Illuminati-R-Us

From Auntie Beeb:
"Yotam Haim, 28, Samer Talalka, 22, and Alon Shamriz, 26 were all mis-identified as a "threat" by Israel's armed forces."
The IDF shooting unarmed civilians? Unpossible.

Unarmed civilians carrying a makeshift white flag, no less.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-m ... t-67732895
It's good the IDF are getting their arse held to the fire but I'd be more impressed if it wasn't just because they killed Israelis.

Yeah, that kind of mishap would never happen to a good Hamas freedom fighter: Thy would never kill, torture, maim, rape or abduct an Israeli unintentionally.

It's possible for both sides to be terrible people.

Very much the case here. Or there, rather. Actually, also here!

Labias.

I'm sure are not allowed on the one side. It's probably right in their charter.

Arneb sums up how the IDF saw it - “after what they did to our sisters, parents and even children, who gives a fuck if they’re unarmed?” But as others have said, Hamas are a terrorist organisation and the IDF is supposed not to be.

But one thing is clear. The soldiers involved will get their arses whipped - the families of the hostages (including those still unaccounted for) will demand it. While their commanders won’t. “We explained the rules of engagement clearly to them - not our fault they didn’t follow them!”

Interesting that spokespersons for the Israeli government have, in their justification for their complete destruction of Gaza, drawn comparisons with the bombing of Dresden. Which has been condemned by many, not least in Germany - a staunch ally of Israel - as a war crime. You would have thought they could have used better arguments.

Richard A wrote:But one thing is clear. The soldiers involved will get their arses whipped

I'll believe that when I see it. There is also a stunning silence from the media about what the Palestinians released from Israeli prisons were convicted of. Or charged with. Or suspected of. Or whether they were just locked without anything approaching due process.

Some news from over here.

The highest officer of the IDF has taken personal responsibility for the event, and apologized to the families involved
He also stated that the soldiers ivolved where in breach of their orders and protocols, which state that a white flag waved by people with exposed upper bodies (= unable to conceal an explosive belt) should be taken and respected as a valid gesture of surrender.
He also said that the decision to shoot or not often has to be taken within fractions of seconds, and if you desist and are wrong, you are liable to be dead seconds later. Errors will occur.

The last point is one often made - with some validity - although in this particular case it is undermined by the first point. It seems pretty clear that the soldiers knew damned well that the three didn't pose a threat to them but didn't care. It was their extreme bad luck that the men they shot were Israeli hostages; had they been Palestinian civilians, this wouldn't even have been an issue.

Heid the Ba wrote:

Richard A wrote:But one thing is clear. The soldiers involved will get their arses whipped

I'll believe that when I see it. There is also a stunning silence from the media about what the Palestinians released from Israeli prisons were convicted of. Or charged with. Or suspected of. Or whether they were just locked without anything approaching due process.

We have heard some news on that: throwing stones at police/soldiers is a common one. Under Israeli military law, that can get you a lengthy prison sentence - a lot longer than would be handed out to someone at a demo here who lobbed a projectile at police. But internship on suspicion of supporting terrorism - the kind of thing that we used to do in Northern Ireland - is commonplace. It is done under one of a number of measures imposed during the British mandate which the Israeli state decided it could be useful to keep. (Demolishing the homes of families of those who commit acts of violence against Israelis is another). Of course, the fact that it was inherited from the British mandate gives it an added edge for Israelis: what they do to Palestinians in the occupied areas is no different to what was done to their grandparents. And they have frequently cited Northern Ireland as a parallel.

But from a legal point of view, there are three important differences between Palestine and Northern Ireland. One, Israel concedes, with the international community, that the West Bank (except East Jerusalem) and Gaza are occupied territories - although Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza for a time, it didn't grant it independence either. Whereas throughout the Troubles, Northern Ireland was legally part of the United Kingdom. Two, linked to that, Catholics in NI have always been British citizens. They might have been systematically discriminated against, but they had full British passports and were free to move to mainland Britain - or anywhere else that would admit them. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens - both sides are clear on that. Not only do they require Israeli permission to enter "Israel proper", but they similarly require it to enter Jordan - because the border is controlled by Israel. Jews living in Israeli settlements, however, are full Israeli citizens.

But most of all, in NI, Catholics and Protestants alike came (as they do now) under the same legal system. Again, it might have been skewed in favour of one side - the police force was 93% Protestant and I don't think anyone from the Shankhill was ever interned. And Northern Ireland as a separate legal jurisdiction has its own courts and legal system, just as Scotland does. It did so even under direct rule. But Protestants and Catholics suspected of breaking the law came before the same courts and were tried under the same law. If convicted, they were even sent to the same prisons. On the West Bank, an Israeli Jewish settler who breaks the law comes before an Israeli civil court operated by the Ministry of Justice. Palestinians, on the other hand, are tried by a military court operated by the IDF. Which have a conviction rate of well over 90%. It is systematic apartheid, as a range of civil rights organisations have long pointed out.