Israeli soldier cold bloodedly executes wounded Palestinian attacker

[Harith]

Hamas is no different than ISIS or the Talibans except for the fine print. And that's a very fine print.

?

Have you seen ISIS mate? Even the Taliban pale in comparison. Hamas has certainly committed acts of violence, but it's no ISIS and you can in fact negotiate with them.

Meanwhile, the guy who shot the video is being threatened.

"Are you Imad Abu Shamsiya?’ When I said I was, he told me, ‘We will kill you; we will burn you and your family if you don’t leave Tel Rumeida.’”

[Yayattasa]

al-Khalīl is really a city without hope.

Israel Disrupts Power to Hebron, in Second Day of Planned West Bank Outages Over Palestinian Debt
After power outages in Bethlehem and Jericho, power reduced in center Hebron; Palestinian power company appeals Supreme Court.

Hisham al-Omari, CEO of the Jerusalem District Electricity Company, told Haaretz on Monday the decision to shift interruptions and electricity cuts from place to place doesn't constitute an easing of the burden, but rather cruelty and collective punishment toward Palestinian residents. He said the debt in the dispute between the IEC and the PA stems from differences over electricity rates and calculations of interest payments.

About two years ago, The Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, Maj. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, warned against an Israel Electric Corporation’s plan to start instituting power cuts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem due to debts. In a letter sent to National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen, senior IEC executives, the Foreign Ministry and the defense minister, Mordechai said the question of supplying electricity to the Palestinians is not just a commercial issue for the IEC, but a strategic and diplomatic one for Israel. Mordechai claimed that limiting power supplies to the Palestinians would be viewed as a sanction by Israel against the civilian population, and this must be prevented.

Israel is not playing its cards the right way.

[Prodromos]

al-Khalīl is really a city without hope.


Israel is not playing its cards the right way.

If you want electricity then you got to pay for it.

The indoctrination is a problem alright. Its also one we can't solve, seeing as its so deeply ingrained in the Palestinian culture that the only way to root it out would be genocide (which even disregarding the moral aspect, still leaves us ostracized, sanctioned and bankrupt, which makes it a non-option). Deliberately reforming a society is already horrendously difficult without trying to impose the reforms from the outside by force of arms, which tends to cause more backlash than progress.

WWII was a different kind of war. The enemy's willingness to fight stemmed largely from their belief that a fascist regime is their go-to solution for all of life's problems; once the fascists were defeated, given how much of their ideology relied on them showing their legitimacy through strength, they were also discredited.
The insurgents you find in Iraq or a Palestinian terrorist, on the other hand, are driven by something else entirely. A combination of religious fanaticism, the cultural enshrining of resistance to "crusaders and colonialists", suicidal tenancies and youthful stupidity. Not the type of thing you can discredit in a war, unfortunately, especially given the "crusader and colonialist" historical precedent of the locals being able to win eventually if they just tough it out for a few more decades.

I agree. That is why I said those people should be executed or banished. It is the women and children, and peaceful men, that would be indoctrinated. Pain now but prosperity for future generations. This strategy is known as salvation through the children. It's a tyrannical method of handling domestic issues, but, I think it can be acceptable in a war, perhaps only as a last resort.

There's a reason I brought up the Soviets in Afghanistan as an example, to show that lack of force or willingness to use it isn't the issue. The Soviets ended up killing more than a million Afghans (more or less that 100K per year mark you mentioned), and sent several millions more more fleeing as refugees; still didn't win the war though, because the Soviet's endgame was fundamentally flawed. It wasn't in their interest to stay for an extended period, and the moment they left, their local client state couldn't gather enough local support to stay standing on its own feet. Eventually, they figured out the only winning move was not to play, and got out of Afghanistan, albeit too late to save their already strained regime.
Sometimes its not about tactics or strategy, but rather the game itself being rigged in a way you can't win. Best to pack up and find a different game if you ask me.

The Soviets failed for a number of reasons, very few of which apply to the Israeli conflict. They did not implement any of the solutions I have proposed. Regardless I am under no illusions that these policies would ever be adopted by Israel. They have the international community watching them and waiting for an opportunity to isolate them.

[Yayattasa]

Israeli Lawmaker: Why Can't Palestinians Resist Like Jews During the British Mandate?
Zionist Union MK Zouheir Bahloul's statements draw barbs from right and left of the political aisle.

