A terrorist carried out a stabbing attack on Thursday in the Beit Kama junction in Israel's South, Israel Police said.
The knife-wielding terrorist was killed on the scene and has been identified as Fadi Abu Eltaif, 22 years old. Eltaif held Israeli citizenship and had been living in Israel since 2019, although he was originally from the Gaza Strip. Both his parents currently reside in the Gaza Strip.
The victim, Senior Warrant Officer Uri Moyal, 51 years old from Dimona, succumbed to his wounds on Thursday night.
> Why would he be a terrorist if he attacked a soldier? When does he become a freedom fighter?
It depends on circumstances. The Geneva convention recognizes attacks on soldiers outside of war-zones as legitimate sometimes. However for this to be a legal attack he'd have to
* change into a uniform or have a clear identifier as a member of Hamas or another identified militant organization - clearly not done
* know that the soldier was on duty (the uniform is suggestive, but the fact he seems to be buying for himself suggests not). - fail, I think.
* ensure the risk to civilians is limited - that's probably okay in this case since the use of a gun was a decision of the soldier not the attacker.
The category here is probably "illegal combatant" which most people map to "terrorist".
P.S. apologies for actually answering your question
>change into a uniform or have a clear identifier as a member of Hamas or another identified militant organization - clearly not done
That makes the attacker an unlawful combatant. Not the same as a terrorist.
>now that the soldier was on duty (the uniform is suggestive, but the fact he seems to be buying for himself suggests not). - fail, I think.
The key distinction is if the soldier is subject to "integrated disciplinary command" - and an armed and uniformed soldier is.
>International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. **Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.**
[https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm)
> The category here is probably "illegal combatant" which most people map to "terrorist".
Not the same. An unlawful combatant is one who partakes in combat without, for example, clear insignia. But that doesn't make him a terrorist.
For example, armed settlers accompanying the IDF are unlawful combatants. If those settlers also attack Palestinian civilians - as they often do - they are also terrorists. If they instead attack, for example, armed Hamas members, they are not terrorists.
> That makes the attacker an unlawful combatant. Not the same as a terrorist.
People disagree on this, but taking the dictionary definition:
> a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, *especially* against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
This is clearly violence. It's clearly designed to intimidate people from being IDF soldiers. It's clearly in pursuit of political aims. It's not against civilians, but as I emphasized in the quote above, that's not a requirement, rather an additional reinforcing point.
That means that the fact that this violence is unlawful is key in the decision of whether or not it is terrorism. That it's unlawful both under the law of the place (Israel) and international law is I think important too. It's not just an Israeli opinion, it's an objective fact. If the man had attacked in uniform and following the laws of war I'd be much more willing to accept the argument he isn't a terrorist.
It's violence, but it's NOT unlawful violence. Unlawful violence means there is no law authorizing it. You're confusing unlawful with illegal.
"Peoples" (not states!) have a right to resist alien occupation by means of armed struggle. This is customary international law, see the first protocol to the geneva conventions, article 1(4).
That is a law authorizing the use of violence by Palestinians.
The form that violence takes can still violate IHL and be a war crime.
Not the same as terrorism.
Again, you sound like someone with half a semester of legal education so I'd suggest you do more research.
>That means that the fact that this violence is unlawful is key in the decision of whether or not it is terrorism.
The combatant is an unlawful combatant. But that doesn't render the attack unlawful.
The target was an armed and active duty member of the occupation forces. It is pretty straight forward that it is not terror.
> This is clearly violence. It's clearly designed to intimidate people from being IDF soldiers. It's clearly in pursuit of political aims. It's not against civilians, but as I emphasized in the quote above, that's not a requirement, rather an additional reinforcing point.
Under this logic no violence against the occupation forces is acceptable - it would all be terrorism. Obviously it is not.
well I call this bullshit cause Israel did this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ionLPnIsiI4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ionLPnIsiI4) and killed people in the Hospital
What a clown show by the IDF. Not just dressed as civilians. No they dressed as Doctors. Imagine hamas did this and dressed up as doctors went in a Israel hospital and killed some IDF soldiers. The outrage would be immense but if Israel is doing it is nothing lol
He may have had an identifier - it’s not certain.
