Palestinian killed in clashes with Israeli forces

[Jingthing]

I think we all get that lots of Palestinians are angry and that they hate Israeli soldiers. I suppose they can be seen as legit military targets to such people, as opposed to terror actions against civilians. But in such conflicts if you do act violently against soldiers, it's common sense that it can end badly.

[DaddyWarbucks]

How would the Zionist media have played this story if it were a funeral in an illegal Israeli settlement where the mourners started throwing stones at surrounding Palestinians and a settler was shot dead as a result?

[konying]

How would the Zionist media have played this story if it were a funeral in an illegal Israeli settlement where the mourners started throwing stones at surrounding Palestinians and a settler was shot dead as a result?

When and if this happens, make sure to report back and let us know

[Seastallion]

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

It IS hardly surprising, they WERE provocative, but I think what you're missing is that the report is a record of the ongoing conflict. We shouldn't ignore it. We should not wait just for the huge death toll incidents to report them.

Labeling them as "hostiles" is perhaps accurate in a literal and relative way, but deceptive in reality. Just as the (so-called at the time) "red Indians" were "hostiles" to the white man...actually they were freedom fighters, indeed hostile to the interlopers, but in retrospect, can anyone blame the Native Americans for being "hostile" to the people occupying, by force, their lands?

And maybe it is like the story in the US that you refer to. The parallel is an unarmed civilian vs a well armed trained man. We're outraged at what happened in the US, but some here simply say, "Throw a stone at a cop, expect to get shot" with regard to the OP incident. Could I equally say, "Run from a cop, expect to get shot"? (Some on here will no doubt say YES!!!, lol).

Where do you draw the line? Run, expect not to get shot, throw a stone, expect to get shot.

At least in the running scenario, the cop can say the crim would have got away. In the stone throwing, the cop could conceivably have gone in and arrested the stone thrower WITHOUT KILLING HIM.

[konying]

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

It IS hardly surprising, they WERE provocative, but I think what you're missing is that the report is a record of the ongoing conflict. We shouldn't ignore it. We should not wait just for the huge death toll incidents to report them.

Labeling them as "hostiles" is perhaps accurate in a literal and relative way, but deceptive in reality. Just as the (so-called at the time) "red Indians" were "hostiles" to the white man...actually they were freedom fighters, indeed hostile to the interlopers, but in retrospect, can anyone blame the Native Americans for being "hostile" to the people occupying, by force, their lands?

And maybe it is like the story in the US that you refer to. The parallel is an unarmed civilian vs a well armed trained man. We're outraged at what happened in the US, but some here simply say, "Throw a stone at a cop, expect to get shot" with regard to the OP incident. Could I equally say, "Run from a cop, expect to get shot"? (Some on here will no doubt say YES!!!, lol).

Where do you draw the line? Run, expect not to get shot, throw a stone, expect to get shot.

At least in the running scenario, the cop can say the crim would have got away. In the stone throwing, the cop could conceivably have gone in and arrested the stone thrower WITHOUT KILLING HIM.

It sure is nice and safe to type away behind the safety of a screen.

Have you ever actually confronted anyone throwing rocks at you or burning tires?

Have you ever served in a real conflict? in situation where you were outnumbered?

If you have not, for the life of me, i can not see how you could be in the position to say what soldiers could have or should have done

[Denim]

I'm sorry but what has this to do with Thailand.

Many times I have seen interesting threads closed because the content was ' nothing to do with Thailand 'Surwly , this thread also has nothing to do with Thailand ?

[Seastallion]

I think we all get that lots of Palestinians are angry and that they hate Israeli soldiers. I suppose they can be seen as legit military targets to such people, as opposed to terror actions against civilians. But in such conflicts if you do act violently against soldiers, it's common sense that it can end badly.

You are correct and it is an interesting concession that you make.

When it comes to Palestinians, military personnel are valid targets for freedom fighters. Terrorising civilians is "out of bounds". I agree in principle.

How about IDF? Is terrorising civilians also "out of bounds"?

[DaddyWarbucks]

How would the Zionist media have played this story if it were a funeral in an illegal Israeli settlement where the mourners started throwing stones at surrounding Palestinians and a settler was shot dead as a result?

When and if this happens, make sure to report back and let us know

It was a hypothetical question about media bias.

[DaddyWarbucks]

I'm sorry but what has this to do with Thailand.

