Clashes in Jerusalem after settler guard kills Palestinian

[Apocalypse]

One little detail missing. This all happened in the other group's country..

What country?
Are we already past the two states solution? No need for the talks then?
I wasn't aware of that.

It seems people want the occupied to appease the occupiers? How completely immoral.

No, but it seems some people try to justify attempts at murder. How sickening and repulsive.

 

[expandmymind]

Yes, but since this person was not one of the police force, but a mere security guard, your argument is not merely weak but holds no water at all.
That is regardless of the fact that police officers have the right to self-defense as well, and when being ambushed, can return fire.

Yes but he's not a 'security guard' - He's a 'settler guard'. Hardly the same as a guy patrolling a building site... which is what people in this thread are trying to compare him to.

To suggest that they would not be trained to deal with crowds is simply to hide the truths of the situation.

 

[expandmymind]

What country?
Are we already past the two states solution? No need for the talks then?
I wasn't aware of that.



No, but it seems some people try to justify attempts at murder. How sickening and repulsive.

International law states very clearly that this is 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. There is no grey, except in Israel's eyes.

Throwing stones isn't 'attempts to murder', especially when the guy is in a car and can simply reverse and drive away.

 

[ido_]

In regards to anything Israel do in terms of security it is far from 'Micky mouse'

An example of how well their security personnel must be trained

Shiver me timbers, Israelis are fighting pirates at sea | technology

"The head of MSC Cruises, the company that owns Melody, said that the cruise line hired Israelis because they were the best trained"

If, as you suggest, they are hardly trained to fire a pistol i would not envisage them lasting long in the close quarter environment. You need to realise they work in one of the most volatile regions in the world, not some 'shopping mall'.


Paul

So from this article you understand that all security guards in Israel are highly trained commandos? Yes there are places that the security guards are highly trained, at the airport for example, or IAI, or Israeli railways.... but those are very exceptional security guards, when I talk about security guard, I talk about those who are being exploited by contractors earning minimum wage and revoked from many social benefits, those who guard schools, malls, resturants, factories etc.

 

[Apocalypse]

International law states very clearly that this is 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. There is no grey, except in Israel's eyes.

And yet there's no such country called "the occupied Palestinian territories".

Throwing stones isn't 'attempts to murder'

According to my dictionary, a dozens of people circling a person who is trapped in his car and start throwing boulders at him is what would be called around here a lynch attempt, and attempt to murder.

 

[Apocalypse]

Yes but he's not a 'security guard' - He's a 'settler guard'. Hardly the same as a guy patrolling a building site... which is what people in this thread are trying to compare him to.

I don't see what the place he lives at has to do with his status as a security guard.

To suggest that they would not be trained to deal with crowds is simply to hide the truths of the situation.

According to you, which means nothing.

 

[expandmymind]

I don't see what the place he lives at has to do with his status as a security guard.



According to you, which means nothing.

The point was, he's not simply a 'security guard'. To equate 'settler guard' with 'security guard' is to say they are the same. They are not.

And even if he was simply a security guard, he Israeli, which means that he would have had to have served in part of the Israeli military and therefore should have been well trained in dealing with civilians before even being trained as a 'security guard'. Either way, he was not justified in shooting at unarmed civilians.

And no, stones DO NOT count as arms.

 

[washunut]

International law states very clearly that this is 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. There is no grey, except in Israel's eyes.

Throwing stones isn't 'attempts to murder', especially when the guy is in a car and can simply reverse and drive away.

If the West Bank is considered occupied, should the negotiation for it's return be with Jordon and Gaza with Egypt.

As the to the guard protecting himself, he seems to have a good case since rampaging Palestianians pulled someone out of his car and stabbed him in Jerusalem.

 

[expandmymind]

And yet there's no such country called "the occupied Palestinian territories".

What exactly do you mean here?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are trying to hold on to the opinion that they are not a country, or a state, simply because Israel has suppressed this from happening ..well, I'd have to say that was one of the most immoral things I have ever heard of.

There's a certain thing called the right to sellf determination. You mkight want to remembver this because the State of Israel wouldn't be here without it.

 

[expandmymind]

And yet there's no such country called "the occupied Palestinian territories".

What exactly do you mean here?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are trying to hold on to the opinion that they are not a country, or a state, simply because Israel has suppressed this from happening ..well, I'd have to say that was one of the most immoral things I have ever heard of.

There's a certain thing called the right to self determination. You might want to remember this because the State of Israel wouldn't be here without it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

One little detail missing. This all happened in the other group's country..

It seems people want the occupied to appease the occupiers? How completely immoral.

So? Since when do things *not* happen like that? Are we completely forgetting who we're talking about?

