Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15

[USAF 2023]

To be clear -- NO ONE here is arguing that Israel is legally or morally permitted to shoot at unarmed civilians. NO ONE here is defending such actions. On the contrary, the argument by both Israel and the pro-Israel side here is that it is legally and morally permissible to use lethal force on combatants attempting to harm Israel's sovereignty or Israel's civilians.

An occupying force is not sovereign to the territory it occupy's.

Somehow if the Arabs won the 67 War they couldn’t give a SHIT about “ occupation” Neither do I

 

[Billo_Really]

Does Israel have a legal right to defend themselves from these attacks? Yes or no?

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, even if they are in places they should not be.

I am completely, 100% against, US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and I don't know how many African nations we are in right now, but if one of our soldiers is getting shot at, I expect them to return fire.

 

[Billo_Really]

We're talking about Arab terrorists in Gaza now, not Arab terrorists in Israel.

Gazans aren't terrorists.

 

[Billo_Really]

They did not shoot live ammo at protesters they shot men using weapons of war to attack Israeli soldiers. Rubber bullets were used on the regular protestors as is legal EVERY where to control large crowds.

It doesn't matter. You can't shoot at unarmed protesters.

I bet you took the military's side at Kent St?

 

[Penelope]

BTW, the Palestinians have every legal right in the world to attack Israel while this illegal and immoral occupation continues.

Does Israel have a legal right to defend themselves from these attacks? Yes or no?

Does the Palestinians have a legal right to defend itself from the IDF attacks? Yes or no?

 

[Billo_Really]

Why can't they have weapons?

Because they suck.

That's probably the best answer I've heard on that question!

 

[Shusha]

Here is an interesting article on use of force requirements (including lethal force) by LEOs for protests in different countries.

Some examples:

In Italy, police must follow guidelines that allow for the use of weapons only in the line of duty, when it is an "unavoidable necessity to overcome resistance, stop violence, or prevent a [serious] crime," an officer said.

Afghan police "can use weapons or explosives against a group of people only if it has ... disturbed security by means of arms, and if the use of other means of force ... has proved ineffective," Afghan police officer Zabiullah, 24, said. Police must also issue at least six warnings — three verbal and three warning shots — before they use force.

In Bosnia, police say they may use force ranging from batons to chemical irritants, water cannons, "binding agents, special firearms and explosive devices." They must issue a warning first, however, and can't use force against the young, old, or disabled (unless they are armed).

Malaysia's public order police, the Federal Reserve Unit, are only allowed to use firearms if the protestors are using firearms, too. The FRU was formed 59 years ago and firearms have never been used.

While Belgian police are allowed to use lethal force in self-defense or to confront armed perpetrators, they are never allowed to use firearms for the purpose of crowd control, according to human rights monitors.

 

[Shusha]

To be clear -- NO ONE here is arguing that Israel is legally or morally permitted to shoot at unarmed civilians. NO ONE here is defending such actions. On the contrary, the argument by both Israel and the pro-Israel side here is that it is legally and morally permissible to use lethal force on combatants attempting to harm Israel's sovereignty or Israel's civilians.

An occupying force is not sovereign to the territory it occupy's.

Nice dodge. But I'll bite. WHERE, exactly, does Israel hold sovereignty, with respect to Gaza?

 

[Billo_Really]

Somehow if the Arabs won the 67 War they couldn’t give a SHIT about “ occupation” Neither do I

If they had won, there wouldn't be an occupation.

 

[Billo_Really]

Does the Palestinians have a legal right to defend itself from the IDF attacks? Yes or no?

Absolutely!

 

[Shusha]

You've just answered the question. Its not about fishing. Its about the "occupation". Do you seriously think that if Israel just let the fisherman fish a little further out that either you or Hamas would consider the "occupation" over?

It's none of Israel's business where Gazans fish.

Again, nice dodge. Not my question. My question was specific.

Do you think that you, or Hamas, would consider the "occupation" over if Israel gave Gaza a few more miles of fishing space?

 

[Billo_Really]

Nice dodge. But I'll bite. WHERE, exactly, does Israel hold sovereignty, with respect to Gaza?

Can Gazans leave the area?