Many times I have seen interesting threads closed because the content was ' nothing to do with Thailand 'Surwly , this thread also has nothing to do with Thailand ?

The topic has nothing whatsoever to do with Thailand because it is in the World News Forum.

[Thorgal]

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

Because any opportunity to bash Israel is a good one, no matter if the incident or circumstances were reasonable or not

Beyt Ummar is not exactly Israel, whatever attempt in history derogation you will try to force...

So, every IDF killing outside Israel is unlawfull !

Edited April 12, 2015 by Thorgal

[konying]

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

Because any opportunity to bash Israel is a good one, no matter if the incident or circumstances were reasonable or not

Beyt Ummar is not exactly Israel, whatever attempt in history derogation you will try to force...

So, every IDF killing outside Israel is unlawfull !

Strange, never realised self defence was unlawful or had limits to locations, but do not let common sense stop you, does not stop the Arabs so neither should stop you.

[ggold]

How would the Zionist media have played this story if it were a funeral in an illegal Israeli settlement where the mourners started throwing stones at surrounding Palestinians and a settler was shot dead as a result?

I think Israeli mourners at a funeral would behave with more dignity, out of respect for the dead. They would not then attack Palestinians. However a Palestinian doesn't need much of an excuse to attack Israeli's.

[ggold]

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

Because any opportunity to bash Israel is a good one, no matter if the incident or circumstances were reasonable or not

Beyt Ummar is not exactly Israel, whatever attempt in history derogation you will try to force...

So, every IDF killing outside Israel is unlawfull !

Bayt Ummar is in Israel, I don't see the point you are making other than to attempt historic derogation!

[Thorgal]

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

It IS hardly surprising, they WERE provocative, but I think what you're missing is that the report is a record of the ongoing conflict. We shouldn't ignore it. We should not wait just for the huge death toll incidents to report them.

Labeling them as "hostiles" is perhaps accurate in a literal and relative way, but deceptive in reality. Just as the (so-called at the time) "red Indians" were "hostiles" to the white man...actually they were freedom fighters, indeed hostile to the interlopers, but in retrospect, can anyone blame the Native Americans for being "hostile" to the people occupying, by force, their lands?

And maybe it is like the story in the US that you refer to. The parallel is an unarmed civilian vs a well armed trained man. We're outraged at what happened in the US, but some here simply say, "Throw a stone at a cop, expect to get shot" with regard to the OP incident. Could I equally say, "Run from a cop, expect to get shot"? (Some on here will no doubt say YES!!!, lol).

Where do you draw the line? Run, expect not to get shot, throw a stone, expect to get shot.

At least in the running scenario, the cop can say the crim would have got away. In the stone throwing, the cop could conceivably have gone in and arrested the stone thrower WITHOUT KILLING HIM.

It sure is nice and safe to type away behind the safety of a screen.

Have you ever actually confronted anyone throwing rocks at you or burning tires?

Have you ever served in a real conflict? in situation where you were outnumbered?

If you have not, for the life of me, i can not see how you could be in the position to say what soldiers could have or should have done

Self defense ? Another similar case in Beyt Ummar from 14th of March 2014.

"The Israeli occupation forces stormed the town cemetery today, during the funeral of Badria Abu Maria, and throw gas grenades and sound grenades, causing injuries and suffocation to the participants. 31 citizens were injured, one of them seriously, a 15 years old boy Mohamed Ahmed Shehadeh Abu Ayyash, was shot in his head with live ammunition from a short distance and was taken to Ahlia hospital in Hebron. He is still in serious condition. Another injured teenager from live ammunition was 18 year old Omar Arafat Isa Zaaqiq, that was shot in his chest and was also taken to a Ahlia hospital by the Red Cross ambulance. Three more teenagers in the age of 15 to 17 were injured by rubber bullets in different parts of their bodies, and were taken to Maaganhm medical complex in the town. Their situation is stable. Another eight young men and boys were injured from rubber bullets in different parts of their bodies and received treatment in the place of injury. Dozens of other citizens suffered from suffocation due to tear gas and used the occupation forces. The Israeli occupation forces shot skunk weapon (water with malodorant chemicals) into Palestinian houses at the area of the German school for girls, and fired live ammunition, rubber bullets and gas from inside the school yard."

http://palestinesolidarityproject.org/2014/03/14/beit-ommar-today-1432014/

Edited April 13, 2015 by Thorgal

[konying]

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

It IS hardly surprising, they WERE provocative, but I think what you're missing is that the report is a record of the ongoing conflict. We shouldn't ignore it. We should not wait just for the huge death toll incidents to report them.

