Then retreat. Wait until things cool down, round em up and deport them.
Is that before or after one of them blows themselves up?
Is that before or after one of them blows themselves up?[/quote]
And so the cycle continues.
If you look at the history of the various intifada’s over the past decade or so, you’ll see that suicide bombing always follows violent, lethal action by the Israeli forces. Without that response from the military, the protests generally don’t go much beyond rocks being thrown. The problem is when it escalates which firing on unarmed people is quite likely to cause.
[quote]Then retreat. Wait until things cool down, round em up and deport them.
Is that before or after one of them blows themselves up?
And so the cycle continues.
If you look at the history of the various intifada’s over the past decade or so, you’ll see that suicide bombing always follows violent, lethal action by the Israeli forces. Without that response from the military, the protests generally don’t go much beyond rocks being thrown. The problem is when it escalates which firing on unarmed people is quite likely to cause.[/quote]
In this case, it seemed that the lethal actions by Israeli forces were carried out in self-defense. It really is self-defense when you got a mob running after you. They don’t need to retreat, they believe they are protecting there sovereignty. I mean I see this cycle continue over and over again, but there would be no lethal actions if these morons didn’t storm these soldiers. If you see soldiers shooting in the air, which many can be seen as a warning, don’t run after them.
The soldiers didn’t even have to fire warning shots, they could have just shot.
A mob of unarmed protesters is hardly a threat to sovereignty.
Great as long as they stay on there side of the fence you are absolutely right. The moment they cross the fence they need to comply with orders. These guys aren’t grandmas and grandpas, they are young radicalized men, the moment they elude capture, one of them may very well harm civilians.
Please also remember that Israel has a long history of young men crossing the border illegally and perpetuating mass murder. Israel cannot allow uncontrolled border crossings.
The Israeli army, like armies all over the world, is trained to defend with lethal force. Anyone who attempts to confront an army with such training should understand what will happen.
If young Arab men make the obvious choice to engage in risky behavior… well, that’s their decision isn’t it?
Furthermore, the respective governments on the other side of these borders have a responsibility to uphold the laws and treaties that they have entered into. Syria knew exactly what it was doing when it allowed these young men to violate the law and attempt to enter Israel.
It looks like Israel is going to have to go back to laying mine fields again. :loco:
Great as long as they stay on there side of the fence you are absolutely right. The moment they cross the fence they need to comply with orders. These guys aren’t grandmas and grandpas, they are young radicalized men, the moment they elude capture, one of them may very well harm civilians.[/quote]
Still not a threat to sovereignty.
The Israeli military regularly harms civilians but I don’t see you condemning them.
No, but it is a threat to security. Israeli towns and villages are not far from these borders, and they have had way too much experience with what happens when young Syrians enter their towns.
A threat to sovereignty and a threat to security are two different things.
Edit: The Israeli army only harms civilians as a last resort. And, those in the Israeli army who do use unnecessary force are prosecuted in military tribunals.
The Israeli military judicial system is a vibrant one. Soldiers ARE prosecuted and sent to prison.
No, but it is a threat to security. Israeli towns and villages are not far from these borders, and they have had way too much experience with what happens when young Syrians enter their towns.
A threat to sovereignty and a threat to security are two different things.[/quote]
True. I said sovereignty in response to New Yorker who said
[quote]they believe they are protecting there sovereignty[/quote].
The point is that we all have choices to make.
If I am a twenty-something Syrian with too much time on his hands, and I decide to do something stupid… and it gets me killed… well, that’s my choice.
There’s a limit to how much we are responsible for protecting people from their own stupidity.
Great as long as they stay on there side of the fence you are absolutely right. The moment they cross the fence they need to comply with orders. These guys aren’t grandmas and grandpas, they are young radicalized men, the moment they elude capture, one of them may very well harm civilians.[/quote]
Still not a threat to sovereignty.
The Israeli military regularly harms civilians but I don’t see you condemning them.[/quote]
If they find that Israel is harming the world, speak up. The freedom of speech should be an unalienable right in every country, sadly it is not found anywhere in the Middle East, but in Israel!!! It would be real funny to see Israelis protesting in Gaza and be unharmed!
If these civilians exercised restraint and stayed on there border, we wouldn’t be arguing. However, they were foolish. They think they died Martyrs for their cause, but it wouldn’t alleviate there suffering. I am sure Israel will continue to use force when there are incursions on there borders. As I said earlier, these guys are innocent grandmas. Who knows what they are capable of doing? I am not saying they might kill civilians, but the Israeli military and government doesn’t want to take chances.
