I think what Marz is saying is that after the fact people take care of the terrorists' families.

Like holy shit the Jordanian Parliament held a moment of silence for the martyr's deeds the day after.

Those comments are lovely. "One step closer to chasing the entire Palestinian population into Jordan, where they belong. Bibi, no one is stopping you now. The Gentiles may gripe about it, but they'll get over it." As if the Palestinians weren't there first.

Nobody has a problem with the fact that these four were massacred for the sole reason that other jews want to pray on the temple mount. The "threat" that Jews may want to pray on their holiest spot has caused this crisis.

And if you were keeping track YHN, Jews were there first.

Jesus Moses Mohammad Confucius who gives a shit who was there first

seems like a lot of people...

Pretty sure Australopithecus was there first.

Confucius

lol I love you bo_sox

"By destroying their houses, Israel is trying to create an economic disincentive to terrorism. Believe me, the families are fine afterwards; they get paid more for terrorism than the value of the house."

First off, I want to make clear that I support Israel and believe it has a right to respond to attacks and crush its enemies. Just like every other country.

However, that's an incredibly disgusting thing to write, Marz. Israel should not be bulldozing the family homes of terrorists if it's going to claim to be a nation under the rule of law. When it comes to the people who actually carry out the attacks, give them no quarter. But the families? How would you feel if your home was torn down just because the black sheep in your family committed a horrible crime? Would some supposed future payment replace what you lost?


To reiterate, the people and group(s) responsible for this and any terrorist attack should face the consequences. But knocking down the family homes is senseless and, frankly, misdirects the world's attention away from the actual attack.

^

Knocking down homes is legal under a British Occupation emergency rule that has never been rescinded. If you want to complain about international law violations, then Palestinians have even more that aren't been punished and have no legal support.

@ SantaClausowitz

"Jews were there first"

Maybe you missed the memo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

Also.

Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, but neither side is defending; both are taking the offensive and trying to appear as a victim. It is all manipulation. If you actually support one side over the other and wish one would suffer over the other, you are falling for it.

SantaClausowitz

Please stop conflating Judaism with Israel.

Judaism was in the disputed area before Islam. Palestinians were in the disputed area before Israelis. And we should really not give a shit about that. It distracts people from the issue of human rights violations.

Absolutely right Bo sox, thank you for illustrating the flaw in the oft touted 'self-defense' excuse

Murdering those who pray at their most holy site is not defense.

Murder is not defense

Why is it that we never see a thread entitled "Palestinian response to the brutal slaughter of 2,000 Gazans"? Some lives are more important and newsworthy than others, I suppose.

"Nobody has a problem with the fact that these four were massacred for the sole reason that other jews want to pray on the temple mount. The "threat" that Jews may want to pray on their holiest spot has caused this crisis." I literally use the words "brutal" and "murder" in the thread title. Don't try to equate condemning Israel's response with condoning the crime to which Israel is reacting. That's a strawman argument if I ever saw one.

I do want to backpedal on my "the Palestinian's were there first hurrdurr" defense. It's true, that same lame argument could be used (and is used) to legitimize (modern) Israel's creation in the first place. But just as there are more reasonable justifications for Israel's foundation and continued existence, so too are there better ways to defend Palestine's right to sovereignty and an end to occupation/genocidal determination to ensure the state of Palestine's failure.

"Why is it that we never see a thread entitled "Palestinian response to the brutal slaughter of 2,000 Gazans"? Some lives are more important and newsworthy than others, I suppose."

I seem to remember there always being threads when Israel launches its semi-yearly strikes on Gaza, and the mood being overwhelmingly critical.

This thread exists because this attack just happened, so it's newsworthy because it's timely. If you want to start threads on crimes committed by settlers against Palestinians then post away. Nothing's stopping you and there's certainly plenty of material to work with.

Idiots taking my words out of context as idiots do.

My frucking point is, idiots, the Temple Mount is holy for the Jews too, they built two temples there the second of which was destroyed a half century before Islam existed. It is the most holy Jewish spot in the world

So, idiots, what I am saying is that Jews should be allowed to pray there as well if they choose to, and certainly not be shot in a drive by or stabbed because other Jews want to pray there.

Is this a controversial statement? If so, why?

Maybe Palestinians should be able to pray in Jerusalem too. Is that controversial?

It is extremely controversial because it can be seen as the thin end of the wedge.

It is grant Jews more rights in the context of continual and worsening denial of rights to Palestinians. There is continued settlement activity and fragmentation of Palestinian areas, and historically land grabs have occurred in small steps.

In my view it is more to do with what this concession symbolises. The murderers of the four rabbis were hardly religious.

Jews can complain about not being allowed to pray at the Temple Mount - it is unjust to them.

However it would be refreshing if proposals to resolve the situation would include moves to address long lists of active Palestinian grievances. If not, I cannot see how one can hope for cooperation.

Have Palestinians even attached this to proposals or talks? No, the reaction has been one of complete denial of Jews in perpetuity. That what the incitement has been about, that's why the Jordanian parliament held their moment of silence. This killing is seen by everyone as connected to the "controversy" about the temple mount. I'm just glad I had a chance to go before the second intifada started and the area was put off limits.

I don't see why controversy need scare quotes. There is a controversy. Palestinians want the area to be in an independent Palestine, Israelis want it to be part of a united Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. Jews want to pray where the Temple once stood, Muslims don't want them to because they think it's the thin end of the wedge to building a Third Temple, which would almost certainly mean the destruction of the various Muslim holy sites in the area.

It's silly, but that's how things are.

I believe that people can have both their mansaf and their falafel and no one else should shit on them for doing so.

@ Santa

Indeed, talks have been a frequently used and successful approach used by both Palestinians and Israelis in solving disputes.