Israel Sniper Killed Voluteer Female Medic, 100 Protesters Wounded
322 replies, posted
Any Palestinian that attempts to cross the border is doing so because they want to cross to Israel and harm civilians, why else would they be doing this?
You seem to have forgotten the massive stabbing spree that happened not long ago.
The Palestinians inside that a rioting are not being targeted, if they attempt to cross the border however they get shot.
don't want to get shot?, don't cross the border or attempt to sabotage it (with wire cutters etc)
I'm not sure you're reading his posts. He's claiming that some, if not most of, the people who get shot aren't actually attempting to either cross the border or sabotage the fence, and as a consequence shooting such people from long range with sniper rifles seems pointlessly cruel.
Like, there's other concerns to be voiced about his solutions (such as the quite small number of water cannons in the first place and thus their ability to cover all potential areas, and the fact they load them with "skunk", which when one fails to aim properly might as well be collective punishment; or as you imply - the fact anyone in positions of leadership putting Israeli lives at risk in order to save the lives of non-Israelis will be crucified by social media and have a really hard time maintaining their career) but please at least try to address the actual words he's saying.
As for the last point, surely a minimal concern for the safety of non-combatants is to be expected of people in an army which considers itself professional? Surely you see at least some problem with a complete lack of concern for whoever isn't a national in your country when your country is literally in direct control of the air, land and sea of the entire surrounding area and sees fit to enter and exit at will?
It's okay if people on their side of the border die but not on MY side
It's hard for me to see the guy that argued that medics are justifiable collateral damage because they might be members of hamas is the rational one in the argument. Really hard.
I don't think the other guy arguing that Israel has a hidden (or possibly overt) goal of ethnic extermination, to which all other policies are just means, is being any better, though - especially when he refuses to give proof of this. Israel can and should be criticized, but there's no need for literal conspiracy theories unless one has very strong evidence.
Right, because that's the entirety of the argument I presented.
I think economic and cultural suppression are far more successful that outright extermination. just make it so they can't thrive and then your people can move on in.
We don't know that, though, do we?
I don't believe they randomly shoot into crowds, but the amount of people injured and dead and the fact the IDF resorts to both silence when pressed AND their speaker resorting to Hamas-tier propaganda tactics leads me to believe somebody's ass is being covered here and that somebody's mistakes are in the process of being buried so that their careers may continue unmolested.
This entire situation stinks of internal corruption, and it makes me sick.
I'm sure that's what Israel were thinking when they forced all the settlers out of Gaza.
[citation needed]
Please, I implore you, give me actual unshakeable proof to support this theory. I have personal reasons to believe it isn't so but they're not something I can really talk about online, so I would really appreciate you doing that - after all, I don't want to be, even by inaction, supporting genocide.
I think this is the relevant post.
And I don't see how Lambeths description is inaccurate. Israel shouldn't shoot at medic but if they are in the buffer zone and/or in medic clothes then they should be fired upon. Not only that, but based on posts you have made in other threads, firing upon these people would actually be a more morally commendable thing to do because the possible bloodshed of letting just one person who looks like they are a medic to cross several hundred meters of open ground to penetrate a border fence would outweigh any collateral damage that comes from firing into a crowd of people.
Let's say we have a line that has both extremes at both ends that looks something like this:
A [------------------------------------------------------------------------------] B
Extreme A = Medical clothing has absolutely zero meaning. It should be totally ignored.
Extreme B = Medical clothing gives the assumption of total innocence, no matter what.
Point C in the middle represents where the military staff stands on how to treat medics.
So in a normal military engagement between two countries that at least try to respect the rules of war, point C might lie somewhere like this:
A [-----------------------------------------------------------------------C-------] B
In the current engagement with Hamas, it might look something like this:
A [------------------C------------------------------------------------------------] B
Do I want Israel to actively shoot every medic that crosses the 300m buffer line. No, not really. Has every medic that crossed the line been shot? I would almost certain guess a resounding "no" to be the correct answer.
My point is simply that Israel cannot treat medical clothing the same way other countries can in conflicts where both sides attempt to follow the rules. I've asked many times already, but I'll ask again: What do you want Israel to do? Let's say they take the line of never shooting anyone in medical clothing until after they've committed an act of clear violence, Hamas notices and dresses it's militants up like medics. They then use those people to plant IEDs on the border fence, shoot people, etc. What should Israel's response be to that predicament?
