|
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2018 12:01:09 GMT 1
I'm just making it clear to you that it's not me you're arguing with I wasn't "arguing" with Nay, as it goes, I was conversing with him. A terribly unfamiliar distinction for you, I know. My "usual torrent of abuse"! From you! I doubt it. The only people who like the fact that millions of people are classified as "refugees" because their great-grandfather might have been one once is UNWRA. Have you done with your efforts at pot-stirring now, Hecate?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2018 12:09:40 GMT 1
I meant what I said, thankyou miss. The percentage of Palestinians who have no desire to "return" to Israel has almost certainly climbed since that poll was last conducted, as it's been climbing since 67... Then there wasn't much point in citing the figure of 10%, was there, if you now agree with fascinating that it is much higher? How do you know Fcing thinks it was "higher"? Is she in fact your sock puppet?
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 21, 2018 12:33:13 GMT 1
Actually I don't know that, my mistake. Fascinating hadn't said anything about the numbers wanting to return to Israel when you posted your figure.
So my apologies to fascinating, whose sockpuppet I am not.
But the assumption in the news in Nay's link was that protests which resulted in the killing of unarmed civilians by the Israeli forces indicated there was a groundswell of support among Palestinians for the right to return.
You then said such support was less than 10%, but you now admit that the percentage is now probably much higher.
So why cite the less-than-10%?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 3, 2018 13:19:47 GMT 1
The cold hard fact is that Israel has killed, in the past few days, over 100 people who were unarmed (stones don't count as arms) and protesting in their own territory. Under UK law, kicking someone with a shod foot is"assault with a weapon", and merely carrying a knife or a hammer without good cause is an offence. I defer to your knowledge of the laws of Gaza and Israel, and look forward to learning the definition of a weapon. Is ritual stoning considered loving someone to death? If someone demolishes your boundary fence, will you sit back and say "they are not actually on my property"? "Twice armed is he whose cause is just, but ten times he who punches fust."
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 3, 2018 19:29:07 GMT 1
So? Did anyone in Israel get kicked with a shod foot?
I doubt it, but what has that to do with the conflict inside the border of Gaza?
I don't think it's a good analogy - primarily because the border fence was not demolished but yes I might in fact say those words, depending on the circumstances. I wouldn't be gunning down my neighbours anyway.
Is that supposed to sound clever? It's the kind of rabble-rousing words that both sides in a conflict will use in their hatred.
Surely you can see that BOTH sides have grievances. Both think their cause has justification. I agree with B'Tselem that the actions of the IDF in killing scores, including unarmed minors and journalits, was "manifestly illegal".
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 4, 2018 8:02:22 GMT 1
I still look forward to your definition of a weapon.
Is it a tradition (or indeed a Koranic ordinance) to carry stones whilst walking for pleasure in Gaza?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 4, 2018 12:31:36 GMT 1
Why do you want my definition of a weapon? It is not uncommon for states and territories to have people who carry weapons within their own borders.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 4, 2018 17:36:55 GMT 1
You certainly live up to your pseudonym.
You stated that a stone is not a weapon in Gaza, though I know it would be considered such elsewhere. I am seeking your expert knowledge of the law and customs surrounding the carriage of stones and weapons in order to improve mine - one of the more useful functions of a discussion forum.
Unfortunately your latest statement still leaves a significant lacuna in the logic. I am aware that people carry guns in uncivilised places like Texas and Shithole (it is on Mr Trump's atlas, apparently, but mine seems to be out of date) but that is clearly irrelevant to the carying of stones in Gaza.
Would you care to complete the picture? You imply that carrying stones is a non-threatening religious or social custom in Gaza, possibly even a statutory requirement, which makes the country something of a curiosity even in the Arab world. Please clarify. Your definition of a weapon would be a logical starting point, or a Koranic reference might help if there is no real logic in your statement.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 4, 2018 22:08:05 GMT 1
"You stated that a stone is not a weapon in Gaza". What I actually said was "stones don't count as arms".
From google : definition of arms "arms and ammunition" synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel "arms and ammunition"
Many things can be used weapons, cars, sticks, knives, stones, even fists. I take arms to mean weapons of war - ie firearms, in accordance with the google definition.
" You imply that carrying stones is a non-threatening religious or social custom in Gaza, possibly even a statutory requirement, which makes the country something of a curiosity even in the Arab world. " No, I didn't imply that.
What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 5, 2018 8:28:42 GMT 1
My point is that a mob carrying stones and running towards a boundary fence, as televised by AlJazeera, would seem to a rational person to constitute a threat to those on the other side of the fence.
There may be another explanation, and I am prepared to accept an irrational one if you can provide evidence that this is a harmless social or religious custom or even, as in some forms of Haka, actually a gesture of friendship.
In the absence of such an explanation, the Israeli response would appear rational if regrettable. People are going to die, so better that a few of the apparent aggressors die, on their side of an intact fence, than wait to have a massive battle on our side of a broken boundary. The military precedent can be traced back to King Alfred organising a navy, and later to the RAF engaging the Luftwaffe over the Channel rather than wait for the bastards to arrive over London.
As for linguistics, the terminology of arms, armament, armour, or "going armed" predates firearms by several centuries. You have confused yourself by adding "and ammunition" which certainly meant rocks to those who employed the trebuchet or slingshot (used to great effect by David and still a favored weapon in the Middle East) but is mostly applied to explosive ammunition nowadays.
