Israeli Defence Force Massacres over 50, Wounds 2000 in Annual Nakba Protest - Sensationalist Headlines

This is the second time I've seen you use this line of reasoning and I have to ask; do you think there is a place in this discussion for anyone who isn't Israeli?

For sure, however Americans and Europeans tend to dismiss the israeli mindset and way of looking at things for a more American/European point of view which dismisses israeli concerns and calls for israel to do impossible things. It comes off like people in a gated community telling people who don't live in a gated community what to do.

I think it would be an easier argument to outright say "you need to look at this from an Israeli perspective" instead of almost name-calling.

Honestly if every demonstrator at any large Palestinian protest or riot could be "members of Hamas military wing" trying to break through a fence and start murdering Israelis then why don't the IDF just open fire immediately after they ignore the first warnings to disperse? Fair enough. but I think explaining why those things are impossible would be more constructive. Your gated community metaphor comes across as (ironically (coincidently?)) gatekeeping.

I assume it's because, though you wouldn't know it from how most people treat them, Israel doesn't want to kill civilians. They wait until someone does something above and beyond meer protesting to open fire. They sure care a hell of a lot more about the lives of Palestinians than Hamas.

For the sake of discussion, are "Hamas military agents who may or may not be carrying weapons" civilians? Are the "hundreds, or even thousands of people" who want to rush the gates civilians? I only ask because you seem to be establishing the idea that military force against groups like this is not only reasonable, but beneficial to both Israel and the Palestinian population itself.

I'm not sure how they could be. They are members of a known military terrorist group comparable to something like ISIS. Until they actively start doing damage or breaching the border? Yes. Israel needs to ensure that Hamas does not break into the country. They will do what's necessary to make sure that doesn't happen, including shooting anyone who's either A) trying to physically attack Israeli soldiers or B) trying to physically destroy the barrier. They have continually dropped leaflets to the crowd warning them to stay away from the border fence. If someone approaches the fence, then they're doing so with full knowledge that they may be fired upon.

That's what I meant by a warning. But it just seems like the logical chain here is that Israel must prevent Hamas from getting close to their border, but Hamas uses civilians as shields or co-opts them in other ways during demonstrations, meaning you can't tell who is an isn't Hamas. Essentially meaning that if a demonstrator is near someone who might be Hamas who is doing something more than chanting, or throwing rocks or fireworks, then they should be expected to be fired upon. Although you wouldn't know it from how most people who treat them, people who are critical of Israel's penchant for disproportionate responses to genuine security threats don't sympathize with Hamas, or hate Israel, or more ridiculously (as some in this thread have postulated) hate Jews. Many people see the complex situation for what it is and are sympathetic to Israel's position, if not their methods. It's really hard to feel bad when an IDF soldier on a wall shoots a guy throwing molotov cocktails or firing an AK in the air but you just seem to be willing to give them carte blanche to treat the Palestinian population however they wish.

One problem with situations like this one is that there is a certain voice in the local public here that sees any and all calls for outside investigation into events such as these as attacking our brave sons and fathers defending the border from terrorists, which merely plays into the hands of said enemies. Fun fact, the Hebrew word for "terrorist", מְחַבֵּל [mekhabel], doubles as a word literally meaning "saboteur", leading to calling anybody damaging Israeli infrastructure such as walls and fences with such a term; which I have a hunch plays into the psychological perception of the public on such issues.

I would argue that the people you're describing in the second paragraph are more likely be empathizing with the suffering of your average Palestinian without recognizing the reality of the whole situation. To add to the conversation: A leader of Hamas claimed that 50 of those killed were members of Hamas (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-leader-says-50-gazans-killed-were-members-of-group/). I'm not sure how anyone can argue that Israel is doing some wild or imprecise level of violence if that's true.

Another source: The Latest 6:10 p.m. A senior Hamas official says the vast majority of protesters killed by Israeli fire during protests on the Gaza border this week were members of the Islamic militant group. Salah Bardawil says 50 of the nearly 60 protesters killed by Israeli fire were members of the group that rules the Gaza Strip. He spoke in an interview Wednesday to Baladna TV, a private Palestinian news outlet.

I don't think anyone can say they recognize the reality of the whole situation. It's pretty complex.

There are complexities, sure, but appealing to complexity doesn't allow us to ignore some of the clear facts on the ground: like the fact that Hamas is Nazi level horrible and can't be negotiated with.

I still want to know what the possible justification for this could have been Canadian doctor shot by Israeli sniper near Gaza border

Honestly, there's zero way to tell without more context. The fact that 50/60 deaths were Hamas members tells me that they weren't just shooting people to shoot them, though.

Read the article. He was shot by a sniper rifle in the leg during a quiet period. All members of the medic team were wearing high-vis clothing, and were standing off to the side.

There's lots of images of Palestenians bringing children\babies to the protests to use as human shields, it's pretty sick.

I read the article, but I have a hard time taking it at face value when the only source is the guy who got shot.

I'm not seeing any bias whatsoever. He's a combat medic, this is just what he does. I'm pretty sure he didn't shoot himself in the legs and his friend in the chest.

No where in the article does it provide specific evidence that it was specifically an Israeli that shot him. Not saying his whole story is bullshit, but I'm curious to why they are putting the blame on Israel? Was it an Israeli round they pulled out of his leg or was where he was shot from clearly from the Israeli side of the border? It just doesn't say.

Well certainly it seems more likely that the side employing snipers to watch the border would be the one doing the shooting, no? I see no reason for Hamas to shoot the guy, even as I see no reason for Israel to do so.

he posted pictures of the wound, it's pretty clearly a .22 wound and it managed to go through both his legs. Israeli snipers are that accurate and in this case, only use .22 rifles.

Israelis aren't the only ones that are good at shooting and use that size round, though.

And, uh, being on the defensive side ethically justifies annexing part of other countries?

Well, there is a strategic and tactical reason why Israel has not returned the Golan Heights back to Syria.

That they had the reason to does not mean they had the right to, though.

I'm sure there are strategic and tactical reasons to annex pretty much any geographical area in the world if you look at it the right way. I mean, Russia had strategic and tactical reasons to annex Crimea, too. What does that have to do with ethically justifying annexation exactly?

No, they didn't have a "right to it", but it a justification for defense, like the original post asked.

I asked for an ethical justification. You provided none. It's not. A lot of countries could "ensure their survival" by annexing pieces of their neighbors. That doesn't mean it would be ethical of them to do so. The point is that countries are never justified in annexing others, regardless of whether they started the war that led to it.

Perhaps you should have said that in the first place instead of asking me a question that you would accept no answer given to it.