Gaza Protests Spark Israeli Violence

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Iron_Captain**

Disciple of Fate wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Captain wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

godardc wrote:

You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.

WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.

Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.

I think a certain chosen people of Israel might like a word on "suffered the most."

Xenomancers wrote: I think the Polish probably suffered the most. Not to undermine their plight which was truely horrific - Russians also gained the most from WW2 and took advantage of the situation...Just like Israel did when they were invaded.

Both Poles and Jews suffered very heavily in WW2, but more Russians died than Poles and Jews combined. I think you are underestimating the Nazi brutality against Russians. Yes, the Soviet Union won the war in the end and profited from it, but for that victory it paid the heaviest price of all those involved in the war. Just because Russia or Israel managed to turn their situation around doesn't take away from what they had to suffer through.

**Ketara**

godardc wrote:

The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.).

Glorious? Depends on where you were located in that power dynamic.

And as I said above, 'strength' is entirely dependent upon applying a resource at a given point.

So scientific strength is all well and good, but if you're under siege by thousands of Boxer rebels in China with limited resources, your slightly superior weapons mean nothing. Alternatively, Britain's place as the leader of the Industrial Revolution in no way gave them the power to remove Napoleon or win the war of 1812. Or in modern times, to seize back the crown of shipbuilding from places like South Korea, or to negotiate a better trade agreement with South Afcrica. R&D or technology are wonderful things, but they mean nothing outside of their given fields and applicable contexts.

Might is the only thing able to protect us from thugs and dictators: look at your beloved WW2, when weak democraties tried to negociate with thug Germany, who bullied them hard

Unless the might belongs to the thugs and dictators....

Fascism and might make right IS meritocracy. ,Liberal democracies especially, care only for equality and NOT truth or meritocraty.

Liberal democracies care for many things. As do liberal autocracies. Or Conservative of either. Attempting to generalise in such broadbrush terms is the very definition of writing meaningless sentences.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Captain wrote:

Both Poles and Jews suffered very heavily in WW2, but more Russians died than Poles and Jews combined.

I don't think cumulative quantitative concepts work as a basis of comparison for suffering. When someone has their leg cut off in a gruesome accident, you don't say 'Ah well, at least a thousand people cut their knees falling over today'. More Russians might have died, but that has little to do with a given level of 'suffering'. If I shoot five people quickly and cleanly, and then spend five days torturing another, you wouldn't say that collectively, the first five suffered more.

I personally would hesitate to ever say which 'people' collectively suffered more than the other here (I mean seriously, what kind of a gauche one-upmanship conversation is that in this sort of context?), but if one was going to make the attempt, this is not the way to do it.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Fair criticism, I think in retrospect that my post went a bit all over the place and could've done with a lot more polishing, because as you pointed out it ended up pretty badly. I probably should've just been content with discussing the dichotomy between "might makes right" and meritocracy. and how they ultimately cannot co-exist. Either you let the people with the might decide, in which case you override meritocracy because you're basing someone's position on the ability to wield force whether that is relevant to the position or not, or you let the people with proven ability use that ability without the people wielding force interfering, in which case might doesn't make right anymore.

Sure, the Soviet Union were cutting-edge on a lot of things, but as a whole they were behind the Western nations. Free discussion and disemmination of ideas is a cornerstone of the scientific method. Again with the Galileo example, no matter how much the people with might insisted they were right, they weren't.

My point regarded the fact that I consider "strength" a social construct was badly worded. What I meant was that what we percieve as "strength" and objective "strength" (if indeed there is such a thing) are different. As you said, Napoleon thought he had "strength", but it turned out that, in the end, he didn't. Hence my argument that democracy is more likely to achieve objective "strength", as it is more likely to have a point of view that finds and seizes on opportunities. It's essentially exploiting probability, as you only need to find a good solution once. This also doesn't mean that authoritarian regimes cannot achieve successes, as your China and Soviet Union examples show, only that they are less likely to do so. It's the same reason the scientific method is good; it's completely possible to make scientific advances without it, but it greatly increases the odds of success. Thus, if we assume that the purpose of government is to improve the lives of its citizens to the best of its ability, a democracy is so far the best method we've found.