Labeling them as "hostiles" is perhaps accurate in a literal and relative way, but deceptive in reality. Just as the (so-called at the time) "red Indians" were "hostiles" to the white man...actually they were freedom fighters, indeed hostile to the interlopers, but in retrospect, can anyone blame the Native Americans for being "hostile" to the people occupying, by force, their lands?

And maybe it is like the story in the US that you refer to. The parallel is an unarmed civilian vs a well armed trained man. We're outraged at what happened in the US, but some here simply say, "Throw a stone at a cop, expect to get shot" with regard to the OP incident. Could I equally say, "Run from a cop, expect to get shot"? (Some on here will no doubt say YES!!!, lol).

Where do you draw the line? Run, expect not to get shot, throw a stone, expect to get shot.

At least in the running scenario, the cop can say the crim would have got away. In the stone throwing, the cop could conceivably have gone in and arrested the stone thrower WITHOUT KILLING HIM.

It sure is nice and safe to type away behind the safety of a screen.

Have you ever actually confronted anyone throwing rocks at you or burning tires?

Have you ever served in a real conflict? in situation where you were outnumbered?

If you have not, for the life of me, i can not see how you could be in the position to say what soldiers could have or should have done

Self defense ? Another similar case in Beyt Ummar from 14th of March 2014.

"The Israeli occupation forces stormed the town cemetery today, during the funeral of Badria Abu Maria, and throw gas grenades and sound grenades, causing injuries and suffocation to the participants. 31 citizens were injured, one of them seriously, a 15 years old boy Mohamed Ahmed Shehadeh Abu Ayyash, was shot in his head with live ammunition from a short distance and was taken to Ahlia hospital in Hebron. He is still in serious condition. Another injured teenager from live ammunition was 18 year old Omar Arafat Isa Zaaqiq, that was shot in his chest and was also taken to a Ahlia hospital by the Red Cross ambulance. Three more teenagers in the age of 15 to 17 were injured by rubber bullets in different parts of their bodies, and were taken to Maaganhm medical complex in the town. Their situation is stable. Another eight young men and boys were injured from rubber bullets in different parts of their bodies and received treatment in the place of injury. Dozens of other citizens suffered from suffocation due to tear gas and used the occupation forces. The Israeli occupation forces shot skunk weapon (water with malodorant chemicals) into Palestinian houses at the area of the German school for girls, and fired live ammunition, rubber bullets and gas from inside the school yard."

http://palestinesolidarityproject.org/2014/03/14/beit-ommar-today-1432014/

Please forgive me for not even reading Palestinian news , after all the have Micky mouse killing Jews

[ABCer]

Israel does not own that land and has no right to take any of it. The majority of the world has already stated so.

One. The possession is 90% of the right.

Two. UN gave them this right back in 1947.

Three. Since 1947 the UN has lost its relevance since every Tom, Dick and hairy Harry has become a fully fledged member.

As to the rest of your ideas - I am not sure which country you are talking about.

The way you put it - it could have been any one from Russia to USA - with Congo, Uganda and Somalia in-between.

[Linky]

Israel does not own that land and has no right to take any of it. The majority of the world has already stated so.

One. The possession is 90% of the right.

Two. UN gave them this right back in 1947.

Three. Since 1947 the UN has lost its relevance since every Tom, Dick and hairy Harry has become a fully fledged member.

As to the rest of your ideas - I am not sure which country you are talking about.

The way you put it - it could have been any one from Russia to USA - with Congo, Uganda and Somalia in-between.

1. Possession is 90% of the right. The Palestinians are on that land, possessing it. Israel were not but kicked them out.

2. The UN did not give them this right in 1947.

I said most countries in the world, not just some or a few.

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

Please stay on topic.

[Thorgal]

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

Because any opportunity to bash Israel is a good one, no matter if the incident or circumstances were reasonable or not

Beyt Ummar is not exactly Israel, whatever attempt in history derogation you will try to force...

So, every IDF killing outside Israel is unlawfull !

Bayt Ummar is in Israel, I don't see the point you are making other than to attempt historic derogation!

Bayt Ummar is in the West Bank close to an illigal Israeli settlement and cut in 2 with Israeli highway N60.