At a political speaking event moderated by him in Acre, Bahloul said "What will a Palestinian living under the yoke of the occupation for 49 years, who is wasting his life seeking a freedom which he is denied, do? For him, the soldiers are the marker of the occupation." According to Bahloul, "before 1948, when the British Mandate was here, the Irgun, the Lehi, and the Haganah, all the Jewish organizations went out to the streets and confronted the Mandate soldiers in order to bring about their state, which turned out to be amazing. Why is this being denied the Palestinians?"

Earlier in the week, Bahalul told Army Radio that the Palestinian that was shot dead by a soldier in Hebron while he lay on the ground injured wasn't a terrorist, despite the fact that he stabbed a soldier. "He isn't a terrorist because my problem with 'terrorist' is that this word is becoming so inclusive. In my view every Palestinian is being turned into a terrorist."

[Dromikaites]

Could it be because the Israelis, unlike the British, aren't in the mood to leave just yet?

[Sphere]

I think he means the Palestinians should blow up more hotels.

[Yayattasa]

It obvious he is comparing how Israeli public opinion and leading politicians reacts to Palestinian freedom fighting in contrast to historical Jewish 'movements' (the Irgun, Lehi and Hagannah, and also some others not mentioned). Today's Palestinian strife is way less violent than these past Jewish organizations.

[Dromikaites]

It obvious he is comparing how Israeli public opinion and leading politicians reacts to Palestinian freedom fighting in contrast to historical Jewish 'movements' (the Irgun, Lehi and Hagannah, and also some others not mentioned). Today's Palestinian strife is way less violent than these past Jewish organizations.

That comparison simply shows a major breakdown in reasoning.

The Jewish terrorists fought for the creation of Israel. The Jewish population might at large not have agreed with their means but certainly agreed with the goals.

The Arab terrorists fight for the destruction of Israel. How can somebody imagine the Israelis would agree with their means and their goals?

[Diocle]

1 - A demented idiot attacked using a knife, a soldier carrying a big gun.

2 - The soldier fired on the demented idiot who was trying to kill him with his stupid knife.

3 - The demented idiot died, of course.

Sorry, but I do not understand where is the interest in this news?
It happens hundreds times everyday, everywhere in the world, it could have happened in USA, Europe, China, India, Brazil, Japan, Italy, France .. everywhere if you attack a gun-armed soldier or policeman with a knife, you are doing this at your own risk!

Where is the interest here? The soldier has done his job and his duty, the demented idiot has performed such as the demented idiot he was, and the result is the most normal result in such situations.

Sorry, but I don't see the point of this thread.

[Sphere]

The soldier has done his job and his duty, the demented idiot has performed such as the demented idiot he was, and the result is the most normal result in such situations.

Well, is it an Israeli soldiers duty to be patrolling the streets of Hebron? The situation of the West Bank can be described in a lot of ways. "Normal" is not one of them.


That aside, the Palestinian movement would do well to abandon the Old Guard's insistence on an independent Palestinian state. A campaign demanding equal citizenship and equal civil rights for everyone living within the borders guarded by the IDF would fit more squarely with the US Civil Rights movement and South African anti-Apartheid movement. There's a well founded concern that an independent West Bank would end up like an independent Gaza; controlled not by the most popular groups but rather the ones most willing to use violence. That is the main reason why the majority of Israelis can agree with a two-state solution in principle, but are hesitant to do it now. It is also probably a big reason why the majority of Palestinians no longer support a two state solution.

Ironically, that sort of political pressure towards civil rights would actually be more likely to lead to the creation of a Palestinian State. Israel can deal with two-thousand radical Palestinian fighters, it doesn't know how to deal with 2 million Palestinian voters who want jobs, homes and freedom of travel.

[Yayattasa]

That comparison simply shows a major breakdown in reasoning.

The Jewish terrorists fought for the creation of Israel. The Jewish population might at large not have agreed with their means but certainly agreed with the goals.

The Arab terrorists fight for the destruction of Israel. How can somebody imagine the Israelis would agree with their means and their goals?

Laughable (I applaud your consistency). Hebron residents, a city under siege for decades, are somehow fighting for the destruction of Israel and not the creation of the State of Palestine? Yeah, not even the worst apologist would come with such a blatant discourse, or, I mean, perhaps we just updated the definition.

1 - A demented idiot attacked using a knife, a soldier carrying a big gun.

2 - The soldier fired on the demented idiot who was trying to kill him with his stupid knife.

3 - The demented idiot died, of course.

Sorry, but I do not understand where is the interest in this news?
It happens hundreds times everyday, everywhere in the world, it could have happened in USA, Europe, China, India, Brazil, Japan, Italy, France .. everywhere if you attack a gun-armed soldier or policeman with a knife, you are doing this at your own risk!