Of course, if you don't give a hoot about part of the population, that changes...

**Disciple of Fate**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

godardc wrote:

You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.

WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.

Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.

I think a certain chosen people of Israel might like a word on "suffered the most."

Both Poles and Jews suffered very heavily in WW2, but more Russians died than Poles and Jews combined. I think you are underestimating the Nazi brutality against Russians. Yes, the Soviet Union won the war in the end and profited from it, but for that victory it paid the heaviest price of all those involved in the war. Just because Russia or Israel managed to turn their situation around doesn't take away from what they had to suffer through.

I'm not underestimating and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, what I'm saying is "suffered the most" is subjective. Sure, the Soviets overall suffered a lot in sheer numbers and I studied it extensively from the war crime perspective. However, you do have to take into account that for the Soviets plenty of suffering was brought on by the Soviet leadership in the war effort in a manner that for example the Jewish population had no control over. The actions of Stalin for example had a big influence on overall casualty counts. Again, not saying the Soviets didn't suffer a lot, but you have to recognize the subjective nature of suffering and the overall level of agency employed by the groups victimized at the hands of Nazi Germany. The Jewish population as such had a lot less agency in what happened compared to how the Soviet state pursued its strategy since 39 with an undeniable level of callousness.

And it doesn't take away from what either had to suffer through, but you can't use something that happened 70 years ago to make others suffer. Recognize that you suffered sure, but don't wield it as an excuse. Like Netanyahu saying the Palestinians convinced Hitler to carry out the Final Solution

**Xenomancers**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Captain wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

godardc wrote:

You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.

WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.

Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.

I think a certain chosen people of Israel might like a word on "suffered the most."

Xenomancers wrote: I think the Polish probably suffered the most. Not to undermine their plight which was truely horrific - Russians also gained the most from WW2 and took advantage of the situation...Just like Israel did when they were invaded.

Both Poles and Jews suffered very heavily in WW2, but more Russians died than Poles and Jews combined. I think you are underestimating the Nazi brutality against Russians. Yes, the Soviet Union won the war in the end and profited from it, but for that victory it paid the heaviest price of all those involved in the war. Just because Russia or Israel managed to turn their situation around doesn't take away from what they had to suffer through.

Yeah - you are right. In terms of total lives lost - the Russians suffered the most and I wasn't trying to undermine that. Poland was occupied for the entire war and a good portion of it's population was systematically exterminated. Most of their cities were at least 50% destroyed - many completely destroyed. Then they had to endure political manipulation after that. Just a really bad situation there. I feel a little silly for measuring the suffering of people who went through unimaginable atrocity. Let's just agree that the situation sucked pretty badly for all those involved on the eastern front.

The point I was making though is that Russia at least gained something during the war. Like Israel they took the opportunity to acquire territory after they were invaded and Russia was not very nice about it. Every territory they wanted they took with ruthless determination. What Israel did by comparison in Israel is childsplay and the part that bothers me the most is "the right thing to do" is not getting Israel out of this situation. If Israel was more like Stalin they would control the whole area with 0 opposition. It's hard to see how the region wouldn't be doing better as a result - ether.

**jhe90**

While a little off topic but more a a little curio article.

Iran . Israel relationship hit mean girls meme level.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5805065/Israels-Embassy-posts-mocking-Mean-Girls-response-Twitter-spat-Iran.html#reader-comments

It seems the worlds governments have had too much internet.

**Disciple of Fate**

Xenomancers wrote:
If Israel was more like Stalin they would control the whole area with 0 opposition. It's hard to see how the region wouldn't be doing better as a result - ether.

