4 ms·

The politicians who ordered them to shatter the knees of thousands of protesters must have gone through the same desensitisation training.

by Udik 7y ago

dogma1138 7y ago
What’s the alternative shooting them dead? Let’s not pretend that this is a quiet civil rights protest, the throwing of grenades, Molotov cocktails and the planting of IEDs at the border fence happens during it. Injuries takes a less of a political toll both nationally and internationally than fatalities. While it’s easy to say don’t shoot at all you can’t avoid the fact that a portion of those which get too close and are shot do have quite hostile intentions. The issue with conflicts like these is thinking that there is a simple solution and that is for one side to stop. The Israeli public will not tolerate casualties on their side which works both ways as it grants political will for things like the withdrawal form Lebanon and the disengagement from Gaza, however it also leads to policies like this as well as the policies of Targeted Killings that were imposed initially by the Rabin administration as a low intensity solution to the rabid wave of suicide bombing across Israel. As long as there won’t be a sufficient political will on both sides to halt all hostilities for normalization to be possible there isn’t going to be a resolution to this conflict.
- BrandoElFollito 7y ago
  This is sadly a very realistic comment. I do not have any stakes in that conflict (live in France and loosely know a few people with Jewish and Palestinian origins) and this is how I see that conflict with my untrained eye. People fighting for something hardly shareable (land) with hartred on both sides. One case of such a situation which tuurned fine and that I am incredibly proud of is the relationship between France and Germany. 1914-18, 1939-45 and now school exchanges where children meet other children (and to my dismay - communicate in English...). Not French meeting Germans, just kids meeting kids. I already mentioned that earlier but one of the greatest moments during such an exchange was a football match where they had spontaneously mixed teams, not Germany vs France.
  - Udik 7y ago
    > This is sadly a very realistic comment. ... this is how I see that conflict with my untrained eye If your eye is untrained, how do you know that the comment is realistic? The data are the following: 183 Palestininans shot dead, 9200 shot in the knees "often with life-changing injuries". [1] On the Israeli side, 0 or 1 dead, 4 to 11 wounded. (data from Wikipedia). These are the facts: an army shooting on people without receiving any damage. So, did you ask yourself where did you get the idea that the killed and wounded constituted an actual threat? I can tell you: it comes from the people who shot them. And do you think they would tell you they're shooting on harmless people? Of course not. > People fighting for something hardly shareable (land) with hartred on both sides. Again: you don't realise it, but this is spin. The two sides are not equal. One is illegally occupying the other's territory. The other one is not. When you see two people fighting in the street over a handbag, you don't say "they're fighting over something hardly shareable, with hatred on both sides". You ask yourself who is the owner of the handbag, and who's the thief. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/world/middleeast/israeli-shootings-gaza-border.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/world/middleeast/israeli-...
    - BrandoElFollito 7y ago
      > If your eye is untrained, how do you know that the comment is realistic? Because it ends with "As long as there won’t be a sufficient political will on both sides to halt all hostilities for normalization to be possible there isn’t going to be a resolution to this conflict." The main problem is that both sides probably have a point - one side will say they were there first, the other they were there longer etc. And, again, they will have a point. This is very much different from your example with the thief who has objectively zero rights to the bag. I honestly pity such never-ending wars dragged through generations where everyone will claim they are completely right and the others are completely wrong, with some selected numbers on hand. In Europe, where I live, there were wars for 1000 years between countries who thought that the others were illegally occupying "their" territory. Some of these lands kept switching sides (Alsace/Lorraine/Moselle, Silesia, ...) and I am glad they are more or less settled now and people can live there in peace. > Again: you don't realise it, but this is spin. The two sides are not equal. One is illegally occupying the other's territory. The other one is not. A Google search for "why jews can historically have their land" or similar brings plenty of sources. I opened the first few and it looks clear that the land belongs to Jews. A Google search for "why palestinians can historically have their land" or similar brings plenty of sources. I opened the first few and it looks clear that the land belongs to the Palestinians. See the problem? I do not have a particular interest in that conflict so I do not have an opinion. I just see that people are killing each other for land and that both sides have lots of documentation to back their positions. And various political support worldwide (some for one side, some others for the other).