 

[Billo_Really]

Again, nice dodge. Not my question. My question was specific.

Do you think that you, or Hamas, would consider the "occupation" over if Israel gave Gaza a few more miles of fishing space?

The occupation isn't over until Israel withdraws all its troops, all its control and all its psycho insurgent settlers, from the "occupied territories" it took in the '67 war. Israel controls 80% of what goes in and out of Gaza. That satisfies the definition of an occupation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're talking about Arab terrorists in Gaza now, not Arab terrorists in Israel.

Gazans aren't terrorists.

LOL!

 

[Shusha]

Does the Palestinians have a legal right to defend itself from the IDF attacks? Yes or no?

They absolutely do. I haven't EVER seen an instance of Israel attacking Gaza's sovereignty or civilians since Israel withdrew from the territory except in response to threats against Israel's security. To be plain: Israel is not attacking Gaza or Gazans. Your point is moot.

The existence of Israel is not an attack. The presence of Jews is not an attack. The "occupation" is not an attack (its not an occupation and all acts are defensive). Monitoring smuggling is not an attack. Checkpoints are not an attack. Arresting suspects is not an attack. Prison sentences for crimes is not an attack.

Remember the *cough cough* objective parameters being drawn here by Team Palestine -- if there is no immediate, immanent, obvious threat to life then lethal force can not be used. That is the requirement demanded of Israel and therefore must be the requirement you uphold for Palestinians.

 

[Shusha]

Nice dodge. But I'll bite. WHERE, exactly, does Israel hold sovereignty, with respect to Gaza?

Can Gazans leave the area?

Nice dodge. Not my question. With respect to Gaza, specifically, where does Israel have sovereignty? My question, specifically, is whether or not you believe Israel has any sovereign territory. And with respect to Gaza, where that territory ends.

 

[Shusha]

The occupation isn't over until Israel withdraws all its troops, all its control and all its psycho insurgent settlers, from the "occupied territories" it took in the '67 war. Israel controls 80% of what goes in and out of Gaza. That satisfies the definition of an occupation.

Israel HAS, in point of absolute fact, withdrawn its troops, control and settlers from Gaza. So clearly that definition is invalid. You need to re-work it.

You seem to have an additional requirement having to do with imports/exports. Define.

 

[Roudy]

Get their damn navy out of Gazan territorial waters so they can fish further out without getting shot at and rammed.

Seriously? You think fishing is the problem? You think that if Gazans can just fish a little further out, then they will no longer commit violence against Israel?

Can't even fish without being shot at.

Terrorists have a tough life.........wahh.

I gotta tell ya's, it's hard pretending like your fishing...while you're carrying out a terrorist mission!

 

[Roudy]

Seriously? You think fishing is the problem? You think that if Gazans can just fish a little further out, then they will no longer commit violence against Israel?

Just take a second to think about this...

"Who the hell shoots at people fishing?"

"Who the hell shoots at people farming?"
​

You've got to be one sick puppy to be doing that.

BTW, the Palestinians have every legal right in the world to attack Israel while this illegal and immoral occupation continues.

Who the hell pretends to be fishing while actually carrying out terrorism?
Who the hell pretends to be farming while actually carrying out terrorism?

Sick, depraved Palestinians, that's who!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Does the Palestinians have a legal right to defend itself from the IDF attacks? Yes or no?

They absolutely do. I haven't EVER seen an instance of Israel attacking Gaza's sovereignty or civilians since Israel withdrew from the territory except in response to threats against Israel's security. To be plain: Israel is not attacking Gaza or Gazans. Your point is moot.

The existence of Israel is not an attack. The presence of Jews is not an attack. The "occupation" is not an attack (its not an occupation and all acts are defensive). Monitoring smuggling is not an attack. Checkpoints are not an attack. Arresting suspects is not an attack. Prison sentences for crimes is not an attack.

Remember the *cough cough* objective parameters being drawn here by Team Palestine -- if there is no immediate, immanent, obvious threat to life then lethal force can not be used. That is the requirement demanded of Israel and therefore must be the requirement you uphold for Palestinians.

You are full of shit, as usual.

Eva Bartlett on Gaza in Crisis - An Eyewitness Report