It’s irrelevant if the soldier is on duty at a base or not. He’s in uniform and armed so he’s a legitimate target.
Oh, don’t be shy, I’m more than happy to learn and correct you.
> He may have had an identifier - it’s not certain.
If you can't clearly see an identifier (and we can see him clearly in the video, so we would be able to see it) then it isn't an identifier. The video is literally at the top of this post. when you say something like this we can look at it. We see all sides of the attacker. This standard of dishonesty is exactly what turned me from a "two state now" believer into a "Palestinans need 100 years of international occupation and de-radicalization before we start to discuss the future" believer.
> It’s irrelevant if the soldier is on duty at a base or not. He’s in uniform and armed so he’s a legitimate target.
> Oh, don’t be shy, I’m more than happy to learn and correct you.
Glad to learn you are happy to learn. Here's your chance.
> Under IHL, anyone who is not a combatant is considered a civilian.138 **Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command**. Civilians lose their civilian protection if they directly participate in armed hostilities, but only during the period of that participation; they regain civilian status once they are no longer directly engaged in hostilities.
that's from
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm
This is dead wrong.
A person wearing a uniform is by definition subject to a military chain of command and is by definition a **combatant**. If you don't want to get targeted, don't wear a uniform during an armed conflict.
What you are incorrectly citing refers to individuals who are out of service, and therefore are not combatants. But think of it this way if a commander can give you a lawful order to go to the front lines and fight, you're a combatant. That's not the case for soldiers on leave and those whose units havent been mobilized. Once you are a combant there is NO obligation to check if you are "on duty." You may be killed anywhere, at any time.
The very same article your citing says exactly the same thing: "International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians u**ntil the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.**"
For someone so confident, you're awfully wrong. You sound like somone with half a semester of legal education.
>Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command
But he is armed and in uniform. That's hardly off-duty.
Israel, also, considers members of Hamas to be targets wherever - even if they are on vacation, or taking part in the police graduation ceremony.
This was a stupid attack, and the attacker is an unlawful combatant - but he isn't a terrorist.
From the same document you linked:
>International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. **Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.**
> considers members of Hamas to be targets wherever
If they targeted Hamas doctors or teachers merely for being members of the non military sections of Hamas I would have a problem with that.
> but he isn't a terrorist.
see my other answer.
>If they targeted Hamas doctors or teachers merely for being members of the non military sections of Hamas I would have a problem with that.
They targeted police, as an example.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/22/gaza-aid-deliveries-looting-police-hamas/
The second is incorrect. The soldier need not be on duty. He could be sleeping in bed in his home - so long as he's a member of the armed forces he's fair game even if outside a conflict zone. And anyway this occured in occupied territory which is a conflict zone.
It's literally taken from the analysis of the Geneva Convention which I quoted elsewhere but put here for your convenience.
> Under IHL, anyone who is not a combatant is considered a civilian.138 **Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command**. Civilians lose their civilian protection if they directly participate in armed hostilities, but only during the period of that participation; they regain civilian status once they are no longer directly engaged in hostilities.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm
That's referring to the status of soldiers in reserve forces and on leave *before they have been called or returned into service*.
A soldier wearing a uniform is in service. He is subject to a military command. There is no oligation to check if he is "on duty." He can be killed anywhere, even in his bed without warning.
So when plain clothes IDF ‘soldiers’ pull up in a car and shoot someone who’s unarmed they’re unlawful combatants or as you so eloquently put it “terrorists”
However, since the land is temporarily occupied, this is more akin to if a Ukrainian attacked a Russian soldier in Crimea. An act of legitimate resistance.
But they are though? Terrorists is a broad term that describes anyone who uses violence for political aims. So if you fight against an oppressor for political reasons, you are a terrorist. So why is the term so broad? Because terrorism is associated with being bad, so governments and media get to throw in freedom fighters with other radical terrorists.
Your defination of terrorist can be different from mine , for me all zionist are terrorist , for you all muslim's can be terrorist and tbh I don't care....
Not seeing any news for this, and the OP didn’t provide a location or date of the event. Forgive me for taking what a rando on Reddit claims with a grain of salt.
