Other than the location and the mention of "wired" this sounds like something that could have been written about 10/7. Except it's 8/8/1934, Algeria.
Algeria.
Not Palestine. Not oppression of Israelis by Palestinians.
It was a massacre, a crime against humanity, and horrific terrorism in
Algeria decades before Israel even existed.
It was the norm for the treatment of Jews in Muslim lands. That's the "peaceful coexistence" you want to return to.
Just because the victim managed to turn the tables on their abuser doesn't make it not oppression. Look at the big picture!
You are misreading my posts.
The rapes, kidnapping, and murders carried out by Hamas in Israel in October were acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity. We call them that because they fit the definition of the terms 'terrorism' and 'crimes against humanity'.
IMO they were not instances of oppression because they do not fit the definition of the term 'oppression'. You apparently think they do but you have not yet explained your reasoning. I think at this point it is up to you to be really, really wordy in your response and to explain more fully what you mean.
In the overall picture, yes, they are instances of oppression.
List a few. And limit the list to instances of oppression in Palestine and Israel. We aren't talking about French colonies in Africa, or the Greeks in Thrace, or the Byzantine Empire.
There's no reason to put such a restriction on it. We don't have a lot of data points because the Muslims certainly aren't going to document it and they were the ones in charge.
Proof of their non-combatant status?? The Palestinians claiming they weren't combatants and that they were targeted by Israeli actions doesn't mean much.
It doesn't mean much to you. You have argued that children being guided to a UN shelter by their teachers, or playing on a beach, or playing soccer in a open field, or herding sheep, or picking vegetables, are valid targets. You have argued that a woman who answered the knock at her front door was rightfully shot by the IDF soldiers raiding her house, and that her lying there bleeding to death in front of her children for almost an hour rather than being taken to a hospital was perfectly fine.
The problem is you assume everything is as the terrorists say it is.
And you're mixing up "valid target" with "human shield". And if I remember correctly those "soccer players" were shooting an anti-tank missile. Against most anti-tank missiles the response is to put as much fire as possible as quickly as possible on where it came from because your best defense is to hit the guy guiding it. (And this is one of the reasons the Javelin is so potent--it's fire and forget, the shooter can get off the X as soon as the missile clears the tube, they don't have to stick around behind a smoke trail that screams "Shoot me!")
I doubt you would have this problem if we were talking about Israeli children or Jewish mothers in their own homes, but as soon as the P-word gets mentioned you lose all ability to distinguish combatants no matter how young.
No. I question the automatic assignment of non-combatant status.
And note they only list the first names of the "UNWRA workers" killed. If they really were non-combatants why are they going out of their way to hide their identity? Assume anyone they're not fully open about is a combatant and you'll rarely be wrong.
If I assume you are bullshitting when you refuse to provide links to evidence that supports your claims, I will never be wrong.
Which doesn't change the reality.
Anyway, we have a point of reference as to how accurately Israel is shooting. Hezbollah
is reporting dead combatants.
The number of people killed by Israeli fire into south Lebanon since the start of the war in Gaza has risen to more than 200, according to an AFP tally. Since the outbreak of war between Hamas and Israel on October 7, the Lebanese-Israeli...
www.naharnet.com
87% of those killed are combatants.
And a reason to question the reports out of Gaza:
He says the IDF is shooting at them everywhere. But let's consider the facts:
1) You really think the IDF is going to single out someone in front of a reporter's camera to shoot??
2) Note the location. The IDF is
not within rifle range of the location, even with a sniper rifle and that was a burst of fire. The shooter is pretty obviously Hamas or the like. But the world laps it up as wanton IDF killing of civilians.