The issue with this is that if Israel acted more like Stalin they would also quickly lose what support they have. Israel would end up almost as isolated as North Korea. And Stalin didn't have 0 opposition either, he had to beat it down which is exactly what Israel did/does. Its just not in Israel's benefit to be like Stalin, because allowing for some resistance to occasional beat down is much more beneficial to Israel (well certain political parts like Netanyahu anyway).

**Xenomancers**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
If Israel was more like Stalin they would control the whole area with 0 opposition. It's hard to see how the region wouldn't be doing better as a result - ether.

The issue with this is that if Israel acted more like Stalin they would also quickly lose what support they have. Israel would end up almost as isolated as North Korea. And Stalin didn't have 0 opposition either, he had to beat it down which is exactly what Israel did/does. Its just not in Israel's benefit to be like Stalin, because allowing for some resistance to occasional beat down is much more beneficial to Israel (well certain political parts like Netanyahu anyway).

I'm speaking specifically of when they were invaded by Egypt/Syria/Jordan in the 70's and straight rolled over all opposition. It would have been bad at the time but nearly 50 years later it would have faded into the pages of history.

**Disciple of Fate**

Xenomancers wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
If Israel was more like Stalin they would control the whole area with 0 opposition. It's hard to see how the region wouldn't be doing better as a result - ether.

The issue with this is that if Israel acted more like Stalin they would also quickly lose what support they have. Israel would end up almost as isolated as North Korea. And Stalin didn't have 0 opposition either, he had to beat it down which is exactly what Israel did/does. Its just not in Israel's benefit to be like Stalin, because allowing for some resistance to occasional beat down is much more beneficial to Israel (well certain political parts like Netanyahu anyway).

I'm speaking specifically of when they were invaded by Egypt/Syria/Jordan in the 70's and straight rolled over all opposition. It would have been bad at the time but nearly 50 years later it would have faded into the pages of history.

Rolled straight over is a bit of an overstatement. It also became clear the Sinai wasn't worth holding long term.

**BaronIveagh**

godardc wrote:

The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.). Science IS might. Science is a wonderful thing, I even made a Science thread !

So, again, if that's true how'd the Nazis lose WW2 again?

And, yes, we've just passed the point that I'd 'merely' call him a collaborator.

Tell me more of the 'Glorious' genocide of my people, oh white overlord. Perhaps you'd like to put on a brown shirt while you're at it?

For those of you failing to grasp, our french friend just implied that an event that had a body count of 10 Holocausts stacked on top each other was 'glorious'. That's 60 million people.

**Ketara**

BaronIveagh wrote:
That's 60 million people.

I'm quite happy to be corrected on this (My knowledge of American history is tenuous at best); but didn't most of the Native American tribes die out through disease rather than any kind of jackbooted genocidal action? I could have sworn I read somewhere that something like 80% of the population died of smallpox and various other nasties that came from overseas long before the colonists started moving out in force.

**Disciple of Fate**

I think we passed the point of being able to expect reasonable discourse when one side started arguing that fascism is a meritocracy, let alone the colonisation stuff.

**Ketara**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Fair criticism, I think in retrospect that my post went a bit all over the place and could've done with a lot more polishing, because as you pointed out it ended up pretty badly. I probably should've just been content with discussing the dichotomy between "might makes right" and meritocracy. and how they ultimately cannot co-exist. Either you let the people with the might decide, in which case you override meritocracy because you're basing someone's position on the ability to wield force whether that is relevant to the position or not, or you let the people with proven ability use that ability without the people wielding force interfering, in which case might doesn't make right anymore.

What if the mightiest chooses to apply meritocracy for everyone beneath them though? You're still following might makes right in that you're setting up a hierarchical power structure, but so long as the vast majority of society function in a meritocratic fashion, it's still a meritocracy.

