US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,400
I don't think that Hamas can offer peace. I think if anyone among their leaders tried that he would be killed and they would continue their suicidal attacks. Of course I might be wrong, but such is my opinion.
Yes they can offer peace. There was a peace deal (a truce) last November. Israel and Hamas agree to Gaza ceasefire after intense violence

What suicidal attacks?

P. S. Having hostages in our day and age is not very good idea trying to gain legitimacy.
Israel holds 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 762 from Gaza.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
Even when the Gazans desist from rocket attacks, and simply go on unarmed marches withing their own territory, hundreds of them are killed by Israeli armed forces.
Unarmed marches with absolutely no intention, stated or unstated, of crossing into Israel? With no tire burnings, no stones being thrown, no moltov cocktails being thrown, no kite bombs, no violence of any sort? Just Israeli soldiers randomly murdering people walking around without provocation of any kind?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,400
Unarmed marches with absolutely no intention, stated or unstated, of crossing into Israel? With no tire burnings, no stones being thrown, no moltov cocktails being thrown, no kite bombs, no violence of any sort? Just Israeli soldiers randomly murdering people walking around without provocation of any kind?
Does it matter what was stated or unstated? What matters is actions. As I stated, the marches were unarmed, (without firearms). No armed people invaded Israel. There were instances of people throwing molotov cocktails, but as far as I can tell - I did a quick search to find instances of that - it was infrequent.

Are you suggesting that burning tyres in your own territory justifies killing people. Does ineffectual stone throwing against armed soldiers with tanks justify killing?

I don't think there are any kite "bombs", though there have been hundrends of kites with burning rags and such like. They caused no injuries, though fairly extensive crop-burning.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
Does it matter what was stated or unstated? What matters is actions.
Statements are actions. Indeed, in much of the developed world, merely threatening to commit a crime on a purely individual scale is itself a crime, to say nothing of on a collective scale.

There were instances of people throwing molotov cocktails ... burning tyres ... stone throwing ... hundrends of kites with burning rags and such like
So yes, all of those things were present. Thank you for the clarification; I was confused by your (seemingly incorrect) use of the term "unarmed" and wondered if you might have been talking about another event of which I was unaware.
 
Last edited:

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,400
Statements are actions.
How do you work that out? I hereby state I will give £50,000 to charity. What action is that statement causing?

So yes, all of those things were present. Thank you for the clarification; I was confused by your (seemingly incorrect) use of the term "unarmed" and wondered if you might have been talking about another event of which I was unaware.
I clearly stated "unarmed" which means without firearms. A stone isn't a firearm nor is a burning tyre.

"In late February 2019, a United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission found that of 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analysed only two were possibly justified as responses to danger by Israeli security forces, deeming the rest illegal". 2018 Gaza border protests - Wikipedia
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
How do you work that out? I hereby state I will give £50,000 to charity. What action is that statement causing?
How did you express that? You typed it. Is typing an action, or is it not? I think in any neutral context, no one would deem it controversial to suggest that typing, or speaking, are a kind of action, which is why we describe those things with verbs; your speech isn't "causing" an action, it is action. Beyond that, speech is a very important sort of action, which is both why some countries protect it so stringently, while others restrict it so fervently. Were you to publicly state, "I will give £50,000 to charity," you may produce a number of effects, including elation and interest among charity workers, and admiration from your acquaintances. Were you to then refuse to donate such money, that would then produce another effect: disappointment, and perhaps some measure of antipathy and future mistrust. In either case, you would have affected the world through the act of saying such a thing. Were you to state, "I'm going to blow up a church here in town," you might well find yourself visited by the police, even if you had no sincere intention of going through with it. And were you instead to say, "I am going to assassinate the leader of my country," you might even find yourself visited by your government's security services (at least were you an American; I do not know how seriously the United Kingdom takes the life of its royalty or governmental leadership).

Speech is not a triviality; it affects the world like any other action.

I clearly stated "unarmed" which means without firearms.
"Unarmed" does not mean "without firearms" in common usage, it means, "without weapons." Dictionary:

unarmed
adjective
un·armed | \ ˌən-ˈärmd \
Definition of unarmed

1: not armed or armored
unarmed civilians
also : not using or involving a weapon
unarmed robbery
2: having no hard and sharp projections (such as spines, spurs, or claws)
Rocks to hurl, moltov cocktails to hurl, kites with which to start fires, laser pointers to blind the eyes of soldiers (evidently?), these are all certainly weapons of varying severity. It sounds like the flaming tires may at times have been used as weapons as well, were they rolled. But, if you understood "unarmed" to mean "without firearms" rather than "without weapons," then I understand why you used the word as you did. I provide the dictionary definition only to illustrate why I misunderstood your usage initially.