Here's a recent headline TOT KNIFE CRIME Child aged FOUR caught in school armed with a knife, disturbing research reveals which shows that even the red-top Press disagrees with you.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 5, 2018 9:34:04 GMT 1
Oh I am happy that the red-top press disagrees with me. The defintion "arms and ammunition" was NOT added by me - it is in the definition I quoted from Google - look it up! If there is a news report that says "An armed man has been observed in the High Street, armed police were deployed to the scene",do you surmise that it might be some bloke throwing a stone, and the police piled in waving their truncheon "weapons"? We are talking about now, not the situation 400 years ago. Regardless of definitions, if a man in the High Street was observed throwing stones, would it be a reasonable police response to send out armed police (police with firearms) and shoot him dead? The analogy of engaging scores of enemy aircraft in the Channel - well it simply isn't analogous to stone-throwing youths, is it? For one thing, those aircraft had left their home territory and were over British waters. And they happened to be carrying tons of bombs each. I mean, come on! I cannot see that there is any real balance in your arguement Alan. You seem to be saying that the presence of people who are within the border of a neighbouring territory, who are in any way threatening (even though they cannot do any actual harm) must be killed. Well, by that logic, that justifies the Gazans attacking the Israelis doesn't it? Because Israel has armed troops just over the border from Gaza, and furthermore will attack and kill Gazans inside the border, going about their business. Israel treats an area inside the Gaza Strip, near the border fence, as its own territory, using it to create a “buffer zone” inside the already narrow Strip. After the second intifada broke out, the military declared a vast area near the Gaza-Israel border, much of it farmland, off-limits to Palestinians. It never officially announced this policy or clarified to the residents which areas exactly were off limits to them, which increases the danger they face. To enforce this access ban, the military has introduced open-fire regulations that permit firing at Palestinians found inside the zone – even if they pose no threat to anyone’s life. The implementation of these regulations has resulted in the death of 83 Palestinians who did not take part in fighting from the time the Disengagement Plan was implemented in September 2005 until September 2017, excluding rounds of fighting. Of these casualties, 39 were killed when they were in these zones as part of their daily routine, including local residents and farmers. Twelve more people were killed when they approached the fence, planning to cross it in search of work inside Israel.
In addition, 28 Palestinians were killed in protests held near the fence, on the Palestinian side of it. Eight of them took part in hostilities – though were unarmed at the time of their death. In recent years, weekly demonstrations such as these have taken place in several locations, with hundreds participating. Protesters set tires on fire, attempt to hang Palestinian flags on the fence, damage or cross it, and throw stones at soldiers stationed on the Israeli side. In most cases, groups of soldiers stand protected behind concrete blocks or dirt mounds, dozens of meters away from the fence. www.btselem.org/gaza_strip
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 5, 2018 11:13:30 GMT 1
Oh I am happy that the red-top press disagrees with me. The defintion "arms and ammunition" was NOT added by me - it is in the definition I quoted from Google - look it up! So if I asked you to define a fish, you would google for"fish and chips" or possibly "fish net tights". Fascinating indeed! I have watched two policemen with guns arrest a bloke for hanging about suspiciously in a park in Glasgow. Not holstered pistols, but H&K automatics with lasers trained on the bloke. Police weapons are not toys. see above. It is indeed normal practice in Israel (and was in Northern Ireland) and has been reported enough times for most sane people to realise that you don't throw stones in the street without expecting a response. Police in London have shot people carrying toy guns or even things that "might have been" guns. Police in the USA shoot anyone with a defective brakelight and a black skin. "Reasonable" is irrelevant: the word is "expected" because life in the real world is not a fairy tale. no. The Channel was at least half French until the fall of France, and by consent of the French government, then half German. your penetration of German airfields is remarkable. At the time, it was a matter of luck to spot a single bomber by radar,let alone discern its cargo. We still have problems with Yanks destroying Korean passenger jets and Russians doing likewise with Malaysians, even in peacetime. I mean, come on! Your penetration of Israeli tactical orders and the nature of "business" inside the heads of Gazains is even more remarkable. Fact is that the government of Gaza was elected on a policy of destroying Israel, and the demonstration under consideration was not a peaceful show of love for the neighbour - though I have offered you several opportunties to show that it was. There is no "balance" in my argument. You threaten, I shoot. That restores a temporary equilibrium.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 5, 2018 14:41:07 GMT 1
What the HECK are you talking about? I used google and I typed in "define arms". Have you done the same, as I suggested?
They didn't shoot and kill him did they? So your observation has no relevance to this discussion does it?
They should expect a response. Should they expect being killed? Are you saying that the IDF routinely kill people for throwing stones? If so, then that might be an expectation. The issue, is it legal and justified for an army to kill scores of people who throw stones, without effect, from within their own territory?
The fact that the Channel was half French doesn't invalidate what I said. The first luftwaffe raid into Britain was on the Forth Road Bridge I think in October 1939, but let's not discuss the second world war, it is not relevant to this situation.
What relevance does this have to the current situation in Gaza?
How?
Thank you for acknowledging that there is no balance in your argument. You support the killing of 2 unarmed journalists, a medic and 13 under 18s including a baby some 600 yards behind the fence, plus the injury of 225 medics and 175 journalists.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 5, 2018 17:21:18 GMT 1
A peaceful afternoon stroll, carrying the traditional stones of love, requires the presence of 225 medics and 175 journalists? Just as well nobody had a dog.
Government is not about balance. It is about defence of your boundaries. Abraham Lincoln said so, and few would argue.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 5, 2018 17:57:56 GMT 1
A peaceful afternoon stroll doesn't need all those medics, but they will be needed if a foreign power hits 7,618 people with live fire or rubber bullets, and 5572 are suffocating due to tear gas.
That's odd, a search on "defense boundaries government Abraham Lincoln" didn't show any such quote, not in the first page of results anyway.
|
|