It's impossible for anyone to answer this question without knowing exactly what sort of ROE or rules of any sort that IDF border guards operate under. Generally though I'd say that people wearing what appears to be medical uniforms should be given the benefit of the doubt. I refuse to believe the United States hasn't had to deal with similar problems identifying and dealing with threats in an appropriate manner. Israel has more personel with better training and more materiel of advanced grade, the onus should be on them to take the risk that Hamas sees them not firing at medics as a way to dress as medics and try to bomb the fence or shoot at people along it.
My contention isn't that IDF soldiers are posted up trying to bullseye medics because they think it's fun, it's the overall attitude you and others seem to have that nearly any killing of any civilians on the Gaza side of the fence is defensible with "they coulda been hamas tho".
What's the practical difference if you already assume every Gazan inhabitant is Hamas?
Yeah but who cares though.
I would summarize my view as: There needs to be real, hard, evidence of wrongful shootings before they are accepted as true. In almost every case so far we have nothing more than vague notions of what people were doing.
Let me get this straight: do you put the burden of proof on every single shot by IDF snipers being wrong on the other side, even when such footage can and will be dismissed as either unclear or propaganda due to cut context? Do you not see how this absolves the army of every single mistake made?
Unless I misunderstand, and you mean neither position should be "true" by default and that every such shooting should be investigated?
You can't assume every inhabitant is Hamas, but potentially any inhabitant is Hamas?
I'm at a genuine loss as to how you worked out that I believe Israel is a genocidal monster based on what I posted.
Fuck no. The IDF are the ones using lethal force, they are the ones who have to provide justification and evidence. The burden of proof is on them.
Unless such justification is provided, the shootings are to be considered wrongful. As I mentioned earlier, the fact the IDF is currently resorting to propaganda on this matter strongly suggests that they have nothing tangible. Thus I don't see any reason to believe this shooting was justified, unless actual evidence of this woman's wrongdoing comes out. I don't see why I should trust the stance of an entity that refuses independent investigations and manipulates videos.
Everything points towards this shooting being a murder.
Shooting medics is a straight up war crime. Unless the IDF has crystal clear evidence to prove that the medic was an active combatant, this should result in a court martial, or even better, a trial at the ICC in The Hague.
israelis dont want to retake Gaza though, it's a huge pain and not worth ti
I said that they don't want to take out Hamas because of the huge loss of life involved, and you responded with "who cares." I'm not sure how to interpret other than you thinking that Israel doesn't care at all about killing people.
You keep contradicting yourself. According to you, Israel cares about not killing people. Yet their only solution to protestors, who are hundreds of meters away, is to fire at them with live ammunition. And you think that is a good idea.
As if that's not enough, the protestors have medics among them, who are being targeted by snipers. Without any evidence you assume the medics are Hamas. But even in that case, it's still a war crime: Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries
They knowingly fire at a medic performing his/her duties while wearing a clear insignia. BUT, you say, the medic might have been throwing smokes!
Still a war crime: Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries 2
Here's a thing:
What’s causing unusual bullet wounds among Gaza protesters? | +9..
In all fairness hollow point ammo is often used by police and such because it gets stopped after the first person it hits, you don't really want to be using armour piercing rounds when dealing with crowds.. They're also not actually banned on an international level, it's not part of the Geneva convention and the treaty that banned them was ratified back in the 1800's, I imagine Israel never signed it
I mean, I did say this in the post above
so I don't think the individual IDF border guard is a genocidal monster, and I personally wouldn't argue that Israel is conducting any sort of genocide.My point, which I guess I should have stated outright, is that Israel doesn't typically concern itself with international condemnation, and has gone out of its way to counter-condemn the UN for what it sees as bias. You really shouldn't assume that people who criticize Israel (hell, not even; people who criticize the actions of a handful of IDF border patrol) hate Israel. It's something of a common thread I've seen in some of your replies in this thread and others, and I think it goes a long way to why these discussions are so unproductive.
I agree especially with your last point there. The instant anyone criticizes the actions of an Israeli, Israel as a country, Israel's military (JIDF), Israel's border protection practices, Israel's definition of a combatant, et cetera they're immediately labeled as an anti-semite, a jew-hater, an Israel hater, and so on. it's extremely unproductive to, in the midst of an argument / wall of text, quickly label someone as whatever helps fit your narrative, for no real reason.
It's hard to tell where people are coming from when the "Israel wants genocide" type positions are so common, and are almost never critiqued from anyone on the other side.
Israel's military is the IDF. JIDF is something else entirely.
Corrected my post
I don't think JIDF is even Israel-specific.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.