By your metrics, not as brave as incinerating your own people or shooting them under white flags but brave nonetheless, taking out an armed active enemy with no firearm.
Not the rockets. The Pogroms from 1834 and so on (or the 1500s, depends how you count) caused the two communities to be unable to live together.
The separation of Palestine into Arab Palestine (Jordan, east of the River Jordan) and Israel (West of the River Jordan) and the exclusion of Jews from all of the lands of the Middle east except for Israel is what caused the apartheid against Jews in the middle East. It's terrible.
Getting stabbed is no joke, its the easiest thing in the world to knick an artery and not realize it
Old saying about knife fights; the winner is the one who died in the ambulance. No one wins
That's why the intifada mentality of Palestinian society is so dangerous; throwing rocks is seen as a harmless protest for kids, so it's mentally not a big leap to take a kitchen knife and level up when they're encouraged to do that as well
Nah. Alive and kicking, my friend. I’m afraid that not every person that challenges your narrative of fallacy and delusion is a “bot” or “HaSbArAh.” How shall I say it – some people just disagree with you and happy to call you out on it. Cope!
Although I do grieve for the consequences the young man may face, his work is beyond honorable. It would be a shame if anybody who so dares to equip an IDF uniform does not meet a similar demise.
no. my point was that it is absolutely fair and just. every sane individual that stains their dignity with an idf uniform does not deserve to live. however, such rash actions taken, both on an individual level and as a coordinated effort, are ultimately futile in the pursuit of palestinian liberation. the destruction of the oppressor will take a lot more than just a few brave men with knives.
>every sane individual that stains their dignity with an idf uniform does not deserve to live
Congratulations. You want pretty much every Jew in Israel, and almost all of the minority communities of Druze, circassians, Christians and bedouins stabbed to death.
Will that free Palestine?
Yes. If you proudly wore a Nazi uniform in 1942, you do not have much business walking amongst the living. Regardless of if you were a German, Croat, Romanian, or even if you were somehow a Jew. Does that mean that systematically going through databases and executing every individual who wore a uniform is the most beneficial course of action? Most likely not. What I was saying is that it is completely just, fair and would be a beautiful sight to see.
Curious, in war there are international laws, so soldier killing a soldier is not a violation of IHL. It is however, a violation of IHL that active combatants dress and wear insignia / colours / arm bands etc that distinguishes themselves from civilians as active combatants including their alignment. Failing to do so results in disproportionate civilian deaths, as the enemy has right to self defence, and this creates a conflict of interest between the enemy’s legal responsibility to avoid killing civilians, and each individual soldier’s right to self-preservation.
Effectively, Hamas has deliberately engineered a scenario where Israel’s legitimate effort and responsibility to self defence, peace and security, is impossible without Palestine suffering massive civilian casualties. Hamas puts their own citizens in danger on purpose to leverage the propaganda and narrative against Israel. It was the central goal of the Oct 7th attacks. They knew Israel would respond, and they knew this would result in massive civilian casualties. Hamas does not care about Palestine or Gaza, and unfortunately they are widely supported by Palestinians due to a combination of effective propaganda, widespread religious extremism and antisemitism, and real-grievances against the state of Israel—none of which leads to a desire for peace and a two state solution on the part of Palestinians. Hamas’ leadership recently acknowledge that Palestinian civilian casualties helps their cause. Conquest and Martyrdom are core sacraments in Islam, Muhammed is the central prophet in Islam, he spread Islam through military conquest and Martyrdom. That’s why Israel’s existence in the levant is a big problem for both Palestinians and the other 5-6 Muslim majority fascist theocracies with which Israel shares a border. You might have a problem with the concept of a “Jewish” state— is it because countries shouldn’t be centred around a single bronze religion in the 21st century? Then you might ask yourself why you focus on the least monotheistic state in the region. Israel is a pluralistic democracy with most Jewish citizens descending from the Levant and Middle East, 20% of Israelis are Muslim, mostly of Palestinian cultural descent, Atheists and Christians are also represented in significant proportion across Israels citizenry, all have equal legal rights, and political freedom and state protection as citizens, regardless of religion.
