning is disingenuous. In fact, you're doing this (and as usual, going the extra vile mile) on this very post.

 

Seems like in your world, as long as they are Palestinians - parents and authorities bear no responsibility for anything much.

 

The usual moralizing is hollow coming from the likes of you.

Israel is long overdue at The Hague.

 

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

In order to take your "suggestion" at face value, one would have to ignore your previous posts and general stance as expressed on these topics. That you object to this being pointed out both specifically as applied to your posts and as a general issue is quite demonstrative of the level of "discussion" on offer.

 

You can post whichever one liner slogans you like, still wouldn't have much to do with what you push.