He's dead by the way - I don't know if someone noticed that. . . but he's not around right now. . . just *what* are they suppose to do about him now that he's dead?

 

[expandmymind]

If the West Bank is considered occupied, should the negotiation for it's return be with Jordon and Gaza with Egypt.

As the to the guard protecting himself, he seems to have a good case since rampaging Palestianians pulled someone out of his car and stabbed him in Jerusalem.

By using your logic then these Palestinians were equally in the right if they wanted to kill this guard because Palestinians have been killed by guards before. Immoral justification is not justification at all.

Jordan and Egypt who were simply 'caretakers' for the people of Palestinians, relinquished the claim to the territory to the PLO, or Palestinians. As it was rightfully theirs in the first place.

So? Since when do things *not* happen like that? Are we completely forgetting who we're talking about?

He's dead by the way - I don't know if someone noticed that. . . but he's not around right now. . . just *what* are they suppose to do about him now that he's dead?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Apocalypse]

What exactly do you mean here?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are trying to hold on to the opinion that they are not a country, or a state, simply because Israel has suppressed this from happening ..well, I'd have to say that was one of the most immoral things I have ever heard of.

There's a certain thing called the right to sellf determination. You mkight want to remembver this because the State of Israel wouldn't be here without it.

Besides the fact that the majority of the Western world does not recognize this state, it has no defined borders, hence one territory or another cannot be attributed to it.
The Palestinian state was yet to be established and that's what the peace talks and the two-states solution are about.

 

[Apocalypse]

The point was, he's not simply a 'security guard'. To equate 'settler guard' with 'security guard' is to say they are the same. They are not.

And your reasoning is..?
Please do explain how does the place he lives in changes his status as a security guard?

And even if he was simply a security guard, he Israeli, which means that he would have had to have served in part of the Israeli military and therefore should have been well trained in dealing with civilians before even being trained as a 'security guard'.

Well then you seem to be lacking knowledge on the structure of a military as well, and not simply on the whole situation.
Not all of the roles in the military are combat roles, and indeed the majority of the roles are not combat roles but are civilian roles that are being carried by soldiers for the benefit of the military, such as paper work, cooking, driving, hair-cutting, intelligence roles, lawyers, doctors, etc etc etc.

Either way, he was not justified in shooting at unarmed civilians.

Your words are extremely immoral as you claim that he has had no right to protect his life and should have allowed the crowd to murder him.

And no, stones DO NOT count as arms.

Bollocks, stones are cold weapons, like clubs and iron bars, and even if they were trying to lynch him bare handed he would still be justified in using his weapon to get himself out of danger.

 

[expandmymind]

Besides the fact that the majority of the Western world does not recognize this state, it has no defined borders, hence one territory or another cannot be attributed to it.
The Palestinian state was yet to be established and that's what the peace talks and the two-states solution are about.

Israel shares a border with this 'non-state' (meaning they to have no 'defined borders') which basically means you have just said that Israel's territory cannot be attributed to Israel either?

And the majority of the World views them as such. State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To try to use technicalities to deny an entire people the rights to self determination is an awful, awful thing to do.


The logic needed to justify your arguments is twisted to say the least.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

By using your logic then these Palestinians were equally in the right if they wanted to kill this guard because Palestinians have been killed by guards before. Immoral justification is not justification at all.

Jordan and Egypt who were simply 'caretakers' for the people of Palestinians, relinquished the claim to the territory to the PLO, or Palestinians. As it was rightfully theirs in the first place.



I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean - this isn't the first issue that's come up do to their equal claim over the same territory. . . both sides are just as guilty for violating agreements, taking their own side, and just not getting along.

I take a pessimistic and removed view - I disaprove of both sides for all of their actions - not just one or the other.

 

[Apocalypse]

Israel shares a border with this 'non-state' (meaning they to have no 'defined borders') which basically means you have just said that Israel's territory cannot be attributed to Israel either?

And the majority of the World views them as such. State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To try to use technicalities to deny an entire people the rights to self determination is an awful, awful thing to do.


The logic needed to justify your arguments is twisted to say the least.

Logic has nothing to do with your argument, a state that has no defined borders is not a sovereign state, and Israel does not share a borders with a state that has no defined borders, it has borders with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Disputed borders), not with this imaginery state of Palestine which doesn't declare its borders. (And hence the West Bank or Gaza cannot be attributed to it)

 

[expandmymind]

And your reasoning is..?
Please do explain how does the place he lives in changes his status as a security guard?

Are the Knesset Guards also just 'security guards' then? :lol: Your play with semantics is an awful and transparent one.

Your words are extremely immoral as you claim that he has had no right to protect his life and should have allowed the crowd to murder him.

