Israeli forces kill dozens of Palestinians in Gaza 'massacre'

[icehorse]

That is true. They did vote in Hamas.
However, that was 11 years ago and I wonder if they would vote the same today after living under Hamas.
I was Israel for several years before the PLO came to Gaza and there were good relations being built between Israelis & people in Gaza.

One of the projects that the Israeli government set up was to partner Israeli and Gazaans into shared businesses, so that the living standards go be improved for Gaza.
Of course all those Gaza business people who partnered with Israelis were murdered by the PLO as soon as the the 'peace deal' was made.

I used to visit there regularly and my friends there were free to come and visit me at my home(Jerusalem).

Another poster mentioned that violence-threatening coercion was used by Hamas to win the election. While I have heard of no proof of such actions, it seems all too plausible.

IMO, what the UN needs to be doing is removing Hamas, the PA, and whatever other "leadership" groups from the Palestinian people and supervise actual, legal, un-coerced elections.

The UN also ought to enforce the phasing out of Palestinian refugee camps throughout the region. For example, there are refugee camps in Jordan that house 4th generation refugees. Let that idea rattle around in your brain for a while. Why hasn't Jordan simply let these people immigrate? Could it be that these Palestinian refugees are simply political pawns used by Arab leaders?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Being more stringent about avoiding civilian casualties and trying to make sure Israeli forces don't kill unarmed people, including children, would be a good start.

I believe this is the motto of Hamas too.

 

[columbus]

Being more stringent about avoiding civilian casualties and trying to make sure Israeli forces don't kill unarmed people, including children, would be a good start.

Will you hold Hamas to those standards?
Tom

 

[Debater Slayer]

I believe this is the motto of Hamas too.

Tu quoque is not a good foundation for political and military decisions. You don't take the high ground against organizations like Hamas by resorting to similarly reprehensible tactics.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Will you hold Hamas to those standards?
Tom

Yes, and I do consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

That still doesn't change Israel's accountability for war crimes.

 

[columbus]

Yes, and I do consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

That still doesn't change Israel's accountability for war crimes.

I see multiple levels of accountability here.
Hamas for tossing children in harm's way for political gain.
Trump instigating violence for political gain.
IDF using violence rather wantonly.
Iran supporting the violence for their own purposes


In that order.
Tom

Eta ~ I see all of these players, and a few more, as immoral users of violence against children. ~

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, he just followed through on the decision made 20 years ago.
"The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995[1] is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37)"

"Its purpose was to set aside funds for the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, by May 31, 1999"

Jerusalem Embassy Act - Wikipedia

Nothing required Trump to follow thru with this old decision.
So his doing so should be judged on its own merits.
I see only cost with no benefit.
This is not putting Americastan first, which was his primary campaign promise.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see multiple levels of accountability here.
Hamas for tossing children in harm's way for political gain.
Trump instigating violence for political gain.
IDF using violence rather wantonly.
Iran supporting the violence for their own purposes


In that order.
Tom

I can't disagree with that. Everyone who had a hand in the killing of civilians is accountable in one way or another.

 

[columbus]

Nothing required Trump to follow thru with this old decision.
So his doing so should be judged on its own merits.
I see only cost with no benefit.
This is not putting Americastan first, which was his primary campaign promise.

You knew Trump was a self centered liar when you voted for him.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

You knew Trump was a self centered liar when you voted for him.
Tom

And you knew Hillary was the same & more when you voted for her.
Your point?

 

[columbus]

And you knew Hillary was the same & more when you voted for her.
Your point?

My point is that Bilarry is better at global violence than Trump.

Way better. She wouldn't have let Netanyahu and Putin bait her into something as stupid as moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

My point is that Bilarry is better at global violence than Trump.

Way better. She wouldn't have let Netanyahu and Putin bait her into something as stupid as moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
Tom

A would'a could'a prediction with unwarranted certainty.
Time for you to get over the disappointing election.

 

[columbus]

A would'a could'a prediction with unwarranted certainty.