Where is the interest here? The soldier has done his job and his duty, the demented idiot has performed such as the demented idiot he was, and the result is the most normal result in such situations.

Sorry, but I don't see the point of this thread.

The point of this thread? A person offering no risks whatsoever was EXECUTED. You must be blind to 'not see the point'. The soldier is part of an occupation force that each year grabs more and more land from Palestinians, and is the longest illegal occupation in recent history. A civilian attacks military personnel and you cry foul. Wonder what you'd say about the French resistance, of the Warsaw uprising had you witnessed it.

Well, is it an Israeli soldiers duty to be patrolling the streets of Hebron? The situation of the West Bank can be described in a lot of ways. "Normal" is not one of them.


That aside, the Palestinian movement would do well to abandon the Old Guard's insistence on an independent Palestinian state. A campaign demanding equal citizenship and equal civil rights for everyone living within the borders guarded by the IDF would fit more squarely with the US Civil Rights movement and South African anti-Apartheid movement. There's a well founded concern that an independent West Bank would end up like an independent Gaza; controlled not by the most popular groups but rather the ones most willing to use violence. That is the main reason why the majority of Israelis can agree with a two-state solution in principle, but are hesitant to do it now.

Ironically, that sort of political pressure towards civil rights would actually be more likely to lead to the creation of a Palestinian State. Israeli can deal with two-thousand Palestinian fighters, it doesn't know how to deal with 2 million Palestinian voters.

Israelis fear the demographic shift. And they wouldn't allow the right of return. No Israeli PM or president would like to lose so many Jew-points during their term.
Also, how can you coerce the oppressed to remain under the sights of the oppressor? South Africa was totally different, the whites are a minority in the country.

[Sphere]

Israelis fear the demographic shift. And they wouldn't allow the right of return. No Israeli PM or president would like to lose so many Jew-points during their term.
Also, how can you coerce the oppressed to remain under the sights of the oppressor? South Africa was totally different, the whites are a minority in the country.

Within this area 50% of people are ethnically non-Jewish, and the vast majority of the ethnic Jews believe in democracy, human/civil rights etc.


Once the question stops being why isn't there a Palestinian State? To: Why does an Druze man living in Haifa enjoy vastly different civil rights than an Arab man living in Hebron? I think you might see improvements in the day-to-day lives of Palestinians.

[Dromikaites]

Laughable (I applaud your consistency). Hebron residents, a city under siege for decades, are somehow fighting for the destruction of Israel and not the creation of the State of Palestine? Yeah, not even the worst apologist would come with such a blatant discourse, or, I mean, perhaps we just updated the definition.

Up until now the Palestinian Authority has recognized the right of Israel to govern the Israeli territory, without explicitly recognizing also its right to exist. This means the borders of Israel are treated like the demarcation lines between opposing forces during an armistice: they exist for now because of the military context, not because they fit the legal definition of borders.

Keep in mind that is more than just a technicality. If the Palestinian Authority simply disagreed with the West Bank colonies and the occupation of East Jerusalem, it had the option to say it recognizes Israel's pre-1967 borders. Or the borders from the initial UN partition plan. Or any sort of borders. As soon as the Palestinians explicitly state what borders they accept for Israel, we move from a discussion about the existence of Israel to a discussion about the size and shape of the territory on which Israel exists.

Hamas on the other hand is straightforward in denieing Israel's right to exist.

Therefore until the two main Palestinian political entities recognize Israel's right to exist and Israel's borders (pre-1967 ones, like the Arab League proposed, would be a good start), fighting for Palestine means fighting for what the main Palestinian political entities put forward as claims: that Israel has no right to exist and that Israel's borders have no legitimacy being just front lines separating the Israeli foreign invaders from the native Palestinians.

[Diocle]

The point of this thread? A person offering no risks whatsoever was EXECUTED. You must be blind to 'not see the point'. The soldier is part of an occupation force that each year grabs more and more land from Palestinians, and is the longest illegal occupation in recent history. A civilian attacks military personnel and you cry foul. Wonder what you'd say about the French resistance, of the Warsaw uprising had you witnessed it.