Hence my argument that democracy is more likely to achieve objective "strength", as it is more likely to have a point of view that finds and seizes on opportunities. It's essentially exploiting probability, as you only need to find a good solution once. This also doesn't mean that authoritarian regimes cannot achieve successes, as your China and Soviet Union examples show, only that they are less likely to do so.

Again, I'm not really buying that these benefits are intrinsically reserved for democracies. I know it's something of an exaggerated caricature of an example, but take Plato's philosopher King. Or alternatively, a democracy where women or people of colour cannot vote (which didn't stop the Industrial Revolution or various other incidences of creative industry throughout history).Giving or restricting voting rights don't automatically bestow this culture of initiative and innovation, that comes from wider cultural contexts. It requires institutions to sponsor them, opportunities, availability to finance, a more untrammeled flow of information, and so on.

It's the same reason the scientific method is good; it's completely possible to make scientific advances without it, but it greatly increases the odds of success. Thus, if we assume that the purpose of government is to improve the lives of its citizens to the best of its ability, a democracy is so far the best method we've found.

Is it? Benevolent Dictatorship is very much a thing. Look up France-Albert René of the Seychelles during the 1980's.

I think it would be more correct to say that a functioning democracy is more likely to attempt to improve the lives of its citizens, but even then, that's only the case when it's appropriately hedged about with appropriate supporting factors. There are countless 'democracies' in Africa which qualify for the title on paper, but do little to help the citizenship in reality (and often much to oppress it).

**AlmightyWalrus**

Ketara wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
That's 60 million people.

I'm quite happy to be corrected on this (My knowledge of American history is tenuous at best); but didn't most of the Native American tribes die out through disease rather than any kind of jackbooted genocidal action? I could have sworn I read somewhere that something like 80% of the population died of smallpox and various other nasties that came from overseas long before the colonists started moving out in force.

That still leaves 12 million.

**Ketara**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Ketara wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
That's 60 million people.

I'm quite happy to be corrected on this (My knowledge of American history is tenuous at best); but didn't most of the Native American tribes die out through disease rather than any kind of jackbooted genocidal action? I could have sworn I read somewhere that something like 80% of the population died of smallpox and various other nasties that came from overseas long before the colonists started moving out in force.

That still leaves 12 million.

I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I could go and look it up I suppose, but I figured he'd be more likely to have the facts to hand.

**Galas**

Didn't the english, french, etc... colonists of north america gave the native americans blankets and that kind of stuff with the idea of them becomin ill?

Or thats a myth.

**AlmightyWalrus**

IIRC from my post-colonialism studies there's no evidence that was ever done deliberately, but there seem to have been a few cases where it happened inadvertently and the settlers were genuinely trying to be helpful. There was enough atrocities anyway.

**djones520**

Galas wrote:
Didn't the english, french, etc... colonists of north america gave the native americans blankets and that kind of stuff with the idea of them becomin ill?

Or thats a myth.

It's a myth.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
That's 60 million people.

I'm quite happy to be corrected on this (My knowledge of American history is tenuous at best); but didn't most of the Native American tribes die out through disease rather than any kind of jackbooted genocidal action? I could have sworn I read somewhere that something like 80% of the population died of smallpox and various other nasties that came from overseas long before the colonists started moving out in force.

Yes, and many more were killed in conflicts with each other that arose following that. Look up the Beaver Wars for example.

Did the US have atrocious policies towards the Native Americans? Undoubtedly. Did we kill a lot of them? Of course. Did the United States ever take on a policy of genocide, of wiping them from the land, a'la the Jews in the 40's, or the Armenian Genocide? Hardly.

The Native American's got the raw end of the stick, no question about it. But they were hardly innocent victims that the white dudes just rolled up and started murdering outright (at least the ones in North America, Spaniard's got a lot to answer for...). War was a first option among many of their cultures, and one they used quite frequently, not just against white settlers, but against other native people as well.

**Galas**

"Spaniard's got a lot to answer for..." hmmm... I think you shouldn't speak about history you don't know.