He was in a car. Unless he didn't know how to drive he could have just driven away. The use of deadly force is not permitted in this case. Life in danger? When he was protected by a vehicle?

This is all before we even note that Israel actually have no legal authority in the Occupied Territories at all. Literally not one law they enforce is legitimate. The World Court decided this back in 2004 when they declared all the settlements and Israel's presence in the area to be illegal also. This isn't even debatable.


And for you to suggest that the use of stones justifies the use of deadly force is just plain silly. Can you imagine if during all riots, those who threw stones were shot? Hell, even Iran last year they weren't that brutal.... What if in Ireland they shot every stone thrower? Or during the civil rights riots in America? Or during Britain's occupation of India? There would be no Irish Republicans, Black Americans or Indians left!

How the hell do you expect them to resist a brutal and immoral occupation? They blow up people they are demonised (quite rightly), they kill soldiers they are demonised, they throw stones now and they are demonised also?

Should they just spit? Maybe fart in Israel's general direction?

You are now forcing them into submission by denying their right to throw stones at an armoured, invading force.

Logic has nothing to do with your argument, a state that has no defined borders is not a sovereign state, and Israel does not share a borders with a state that has no defined borders, it has borders with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Disputed borders), not with this imaginery state of Palestine which doesn't declare its borders. (And hence the West Bank or Gaza cannot be attributed to it)

Wow. I mean truly, wow. I'm not even touching that one other than to say, yeah, WOW.

I've said my piece and if you actually manage to offer anything constructive to the debate then I'll reply. Right now it's clearly, as anyone can see, a futile exercise.

I mean - this isn't the first issue that's come up do to their equal claim over the same territory. . . both sides are just as guilty for violating agreements, taking their own side, and just not getting along.

I take a pessimistic and removed view - I disaprove of both sides for all of their actions - not just one or the other.

Israel has no claim to any of the Occupied Territories though. The World Court decided this back in 2004 when they ruled all the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be illegal.

 

[Apocalypse]

Are the Knesset Guards also just 'security guards' then? :lol: Your play with semantics is an awful and transparent one.

There's no semantics here, simply a wrong logic on your side.
A security guard of settlements is a security guard.

He was in a car. Unless he didn't know how to drive he could have just driven away. The use of deadly force is not permitted in this case. Life in danger? When he was protected by a vehicle?

A vehicle doesn't protect you from a violent mob that tries to kill you, if anything it traps you inside a metal box with glass windows and makes you a standing target.
He could not drive away as he was circled and trapped by the crowd.

This is all before we even note that Israel actually have no legal authority in the Occupied Territories at all.

Your opinions are irrelevant to the fact that the law that forbids murder is an international law.
To justify the attempt at murder of a person by a mob is to engage in deep immorality.

And for you to suggest that the use of stones justifies the use of deadly force is just plain silly. Can you imagine if during all riots, those who threw stones were shot? Hell, even Iran last year they weren't that brutal.... What if in Ireland they shot every stone thrower? Or during the civil rights riots in America? Or during Britain's occupation of India? There would be no Irish Republicans, Black Americans or Indians left!

You compare clashes between the police forces and the civilian protesters who use minimal violence to a crowd of dozens of people who circle a single lone individual who is trapped in his car and try to murder him.
The police is trained to deal with violent protests and usually uses tear gas, this is no such case as this was not a clash but an attempt at lynch, a massive mob coming to kill an individual.
This just goes to show how weak your argument for the lynch attempt is.

How the hell do you expect them to resist a brutal and immoral occupation? They blow up people they are demonised (quite rightly), they kill soldiers they are demonised, they throw stones now and they are demonised also?

Demonized? For terrorism? There is no possible way to demonize the act of terror and your claims are repulsive as you openly promote the use of violence.

You are now forcing them into submission by denying their right to throw stones at an armoured, invading force.

There is no right to assault a security guard for ****'s sake.

 

[Gardener]

Demonized? For terrorism? There is no possible way to demonize the act of terror and your claims are repulsive as you openly promote the use of violence.



There is no right to assault a security guard for ****'s sake.

You need to understand here, Apoc, that being killed with a big rock is much different than being killed with a bullet, because the death from a big rock is politically correct while the death from the bullet isn't.


Silly boy. Of COURSE Arabs have the right to try to kill Jews with rocks. Now, while we can hope and dream for that day when they have enough arms to kill Jews with bullets instead of rocks so we can craft our specious arguments to support that, such a day isn't here yet, so we will have to get our head aroundt he fact that if we want Jews dead, we'll have to advocate killing them with rocks rather than through other means. After all -- it's their RIGHT.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Are the Knesset Guards also just 'security guards' then? :lol: Your play with semantics is an awful and transparent one.