So, for you, any soldier, being part of Israeli army, should allow any retarded and demented moron, attacking him with a knife, to finish his bloody job on him, planting the knife in his chest, or cutting his throat with the same knife? Are you suggesting that a soldier has not the right and the duty to kill those who are trying to kill him? Are you saying that we all should lower our hands in front of mob armed with knives? And maybe you think that any American soldier occupying IRAQ should allow any retarded idiot attacking him with a knife, to finish his job without reacting? So for you, any Russian soldier in Syria should lower his arms waiting to be killed by the first wahabi moron passing by armed with a knife? Are you asking to soldiers to become suicide morons, just like the retarded mob attacking them with knives? So, perhaps do you think it's a brave and honorable task attacking a soldier with a knife? What is this? Is it the idiotic Palestinian version of the Bushido? If this is the case, I suggest you to read with greater care the Bushido, for you still need to get the point.

Let me say that in real life things go in a different way and I'm immensely glad for this: if you attack with a knife a soldier, then, there is a high percentage of chances you get killed on the spot. This was true at the time of the the War of Troy, as at the times of the Romans, this was true in Medieval times in Europe, Middle East, India and China and Japan, when soldiers were armed with swords and speras and this was still true during the modern age, when guns have been invented, and even today, the situation is still the same: if you attack with a knife a soldier armed with a gun, there is a high percentage of chances you get killed on the spot and I think that this will be true even when the soldiers will be armed with laser or plasma guns.

May I say that if I was the officer commanding the unit to which that soldier belongs, I would advance his name for a medal? In fact that soldier defended his weapon, he defended the honor of his uniform, of his unit and of the army to which he belongs, and doing this, he also defended the law and the order, ie. he has done his duty as man and as soldier. Instead, actually we should blame and condemn all the bastards who are sending demented and retarded young idiots armed with knives to attack soldiers armed with guns, for they are the minds beyond this madness, they are the disgusting human crap, which is exploiting the weakness of youth, to serve their own disgusting and obscene political interests.

Still I don't see the point of this thread.

[Dromikaites]

Diocle, that soldier shot a seriously wounded and already incapacitated terrorist, ~20+ minutes after the knife attack and the wounding has taken place.

Because of that, he deserves exactly what is happening to him: a fair trial in an Israeli Court Martial, quite likely ending in a conviction for maslaughter and a long stretch in prison.

Pay attention to the fact the soldier who had incapacitated the terrorist before this second soldier showed up knew better the regulations and therefore didn't keep shooting once the Arab was down.

What you describe worth of a medal is what the first soldier did.

[Diocle]

I think that a terrorist doesn't deserve any kind of mercy, if wounded, he can still be very dangerous (and this is proved by many terrorist attacks), so, in my opinion, the second soldier has done the right thing. I would award a medal to him.

[Yayattasa]

Up until now the Palestinian Authority has recognized the right of Israel to govern the Israeli territory, without explicitly recognizing also its right to exist. This means the borders of Israel are treated like the demarcation lines between opposing forces during an armistice: they exist for now because of the military context, not because they fit the legal definition of borders.

Keep in mind that is more than just a technicality. If the Palestinian Authority simply disagreed with the West Bank colonies and the occupation of East Jerusalem, it had the option to say it recognizes Israel's pre-1967 borders. Or the borders from the initial UN partition plan. Or any sort of borders. As soon as the Palestinians explicitly state what borders they accept for Israel, we move from a discussion about the existence of Israel to a discussion about the size and shape of the territory on which Israel exists.

Hamas on the other hand is straightforward in denieing Israel's right to exist.

Therefore until the two main Palestinian political entities recognize Israel's right to exist and Israel's borders (pre-1967 ones, like the Arab League proposed, would be a good start), fighting for Palestine means fighting for what the main Palestinian political entities put forward as claims: that Israel has no right to exist and that Israel's borders have no legitimacy being just front lines separating the Israeli foreign invaders from the native Palestinians.

Everything you said makes some sense (despite the fact the reciprocal doesn't prove truth), but nonetheless you are concatenating the Palestinian Authority with Palestinians! WHy do you think the civilian was fighting for the Palestinian Authority and not the right of existence and self determination of the State of Palestine?

I think that a terrorist doesn't deserve any kind of mercy, if wounded, he can still be very dangerous (and this is proved by many terrorist attacks), so, in my opinion, the second soldier has done the right thing. I would award a medal to him.

Let me ask you, what kind of threat a incapacitated/wounded, bleeding, unarmed, Arab may present?

[Mithradates]

Let me ask you, what kind of threat a incapacitated/wounded, bleeding, unarmed, Arab may present?

You think he was shot for being an arab?

[Yayattasa]

You think he was shot for being an arab?

Nope, where the hell did I say that?

[Mithradates]

Nope, where the hell did I say that?

Here:

Let me ask you, what kind of threat a incapacitated/wounded, bleeding, unarmed, Arab may present?