Again, IDF presency and actions in this region is unlawfull...

[Jingthing]

Whether Israel's presence in the west bank is unlawful or not is a legitimate issue but it seems to me as they are there and Palestine does not exist as a state that violently assaulting soldiers, while understandable, carries certain predictable risks.

Yes, the international consensus is indeed that Israel should not be there on the west bank, but again, we're not going to solve that here and that question is much bigger than this specific story, which is more like play with fire, get burned.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Jingthing

[Catoni]

Israel has a problem. They better solve it, before the whole world (except a

few)comes down on them.

They'll solve their problem when they destroy Hamas and Hezbollah, Fatah and the other nut case Islamic extremist groups. I hope they do it sooner rather than later.

Are you saying that the rest of the world hates Israel, and are buddies with Hamas and Hezbollah et al. ? The world turned upside down..... wonderful.

I made my choice which side to be on. I stand with Israel.

[Catoni]

Whether Israel's presence in the west bank is unlawful or not is a legitimate issue but it seems to me as they are there and Palestine does not exist as a state that violently assaulting soldiers, while understandable, carries certain predictable risks.

Yes, the international consensus is indeed that Israel should not be there on the west bank, but again, we're not going to solve that here and that question is much bigger than this specific story, which is more like play with fire, get burned.

Israel received the West Bank as a war prize following attack on them over the years.... same as many other countries have gotten land over the years.

You think they should return it ?

Should the U.S. return California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to Mexico or Spain ? Should we all return North America to the indians and return to our ancestral countries ?

[dexterm]

Perhaps the legal context will tell you more about the degree of consiousness :

1. actus reus: any conduct resulting in the death of another individual. This is when you shoot with live bullets to a crowd. No Israeli was reported as hurted... but a few palestinians were shot with live ammo and rubber bullets.

2. mens rea: intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in the death. Palestinians went to a funeral for a relative. IDF forces didn't really had to go to the funeral in occupied territory. Armed soldiers worked provocative.

A fragile counscience is acceptable in a funeral if you're a relative of the victim. The funeral could have happened completely different and peacefull without IDF.

Why do not you try to attack a police officer in your country and if you do not get shot on the spot, you could use the degrees of conscientiousness in court and see how well it will do you

A police officer is not occupying my land illegally. If the IDF were not occupying the West Bank illegally they would not have rocks thrown at them by way of resistance and especially in retaliation for murdering of fellow Palestinians.

It looks like the IDF yet again provoked the situation.

[dexterm]

Whether Israel's presence in the west bank is unlawful or not is a legitimate issue but it seems to me as they are there and Palestine does not exist as a state that violently assaulting soldiers, while understandable, carries certain predictable risks.

Yes, the international consensus is indeed that Israel should not be there on the west bank, but again, we're not going to solve that here and that question is much bigger than this specific story, which is more like play with fire, get burned.

Israel received the West Bank as a war prize following attack on them over the years.... same as many other countries have gotten land over the years.

You think they should return it ?

Should the U.S. return California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to Mexico or Spain ? Should we all return North America to the indians and return to our ancestral countries ?

Israeli is illegally occupying Palestinian land. Palestinians have a perfect right to resist any way they can. More of the incidents in the OP will occur until Israeli occupation ends, while the whole world is watching this time via social media shaming Israel.

In the 21st century under international law there is no such thing as winning land as war prizes.

Under the 4th Geneva Convention no country can occupy land in war, annex it as its own, and transfer its own citizens there.

Israel has signed and ratified the 4th Geneva Convention

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreatiesByCountrySelected.xsp?xp_countrySelected=IL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

Section III. Occupied territories[edit]

Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

If Israel ceases its occupation, the OP incidents will cease too.

Edited April 14, 2015 by dexterm

[dexterm]

Israel has a problem. They better solve it, before the whole world (except a

few)comes down on them.

They'll solve their problem when they destroy Hamas and Hezbollah, Fatah and the other nut case Islamic extremist groups. I hope they do it sooner rather than later.

Are you saying that the rest of the world hates Israel, and are buddies with Hamas and Hezbollah et al. ? The world turned upside down..... wonderful.

I made my choice which side to be on. I stand with Israel.

No the world doesnt hate Israel. It hates all bullies who shoot at unarmed civilians with live ammunition killing them. What other so called democracy so close to Europe behaves in such a way. That's why Israel cops so much flak..its sheer hypocrisy.