He was in a car. Unless he didn't know how to drive he could have just driven away. The use of deadly force is not permitted in this case. Life in danger? When he was protected by a vehicle?

This is all before we even note that Israel actually have no legal authority in the Occupied Territories at all. Literally not one law they enforce is legitimate. The World Court decided this back in 2004 when they declared all the settlements and Israel's presence in the area to be illegal also. This isn't even debatable.


And for you to suggest that the use of stones justifies the use of deadly force is just plain silly. Can you imagine if during all riots, those who threw stones were shot? Hell, even Iran last year they weren't that brutal.... What if in Ireland they shot every stone thrower? Or during the civil rights riots in America? Or during Britain's occupation of India? There would be no Irish Republicans, Black Americans or Indians left!

How the hell do you expect them to resist a brutal and immoral occupation? They blow up people they are demonised (quite rightly), they kill soldiers they are demonised, they throw stones now and they are demonised also?

Should they just spit? Maybe fart in Israel's general direction?

You are now forcing them into submission by denying their right to throw stones at an armoured, invading force.



Wow. I mean truly, wow. I'm not even touching that one other than to say, yeah, WOW.

I've said my piece and if you actually manage to offer anything constructive to the debate then I'll reply. Right now it's clearly, as anyone can see, a futile exercise.



Israel has no claim to any of the Occupied Territories though. The World Court decided this back in 2004 when they ruled all the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be illegal.

I know what's been decided by others.
obviously they all don't agree on that decision.

Who's to say who is right or wrong in this issue? I don't think there is a right or a wrong - because it's been debated, decided, debated, decided - for centuries.

There is nothing that anyone can say or do in this situation which will end it, resolve it, or just be left alone.

What do you think they should have done with him, anyway?

 

[expandmymind]

I know what's been decided by others.
obviously they all don't agree on that decision.

Who's to say who is right or wrong in this issue? I don't think there is a right or a wrong - because it's been debated, decided, debated, decided - for centuries.

There is nothing that anyone can say or do in this situation which will end it, resolve it, or just be left alone.

What do you think they should have done with him, anyway?

It hasn't been debated for centuries.

And by applying the logic you have, who's to say murder should be illegal? Theft? Rape? How many criminals in the past haven't agreed with legal decisions? How many should we then left off with said crimes? Laws exist, it's that simple.

Done with who? The person throwing stones? Drove away. It's one thing shooting someone, it's a completely other thing if an idiot is stupid enough to obstruct a car while someone escapes. Are you going to kill or arrest everyone who protests the occupation? The jails would end up pretty full, pretty quick. You'd need a pretty large prison.. no, wait ... they already have one, it's called GAZA.

 

[digsbe]

If I remember correctly. The Palestinians protesting this actually stabbed a Jewish man as a form of protest. Where is the outcry against that? It is unfortunate that this Palestinian man was killed. But he was hurling rocks at an innocent person, and that person (being a guard) shot him in self defense. It's not the "Evil Jew kills the innocent Palestinian" rouse that many want to push.

 

[expandmymind]

If I remember correctly. The Palestinians protesting this actually stabbed a Jewish man as a form of protest. Where is the outcry against that?

Is this a joke? Where is the outrage when a Jew is killed by a Palestinian? Do you really want me to look out studies done on the amount of media time given to Jews killed in the Occupied Territories compared to Arabs? Arabs are killed all the time! Just the other day there a Palestinian fisherman was killed by the Israeli Navy, where is the outrage? Where is the news coverage?

This year over 70 Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces so far and you're claiming that the 'outrage' is misdirected?

This statement is so far from reality that it has forgotten what reality even looks like.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It hasn't been debated for centuries.

And by applying the logic you have, who's to say murder should be illegal? Theft? Rape? How many criminals in the past haven't agreed with legal decisions? How many should we then left off with said crimes? Laws exist, it's that simple.

Done with who? The person throwing stones? Drove away. It's one thing shooting someone, it's a completely other thing if an idiot is stupid enough to obstruct a car while someone escapes. Are you going to kill or arrest everyone who protests the occupation? The jails would end up pretty full, pretty quick. You'd need a pretty large prison.. no, wait ... they already have one, it's called GAZA.

Oh - yes - you think they're *just now* having problems with each other or something?
That the Israelis *just now* are being like this?
And that perhaps *tomorrow* they'll see reason?

Their issues - everyone in *that* region of the world - is pacing from issues with BIBLICAL beginnings . . . it's not *just* this century - or last century - or the century before.

How people can continue to try to choose sides and tsk one side while supporting the other is beyond me - it all just encourages more of the SAME worn out drama.