"In late February 2019, a United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission found that of 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analysed only two were possibly justified as responses to danger by Israeli security forces, deeming the rest illegal". 2018 Gaza border protests - Wikipedia
The United nations Human Rights Council is dark humor on an international political scale. There's a reason one third of its criticism section has Israel as it's direct topic, one third of it mentions Israel indirectly, and the bulk of its "specific issues" section is focused on Israel. Most telling quotation from the article in question: "As of 2018, Israel has been condemned in 78 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006—the Council has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined." Yes, I completely believe the luminaries of the United Nations Human Rights Council fully expect and demand Israel deal with Palestinian violence without lifting a hand in return; I'm actually fairly amazed they found even two particular cases where they felt there was possible justification.

But none of this is important. I simply wanted to be sure you were not speaking of another, potentially concerning matter regarding which I was unaware, as you description sounded very different to any event of which I knew. Thank you for the clarification.
 
Last edited:

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,400
Rocks to hurl, moltov cocktails to hurl, kites with which to start fires, laser pointers to blind the eyes of soldiers (evidently?), these are all certainly weapons of varying severity. It sounds like the flaming tires may at times have been used as weapons as well, were they rolled. But, if you understood "unarmed" to mean "without firearms" rather than "without weapons," then I understand why you used the word as you did. I provide the dictionary definition only to illustrate why I misunderstood your usage initially.
Yes rocks etc can be regarded as WEAPONS. Your fist can be used as a WEAPON. But I was specifically talking about the people killed having no ARMS.

I used this dictionary definition.

armed
/ɑːmd/
adjective
adjective: armed
equipped with or carrying a firearm or firearms.
"heavily armed troops"




You want to believe that a burning tyre is a weapon, if it was rolled. What if it was rolled against a fence which stopped it rolling? Do you actually have any evidence that they were rolled.

The fact remains that scores (over 100) of people, without weapons of any description, were killed by Israeli fire.

The United nations Human Rights Council is dark humor on an international political scale.
That's just an opinion without evidence.


There's a reason one third of its criticism section has Israel as it's direct topic, one third of it mentions Israel indirectly, and the bulk of its "specific issues" section is focused on Israel. Most telling quotation from the article in question: "As of 2018, Israel has been condemned in 78 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006—the Council has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined."
What is the reason? Could it be that Israel, is an illegall military occupier which has, since 2006, committed more violations of international law than anyone else?


Yes, I completely believe the luminaries of the United Nations Human Rights Council fully expect and demand Israel deal with Palestinian violence without lifting a hand in return
Please state, and show, where the UN Human Rights Council demanded that Israel must deal with Palestinian violence without lifting a hand.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,357
T'Republic of Yorkshire
The election of Hamas to the government of the Gaza Strip is in response to Israel trying to cow the population into submission. That has never worked. In response to oppression, a hardline government becomes more attractive, and then attitudes amongst the Israelis hardens in response. It's a vicious cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
What is the reason? Could it be that Israel, is an illegall military occupier which has, since 2006, committed more violations of international law than anyone else?
No, not more that "anyone else," more than everyone else -- more than the rest of the world combined. If you believe that, well, okay.

Please state, and show, where the UN Human Rights Council demanded that Israel must deal with Palestinian violence without lifting a hand.
Why? You already linked an example, assuming you properly understood "lifting a hand in return" to mean "engage in violence." The fact that you don't see that -- the fact that you even just linked a Wikipedia page whose "criticism" section largely revolves around the organization's well-known anti-Israeli bias without seeming to notice or care -- suggests to me that your mind is well and truly made up on this matter. Which is fine, but not very fertile grounds for conversation.

I got what I wanted, which was clarification that the "unarmed" Palestinians were not actually unarmed. Have a nice day.
 

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,400
No, not more that "anyone else," more than everyone else -- more than the rest of the world combined. If you believe that, well, okay.
Okay

Why? You already linked an example, assuming you properly understood "lifting a hand in return" to mean "engage in violence."
So you CANNOT show where they demanded that Israel must not lift a hand in return. The words "lifting a hand in return" does NOT mean "engage in violence". Even if it did the report by the UNHRC implies that Israel could in certain circumstances respond with violence because "commission found that of 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analysed only two were possibly justified as responses to danger by Israeli security forces "

You have not shown the organisation's anti-Israeli bias nor that such bias is well known. The fact that 487 injuries and deaths on unarmed people without you seeming to notice or care suggests to me that your mind is made up on the matter.

I got what I wanted, which was clarification that the "unarmed" Palestinians were not actually unarmed.
The vast majority (or even all, if none of them had firearms) were unarmed. You can give me the figures of those that were armed, if you like.