Lets just say, in south america everyone is of mixed ascendence... the natives aren't in reserves.

The reason the Aztects were destroyed as an empire (They where allready in decline when the Spanish reached america) was because most natives tribes united with the Spanish to destroy them, because they where extremely ruthless and tyrants.

Not saying spanish colonists and conquistadores didn't did bad things, of course they did. There was slavery, killings, etc... but if you study a little history you'll find the worse crimes and genocides agaisnt the natives were commited by the "criollos" (Mixed native-spanish descendants) agaisnt the natives post-independence.

But I'm not an expert in colonialism history so I won't enter in details and specifics I don't know well enough, but I know enough to have learned that black legend that was the colonisation of america is that, just a legend. (And, I'll say again, I'm not saying they didn't did nasty things)

**BaronIveagh**

djones520 wrote:

It's a myth.

Well, no. It's not. I refer you to the inventories of Fort Pitt, where the book keepers helpfully added notations to the inventory given to native from the small pox hospital to, and I quote

INVOICE for 1763 June
Levy, Trent and Company: Account against the Crown, Aug. 13, 1763
"To Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians Vizt:

2 Blankets
1 Silk Handkerchef
&
1 linnen do:

General Amherst then engaged in Correspondence with Bouquet, thusly:

"Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them." In addition, Amherst wrote, "Captain Ecuyer Seems to Act with great Prudence, & I approve of everything he mentions to have done."

Bouquet, responded on the 13th, "I will try to inoculate the Indians with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself. I wish we could make use of the Spanish method to hunt them with English dogs, supported by rangers and some light horse, who would, I think, effectually extirpate or remove that vermin."

On July 16, Amherst replied, "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race. I should be very glad your scheme for hunting them down by dogs could take effect, but England is at too great a distance to think of that at present"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galas wrote:
t I know enough to have learned that black legend that was the colonisation of america is that, just a legend. (And, I'll say again, I'm not saying they didn't did nasty things)

I'm curious how you explain Mexico going from 30 million people to 1 million. Oh, and for a 'legend' the Catholic Church were quite the tale tellers then.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
But they were hardly innocent victims that the white dudes just rolled up and started murdering outright

Wounded Knee and Gnadenhutten immediately spring to mind as examples of them doing exactly that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
IIRC from my post-colonialism studies there's no evidence that was ever done deliberately, but there seem to have been a few cases where it happened inadvertently and the settlers were genuinely trying to be helpful. .

I refer you and your class to the surviving documentation which shows that was exactly done deliberately.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Citation needed. Please link where you got that information from.

**Galas**

About that mexico going from 30 million to 1 million people I have found this

https://users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm

2.a. The demographic disaster of conquest and colonization

There is consensus that the sixteenth-century was a demographic disaster for Mesoamericans. Table 2 displays ten authoritative estimates of population decline for the native population of "Mexico" (or diverse parts thereof) during the first century of Spanish conquest and colonization. Estimates of the magnitude of the disaster ranges from less than twenty-five percent to more than ninety. Three schools or interpretations cluster along this broad band of figures: catastrophists, moderates and minimalists. Catastrophists place the scale of demographic disaster at 90% or more and descry a large native population at contact, exceeding ten, twenty or even thirty million. Moderates detect decreases of "only" 50-85%—disasters nonetheless. They favor smaller populations at contact (5-10 million) but agree with catastrophists on population totals at nadir (1-1.5 million between 1600 and 1650). Minimalists perceive the scale of the disaster as much smaller, on the order of 25%. The principal proponent of the minimalist position, the Argentine linguist Angel Rosenblat, is the catastrophists’ most determined critic. Rosenblat sees a decline of the native population from 4.5 to 3.4 million inhabitants, or 24%, and stabilization beginning within a half century of initial contact with Europeans. It seems to me that the population of central Mexico at contact must have been no less than the minimalist estimate of four or five million and was likely double and possibly even triple that figure.