Israel is not just shooting unarmed civilians, it is shooting itself in the foot too by bringing on this storm of criticism. Hastening the day when Israel will have to make a just peace with Palestinians who are there for eternity as its geographical neighbors, or absorb them as equal citizens. The occupation and these incidents cannot continue for ever.

[Scott]

Posts with a script problem have been removed.

[konying]

Perhaps the legal context will tell you more about the degree of consiousness :

1. actus reus: any conduct resulting in the death of another individual. This is when you shoot with live bullets to a crowd. No Israeli was reported as hurted... but a few palestinians were shot with live ammo and rubber bullets.

2. mens rea: intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in the death. Palestinians went to a funeral for a relative. IDF forces didn't really had to go to the funeral in occupied territory. Armed soldiers worked provocative.

A fragile counscience is acceptable in a funeral if you're a relative of the victim. The funeral could have happened completely different and peacefull without IDF.

Why do not you try to attack a police officer in your country and if you do not get shot on the spot, you could use the degrees of conscientiousness in court and see how well it will do you

A police officer is not occupying my land illegally. If the IDF were not occupying the West Bank illegally they would not have rocks thrown at them by way of resistance and especially in retaliation for murdering of fellow Palestinians.

It looks like the IDF yet again provoked the situation.

And if police officer was occupying your land, you would be stupid to attack armed men with power to use his arms.

Looks like IDF provoked? as usual you right , morons threw rocks and burning tires, and IDF dared to respond.

[Linky]

Perhaps the legal context will tell you more about the degree of consiousness :

1. actus reus: any conduct resulting in the death of another individual. This is when you shoot with live bullets to a crowd. No Israeli was reported as hurted... but a few palestinians were shot with live ammo and rubber bullets.

2. mens rea: intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in the death. Palestinians went to a funeral for a relative. IDF forces didn't really had to go to the funeral in occupied territory. Armed soldiers worked provocative.

A fragile counscience is acceptable in a funeral if you're a relative of the victim. The funeral could have happened completely different and peacefull without IDF.

Why do not you try to attack a police officer in your country and if you do not get shot on the spot, you could use the degrees of conscientiousness in court and see how well it will do you

A police officer is not occupying my land illegally. If the IDF were not occupying the West Bank illegally they would not have rocks thrown at them by way of resistance and especially in retaliation for murdering of fellow Palestinians.

It looks like the IDF yet again provoked the situation.

And if police officer was occupying your land, you would be stupid to attack armed men with power to use his arms.

Looks like IDF provoked? as usual you right , morons threw rocks and burning tires, and IDF dared to respond.

Showing tremendous bravery to attack those more heavily armed knowing you will likely die. Very admirable.

[dexterm]

Perhaps the legal context will tell you more about the degree of consiousness :

1. actus reus: any conduct resulting in the death of another individual. This is when you shoot with live bullets to a crowd. No Israeli was reported as hurted... but a few palestinians were shot with live ammo and rubber bullets.

2. mens rea: intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in the death. Palestinians went to a funeral for a relative. IDF forces didn't really had to go to the funeral in occupied territory. Armed soldiers worked provocative.

A fragile counscience is acceptable in a funeral if you're a relative of the victim. The funeral could have happened completely different and peacefull without IDF.

Why do not you try to attack a police officer in your country and if you do not get shot on the spot, you could use the degrees of conscientiousness in court and see how well it will do you

A police officer is not occupying my land illegally. If the IDF were not occupying the West Bank illegally they would not have rocks thrown at them by way of resistance and especially in retaliation for murdering of fellow Palestinians.

It looks like the IDF yet again provoked the situation.

And if police officer was occupying your land, you would be stupid to attack armed men with power to use his arms.

Looks like IDF provoked? as usual you right , morons threw rocks and burning tires, and IDF dared to respond.

When an occupying force is denying you the right to self determination, you can either resist whatever the odds or collaborate.

History is full of examples of injustices ended by brave resistance. This OP incident is no exception.

Palestinians have more than rocks to fight against live ammunition; today they have Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, and a whole panoply of international instant communication. Hence we are discussing this atrocity now on TVF.

Israel will ultimately be shamed into capitulation by world pressure.

[Ulysses G.]

Israel will ultimately be shamed into capitulation by world pressure.

Look at Russia's latest adventures. No they won't.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Ulysses G.