The death of any human being is too many, however the Israeli military has every right to protect their own population, which they do constantly and are criticized for.
Interesting: all of those responses ignore the fact that one cool-headed Israeli commander refused to have his troops open fire, and yet all of the border jumpers were peacefully rounded up and escorted back across the border. Also ignores the Defense Minister’s contention that this particular stunt wasn’t a threat to sovereignty, and that the real threat is the mass adoption of non-violent tactics by waves of Palestinians occupying lands that were not a part of Israel pro-1967 and aren’t recognized as belonging to Israel now.
The second part (on sovereignty) of that was more or less the point I was trying to make. Perhaps not very clearly. 
My bad. Nearly all of those responses.
Great as long as they stay on there side of the fence you are absolutely right. The moment they cross the fence they need to comply with orders. These guys aren’t grandmas and grandpas, they are young radicalized men, the moment they elude capture, one of them may very well harm civilians.[/quote]
Still not a threat to sovereignty.
The Israeli military regularly harms civilians but I don’t see you condemning them.[/quote]
If they find that Israel is harming the world, speak up. The freedom of speech should be an unalienable right in every country, sadly it is not found anywhere in the Middle East, but in Israel!!! It would be real funny to see Israelis protesting in Gaza and be unharmed!
If these civilians exercised restraint and stayed on there border, we wouldn’t be arguing. However, they were foolish. They think they died Martyrs for their cause, but it wouldn’t alleviate there suffering. I am sure Israel will continue to use force when there are incursions on there borders. As I said earlier, these guys are innocent grandmas. Who knows what they are capable of doing? I am not saying they might kill civilians, but the Israeli military and government doesn’t want to take chances.
The death of any human being is too many, however the Israeli military has every right to protect their own population, which they do constantly and are criticized for.[/quote]
So why don’t the Israeli use exactly the same tactics against the illegal settlements and orthodox Jewish populations on them that they are treaty bound to remove? That is one of the biggest barriers to peace, but the Israeli authorities tread very, very gently when it comes to removing those people. Why not open fire on them is they refuse to disperse and leave the land? Or should the Palestinian authorities have the right to open fire because after all, it is (or will be) Palestinian sovereignty that is being threatened?
[quote=“cfimages”]
So why don’t the Israeli use exactly the same tactics against the illegal settlements and orthodox Jewish populations on them that they are treaty bound to remove? That is one of the biggest barriers to peace, but the Israeli authorities tread very, very gently when it comes to removing those people. Why not open fire on them is they refuse to disperse and leave the land? Or should the Palestinian authorities have the right to open fire because after all, it is (or will be) Palestinian sovereignty that is being threatened?[/quote]
Not the same thing.
It is much easier to plan an operation when your target is stationary and known to be unarmed and unwilling to use lethal force.
Defending a porous border in which your ‘target’ is mobile, and when you know that your target has had a history of using lethal force… Not easy at all.
The biggest barrier to peace is the desire by undemocratic regimes to use the conflict to keep themselves in power. It’s a centuries old tactic that has kept illegitimate governments in power. They say to their people, “Keep me in power, and I will save you from the ‘boogey man’”.
Classic.
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”][quote=“cfimages”]
So why don’t the Israeli use exactly the same tactics against the illegal settlements and orthodox Jewish populations on them that they are treaty bound to remove? That is one of the biggest barriers to peace, but the Israeli authorities tread very, very gently when it comes to removing those people. Why not open fire on them is they refuse to disperse and leave the land? Or should the Palestinian authorities have the right to open fire because after all, it is (or will be) Palestinian sovereignty that is being threatened?[/quote]
Not the same thing.
It is much easier to plan an operation when your target is stationary and known to be unarmed and unwilling to use lethal force.
Classic.[/quote]
Someone should tell that to Yitzhak Rabin. 
[quote=“cfimages”]
Someone should tell that to Yitzhak Rabin. [/quote]
Ouch.
Yeah, I was in Jerusalem when he was assassinated. Rabin is an example of someone who was unwilling to use heavy security to protect himself. I think that he wanted to maintain the culture of openness that Israel had. Israel used to be the kind of place where you’d run into your politicians in the vegetable section of the local supermarket. And you could talk about how good the carrots were this year, as opposed to what they were like when you were a kid.
Rabin paid the price for that, but I believe that it was a price worth paying. There are just some things that you should not give up to be secure.
Quoted for truth.