The "war over numbers" continues because population estimates prior to 1895, when the first national census was conducted, are unavoidably crude for any large region of the Mexican subcontinent. For the sixteenth-century, the data are dreadfully crude: often derived from gross tax allotments, not actual receipts, or numbers of taxpayers, not total population. Methods for working these data are more numerical than demographic, and at best the results point to orders of magnitude. The fact remains that most places extant in 1519 were never enumerated by either native or colonial authorities. Yet today there survives a surprisingly large corpus of population-like numbers for an exceedingly diverse array of administrative units: hamlets, barrios, subject boroughs, towns, district capitals (cabeceras), and provinces. Some places ceased to exist within decades of first contact, others changed names, and not a few were relocated through the Spanish policy of congregación. Most native capital "cities," with populations ranging from 10,000 to a disputed 350,000 for the Mexica capital Tenochtitlan, survived the conquest and subsequent demographic catastrophe.

https://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/81p247.pdf

And then in this

http://users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/noncuant/democat0.htm

Only a couple of schollars use those numbers (From 30 million to 1 million, 90% of mortality)

Spoiler:

I'm not gonna start a discussion here because this is offtopic and to be honest I'm no expert in this. But I just found strange that number you gave. Of course, numbers outside historical study don't matter, killing more or less doesn't make less aberrant the fact of what they did. I have no problem admiting that in the past people did horrible things. But I prefer when those horrible things are true and not exagerations.

**BaronIveagh**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Citation needed. Please link where you got that information from.

"William Trent's Journal at Fort Pitt, 1763," ed. A. T. Volwiler, Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 11 (Dec. 1924)

Fort Pitt and letters from the frontier (1892 ed)

Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, ed. Stevens and Kent

Memorandum by Sir Jeffery Amherst, [July 7, 1763]

Jeffery Amherst, Official Papers, 1740-1783 (microfilm, 202 reels, World Microfilms Publications, 1979)

Remember folks, your military records will last at least 300 years.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Did you use an online resource?

**Iron_Captain**

Guys, please start a new thread about the colonisation atrocities already. This thread was supposed to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

**Manchu**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Guys, please start a new thread about the colonisation atrocities already. This thread was supposed to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Yes please.

**BaronIveagh**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Did you use an online resource?

You may have to pick up a book or use archive.org

Iron_Captain wrote:Guys, please start a new thread about the colonisation atrocities already. This thread was supposed to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Speaking of which:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-najjar.html

Israel admits they may have shot someone by accident. Because boy, does this look bad.

**Iron_Captain**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Speaking of which:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-najjar.html

Israel admits they may have shot someone by accident. Because boy, does this look bad.

"Okay, we may have fired into the crowd of protesters, but we only fired a little."
No, Israel, that is not what a good excuse looks like...
Just stop shooting into crowds of people.

**Xenomancers**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Did you use an online resource?

You may have to pick up a book or use archive.org

Iron_Captain wrote:Guys, please start a new thread about the colonisation atrocities already. This thread was supposed to be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Speaking of which:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-najjar.html

Israel admits they may have shot someone by accident. Because boy, does this look bad.

Accidents happen during war. Sometimes in war you kill your own soldiers too. Plus anyone getting shot in a rowdy protest/riot knew full well they were going into a dangerous situation. ESP in Israel.

**Rosebuddy**

Xenomancers wrote:

Accidents happen during war. Sometimes in war you kill your own soldiers too. Plus anyone getting shot in a rowdy protest/riot knew full well they were going into a dangerous situation. ESP in Israel.

Actually, it is Israel's fault for killing this woman and not her fault for being murdered while she was doing medical work in a humanitarian crisis. It isn't the first time they've intentionally opened fire on medical professionals and it won't be the last.

And never mind the matter of whetehr this can actually be called a war situation and what the rules of war would have to say about opening fire on civilians.