IDF STATEMENT "No malice in the killing of the 3 hostages"

Somebody should write a story about Mexico annexing Texas, with help from Russia at the height of the cold war, claiming it is and always has been Mexican territory, kicking Texans out of their homes and moving them into a small town surrounded by a wall. Then the rest of the USA invades this new Mexican territory of Texas, but Mexico wins, again with international help from Russia, and more states are taken by Mexico. Years go by and the other states are upset about this but don't attack again, for fear of starting world war 3 with Russia. Generations of Texans grow up under Mexican abuse and containment and launch make shift missiles out of their open air prison and killing Mexican civilians, taking Mexican hostages, some of whom escape, and Mexican soldiers gun those hostages down. Mexico dismisses all international calls for ceasefire and blows most of Texas into rubble.

If the script is flipped like that, then some of these tribalists may be able to see the conflict without such tunnel vision.

 

What does the above have to do with anything?

But since you bring up Texas and Mexico. What you consider the correct response of the US government if Hamas had taken control of Huarez and started launching rockets and mortars into El Paso continuously for the last 16 years with the loss of Mexican civilians resulting from Hamas in Huarez locating launch sites in Huarez civilian neighborhoods?

 

The key word here being MISTAKENLY
At least they didn't put babies in ovens like those sick and twisted HAMAS TERRORIST SCUMBAGS did

 

Lol.

 

You are laughing at history. It’s no wonder you don’t understand it much less learn from it.

 

icannot find any credible information or evidence to support the claim that Hamas put babies in ovens. It's crucial to verify such serious allegations through reliable sources before sharing or believing them.

 

Why would anybody willingly give up half of their land to brutal colonial settlers?

 

It wasn't their territory to give up. The territory was part of the Ottoman Empire. Britain assumed control over the territory at the end of WWI and relinquished control in 1947 when the United Nations partitioned the territory into two states.

 

Were the ottomans invited to the summit?

 

It is called an analogy. It is an attempt to see beyond tribalism (which you clearly can't) and imagine yourself on the other end of your own supported actions.

 

What summit?

 

The mandate for Palestine

 

Failing to make any effort to identify who it is you are seeing before you shoot them, on the off chance that maybe just maybe they could be your enemy, isn't a mistake. That is a deliberate action.
I again ask, what could these hostages have done that they didn't do, that would have saved them from the IDF soldiers shooting them? I don't think there is anything. And that's a clear indictment of the IDF sodliers.

That's entirely irrelevant. Hamas doing worse things to innocent civilians than the IDF does to innocent civiliians doesn't excuse either of them.

 

Your analogy has nothing to do with the reality of the situation in Gaza or for Israel as well. The territory which was partitioned by the United Nations was part of the Ottoman Empire. It was not owned by Muslims or Jews. The British controlled the territory after the Ottoman Empire collapsed as a consequence of losing WWI. The United Nations partitioned the territory after WWII.

 

And the Arabs (the majority) rejected it so it's basically null and void and totally un democratic

 

Look, I agree that one side doing horrible things doesn't excuse actions on the other side, but still, what is the deal with this super high standard of "peaceful" war tactics that Israel is held to but NO OTHER COUNTRY IS, not even USA? This whole premise seems like a major military disadvantage for Israel because for some reason, they are expected to pull off every single military maneuver with absolute perfect precision and ZERO casualties. It seems very strange to me. Also, given their opponent, it seems like a weakness. They don't have to stoop to their level but you can't expect 100% surgical precision, that's just silly

 

There was no deliberate action by the three or four IDF soldiers to kill the Israeli hostages. IDF soldiers had been ambushed by Hamas terrorists waving white flags. The hostages could not stand up and identify themselves - Hamas would have shot them in the back. IDF soldiers were not aware that hostages were in the area. Why were they in the area? How did they escape from Hamas? How did they make through the Hamas lines to the front line? This was a tragedy of friendly fire. That is what the IDF inquiry determined based on the facts of the situation.

What did the Hamas inquiry show with regard to how the hostages escaped and were accidentally shot by a few IDF soldiers?

What do you claim that the hostages did? What do you claim they should have done?

 

I'm sorry but can you point to any western military indiscriminately firing on and killing hundreds of their own just to take out a few opposition?

 

The Arabs had no legal objection to partitioning territory that they had no legal claim to. Instead five Arab nations attacked Israel and suffered the consequences.

 

They escaped from hamas because they had all been killed by the IDF but still that wasn't enough for the American backed IDF, contributed with bare chested hostages waving white flags and pleading for help in Jewish, they still were gunned down.

 

The British created Mandatory Palestine, in which Jews were a small part of the population. Jews then came in large numbers with zionists among them claiming they were "returning ot their homeland", despite not having lived there for many generations (which Mexicans could also do, Mexico having once held Texas), pushing Palestinians living thre out. And it wasn't until zionist terrorism took place against the British and the Palestinians, pushing the British out and eventually creating Israel as a Jewish State. There are some parralels and analogies in that violent history to today's Palestinian terrorist actions today as well.

The point of such an analogy is to flip the script and imagine yourself as a civilian facing the consequences of actions that you support or make excuses for.

And no, you can't deflect this by asking the same of me, because I DO NOT condone, support, excuse or refuse to condemn the violence of Hamas or of Iran or Israel.

 

The British had no legal claim to the land either. They stole it.

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

I can't either, but even if Hamas did exactly that, it still wouldn't excuse Israel's indiscriminate violence against civilians.

 

Not off the top of my head. I also cannot name any that use civilians as meat shields and setup military facilities in and under hospitals and schools but maybe one will come to mind soon.