The politicians who ordered them to shatter the knees of thousands of protesters must have gone through the same desensitisation training.

by Udik 7y ago

The politicians who ordered them to shatter the knees of thousands of protesters must have gone through the same desensitisation training.

dogma1138 7y ago

What’s the alternative shooting them dead? Let’s not pretend that this is a quiet civil rights protest, the throwing of grenades, Molotov cocktails and the planting of IEDs at the border fence happens during it. Injuries takes a less of a political toll both nationally and internationally than fatalities. While it’s easy to say don’t shoot at all you can’t avoid the fact that a portion of those which get too close and are shot do have quite hostile intentions. The issue with conflicts like these is thinking that there is a simple solution and that is for one side to stop. The Israeli public will not tolerate casualties on their side which works both ways as it grants political will for things like the withdrawal form Lebanon and the disengagement from Gaza, however it also leads to policies like this as well as the policies of Targeted Killings that were imposed initially by the Rabin administration as a low intensity solution to the rabid wave of suicide bombing across Israel. As long as there won’t be a sufficient political will on both sides to halt all hostilities for normalization to be possible there isn’t going to be a resolution to this conflict.

BrandoElFollito 7y ago
This is sadly a very realistic comment. I do not have any stakes in that conflict (live in France and loosely know a few people with Jewish and Palestinian origins) and this is how I see that conflict with my untrained eye. People fighting for something hardly shareable (land) with hartred on both sides. One case of such a situation which tuurned fine and that I am incredibly proud of is the relationship between France and Germany. 1914-18, 1939-45 and now school exchanges where children meet other children (and to my dismay - communicate in English...). Not French meeting Germans, just kids meeting kids. I already mentioned that earlier but one of the greatest moments during such an exchange was a football match where they had spontaneously mixed teams, not Germany vs France.
- Udik 7y ago
  > This is sadly a very realistic comment. ... this is how I see that conflict with my untrained eye If your eye is untrained, how do you know that the comment is realistic? The data are the following: 183 Palestininans shot dead, 9200 shot in the knees "often with life-changing injuries". [1] On the Israeli side, 0 or 1 dead, 4 to 11 wounded. (data from Wikipedia). These are the facts: an army shooting on people without receiving any damage. So, did you ask yourself where did you get the idea that the killed and wounded constituted an actual threat? I can tell you: it comes from the people who shot them. And do you think they would tell you they're shooting on harmless people? Of course not. > People fighting for something hardly shareable (land) with hartred on both sides. Again: you don't realise it, but this is spin. The two sides are not equal. One is illegally occupying the other's territory. The other one is not. When you see two people fighting in the street over a handbag, you don't say "they're fighting over something hardly shareable, with hatred on both sides". You ask yourself who is the owner of the handbag, and who's the thief. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/world/middleeast/israeli-shootings-gaza-border.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/world/middleeast/israeli-...
  - BrandoElFollito 7y ago
    > If your eye is untrained, how do you know that the comment is realistic? Because it ends with "As long as there won’t be a sufficient political will on both sides to halt all hostilities for normalization to be possible there isn’t going to be a resolution to this conflict." The main problem is that both sides probably have a point - one side will say they were there first, the other they were there longer etc. And, again, they will have a point. This is very much different from your example with the thief who has objectively zero rights to the bag. I honestly pity such never-ending wars dragged through generations where everyone will claim they are completely right and the others are completely wrong, with some selected numbers on hand. In Europe, where I live, there were wars for 1000 years between countries who thought that the others were illegally occupying "their" territory. Some of these lands kept switching sides (Alsace/Lorraine/Moselle, Silesia, ...) and I am glad they are more or less settled now and people can live there in peace. > Again: you don't realise it, but this is spin. The two sides are not equal. One is illegally occupying the other's territory. The other one is not. A Google search for "why jews can historically have their land" or similar brings plenty of sources. I opened the first few and it looks clear that the land belongs to Jews. A Google search for "why palestinians can historically have their land" or similar brings plenty of sources. I opened the first few and it looks clear that the land belongs to the Palestinians. See the problem? I do not have a particular interest in that conflict so I do not have an opinion. I just see that people are killing each other for land and that both sides have lots of documentation to back their positions. And various political support worldwide (some for one side, some others for the other).