Ok, so we are talking about yesterday. Clearly you were unsure of whether in fact there was a bomb planted yesterday and, to be honest, I haven't seen any report of one being planted.
I am very careful to be sure of my facts before posting. You seem to be misunderstanding my use of the term "possibly". There HAVE been instances, including yesterday, of IEDs being planted on the fence, therefore, anyone approaching the fence may be considered a possible risk for this outcome.
Do you have proof of those approaching the fence carrying guns and bombs with an "intent" to do harm?Seriously?
There was no invasion of Israel as far as I could see? Those killed were the 'right side' of the fence no?
I didn't and never have argued against Israel using lethal force. My issue is that the IDF are firing across a border. What next? IDF crossing that border to disperse the protesters?
There is a very fine line and it seems that Israel crosses that line every time!
As for numbers of protesters, IDF have said 17,000 in total. Not sure where you get almost double that number.
Hamas is quoting the larger number. Likely inflated.
Okay, so we agree that Gazans should be able to hold a peaceful protest. And we agree that Israel should be able to use lethal force, if necessary.
You've managed to dodge my question, which was: Under which conditions is Israel permitted (legally, morally) to use lethal force. Let's start working on the grey areas.
If Gazan (member of Hamas' military wing, young man, woman, child) plants an IED on the fence, may Israel use lethal force at a distance?
If a Gazan (member of Hamas' military wing, young man, woman, child) approaches the fence with an identifiable IED, may Israel use lethal force at a distance?
If a Gazan (member of Hamas' military wing, young man, woman, child) approaches the fence with suspicious or aggressive behaviour and appears to be carrying an IED, may Israel use lethal force at a distance?
If a Gazan (member of Hamas' military wing, young man, woman, child) approaches the fence with rocks or firebombs, may Israel use lethal force at a distance?
If a Gazan (member of Hamas' military wing, young man, woman, child) approaches the fence in an attempt to breach it, destroy it or cross it, may Israel use lethal force at a distance?
I could go on and on and on with various scenarios and we could, probably, work out a reasonable set of objective parameters under which Israel would be permitted to use lethal force. But it seems to me, on balance, Israel is already considering these things and, on balance, is successfully working within nuanced and correctly moral boundaries. Thus no harm comes to a seven year old child who is sent by her parents to climb the fence (a disgusting violation of humanity to use a child in that way) while 100% of those killed were young men actively engaged in attempting to breach the border or use weapons against those Israelis on the Israeli side of the fence. And a third of those dead belong to Hamas' military wing -- combatants without doubt).
If you want to argue who started what and when... "The first to die was Omar Samour, 27 - a Palestinian farmer killed in Israeli shelling as he worked his land near Khan Younis early on Friday, before the protests began."
Wasn't he one of the ones who was shooting at Israelis?
What I don't understand about your POV, given that you are one of only two on this board that can argue the points with any level of objectivity at all, is why blame Israel for (perhaps inadequately) addressing a very volatile and difficult situation while not at LEAST concurrently addressing the responsibility for Gazans to hold PEACEFUL protests and not violent ones.
You require Israel to carefully, quickly and with 100% accuracy judge whether any particular individual approaching the fence is a threat or not a threat and respond with an appropriate level of force at a distance.
Yet you seem to require NOTHING from the Gazans. The Gazan people, in holding a peaceful protest, should be required to keep a respectful distance from the fence. They should be required to leave their rocks and burning tires and firebombs and guns and IEDs at home. (Or better yet, get rid of them altogether). That is what a peaceful protest should be. If they could hold a peaceful protest, an actually peaceful protest, there wouldn't be any dead.
Why do you argue in support of Gazans misbehaving so badly? And so clearly against not only the interests of peace in the region, but against their own best interests?