But I am right and you aren't.
Kiltboy

Tim

 

[Nakosis]

Being more stringent about avoiding civilian casualties and trying to make sure Israeli forces don't kill unarmed people, including children, would be a good start.

The force employed by the IDF in response to these complex and dangerous confrontations is not indiscriminate. Nor is it intended to harm the Palestinian youths. Rather the goal is to restore safety on the highways and other locations where violence has been instigated. IDF regulations make every effort to avoid incurring unnecessary casualties. Especially strict rules apply to the employment of live ammunition, preferring to make due, whenever possible, with loudspeaker warnings, tear gas, stun grenades, and rubber bullets. Soldiers are prohibited from opening fire with live ammunition unless: (1) they are fired upon; (2) they are in a situation where despite verbal warnings there remains an immediate danger to their lives or the lives of Israeli civilians; or (3) they are apprehending an escaping suspect who is believed to have committed a serious crime.94 Any soldiers who violate the rules of engagement are subject to investigation, disciplinary trial and, in serious cases, court-martial, as well they should.
The Use of Palestinian Children in the Al-Aqsa Intifada

This is the rules of engagement for the IDF. However anyone, including Israeli soldiers are capable of indiscriminate acts of violence.

Again I have to ask, why are Palestinian leaders putting children in harm's way in the first place?

Obviously the benefit to Palestine comes via international negotiations and knowing were most adults will hesitate to shoot a child they can be used as distractions and shields for Hamas operatives.

What benefit is there to the IDF to shoot children? I imagine if you were to lose a comrade to a sniper or a bomb while distracted by Palestinian children, you may be less inclined to see these children as innocent.

Stroked by Arafat’s speeches lauding the role of children in their struggle, repeatedly encouraged by their leadership to express “rage,” many Palestinian parents have come to view the role of the youth in the uprising as useful and honorable. A child killed in a street confrontation becomes a shaheed(Arabic for “martyr”) of the Palestinian cause, bringing social recognition and a cash payment to his family — $2,000 per child killed and $300 per child wounded.

 

[Revoltingest]

But I am right and you aren't.
Kiltboy

Tim

You believe you know what she would've done.
But this is faith based comparison of the two.

 

[Nakosis]

Above all else, withdraw its settlements on the West Bank. Second, end its occupation of the same.

The Palestinian side, above all else, needs to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Yes, I don't understand the justification for the occupation other than they simply have the ability to enforce it. Might makes right.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Tu quoque is not a good foundation for political and military decisions. You don't take the high ground against organizations like Hamas by resorting to similarly reprehensible tactics.

Well neither you not I were there, and 40,000 people is a large number even if spread over a dozen or more locations. I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibility for militants to have bombs or weapons amongst this lot, and the Israeli snipers no doubt had a better view. I'm willing to give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt even over such a large number of casualties. In the USA do the police give people a chance if they seem threatening?

 

[columbus]

You believe you know what she would've done.
But this is faith based comparison of the two.

Trump is doing exactly what he promised.
Starting war in the Middle East, like his predecessor W.

Clinton isn't.
But nobody important cares about an ex-politician. Well, except for the Deplorables who can't defend the vote that they cast.
They keep wanting to change the subject away from Trump.
Tom

 

[rosends]

Nothing required Trump to follow thru with this old decision.
So his doing so should be judged on its own merits.
I see only cost with no benefit.
This is not putting Americastan first, which was his primary campaign promise.

Nothing required a US president to follow a law passed by both houses. That seems like a strange claim. Every president since 1995 has made the promise to follow through. Each of them thought that, as a promise, it was reasonable. He just felt that keeping a promise had merit. Crazy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump is doing exactly what he promised.
Starting war in the Middle East, like his predecessor W.

I must've missed that campaign promise.
Perhaps you could locate it, eh?

Clinton isn't.

It's because she lost, & is out of power.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing required a US president to follow a law passed by both houses. That seems like a strange claim. Every president since 1995 has made the promise to follow through. Each of them thought that, as a promise, it was reasonable. He just felt that keeping a promise had merit. Crazy.

What is the merit moving the embassy?