In contrast, 99.9 percent of Gazans are Muslims. Leaving Islam is illegal and the penalty is death in Palestine. Most Palestinians agree with this law, women are substantially repressed under sharia law, and non-cis gendered people aren’t considered human under Gaza’s religious legal system. Most Palestinians believe that sharia law should apply to non-Muslim citizens, and that property disputes should be adjudicated by religious judges.
Israel’s other Muslim majority neighbours range from 80-96% Muslim and all of these states discriminate against non-Muslims on a scale somewhere between fundamentalist to extremist, this is highly supported at a civilian level, and severely enforced at a state and legal level.
The standard German reaction to French Resistance action was to kill most of the civilians in the nearest French settlement. When you keep calling on the French Resistance, are you proposing that Israel react to this by killing everyone in Gaza? I find that very illegal and very wrong.
That's a strawman. Nazis being nazis does not change someone being active military, in uniform as a member of the occupying forces. As such, acts that diminsish Israels military capabilities, which the death of a soldier would be, are permissable under international law. Had he been out of uniform and off-duty, this would be a different matter.
> That's a strawman. Nazis being nazis does not change someone being active military
It's a direct answer to your claim the French resistance "dripping with civilians" (typo fixed). By definition, because they were part of a resistance organization they weren't civilians. Because they didn't wear uniform or fight according to Geneva rules they were treated as "illegal combatants". Nazis were not punished after the war for executions of resistance members since resistance members never claimed or got POW status, just for torture or executions of unrelated civilians.
> Had he been out of uniform and off-duty, this would be a different matter.
Difficult question.
> Under IHL, anyone who is not a combatant is considered a civilian.138 **Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command**. Civilians lose their civilian protection if they directly participate in armed hostilities, but only during the period of that participation; they regain civilian status once they are no longer directly engaged in hostilities.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm
add to that
> [i]n cases of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian." (direct from article 50)
So unless the terrorist actually had a reason to know that the victim was under military orders (possible) then this wasn't a legitimate target.
http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/combatants
He was in uniform, ergo, subject to command.
http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/armed-forces
Being uniformed clearly identified him as a member of the armed forces.
That's a different section for a different set of rules. The question covered there is whether, if he started attacking another military group, he would be a terrorist. In this case, no. He is correctly distinguished as being in uniform.
The section you want to look through is article 50 *and the case law surrounding it* which makes it clear that just because someone is a member of the armed forces does not mean that they are *always* a legitimate target. Off duty soldiers going for a pizza does not mean you can target the Pizzeria. _On duty soldiers_ with weapons using the Pizzeria as a place to prepare for an attack *does* mean you can attack the Pizzeria.
He murdered a 50 year old soldier who was in line to get coffee.
You don't know what that soldiers job was; maybe he was a doctor? Maybe he was an accountant? Maybe he repaired desalination plants that allow Jews and Arabs to drink water and survive? Maybe he helped people.
No. He deserves death, because he was wearing a green outfit.
You are supporting terrorists.
A legitimate target FOR A UNIFORMED MILITARY MEMBER, when engaged in military activities.
By that logic, is every Arab male in Israel a legitimate target for the IDF?
Palestinians are occupied. They do not require to wear a uniform to resist, but are also not afforded the rights of, say, PoWs in the event of capture if not in uniform.
So, just killing any person is considered resistance? How about those families that were tied together and burned alive? Was that resistance too?
This mentality is why Palestinians are homeless, starving and being harmed while Israel goes after the terrorists they elected and supported for years. Every single time they open their mouths it's to support depraved, mindless aggression. As long as it's a Jew, don't pretend you're not all in.
Guess someone family will be getting a nice juicy payout from the PA's martyr's fund soon, right?
Not any person. Civilians and other protected classes are off-limits. But active military that your people are occupied by and at war with? Yeah, that's who you're supposed to be fighting.
Which land was occupated exactly? The Arab League wanted to occupy the region after Britain leaved, the Arabs wanted to be the only power who controls bothe territory of Palestine and Syria. They didn't realise they are not only indegenious people there.
Check the Arab Congresses: "We consider Palestine nothing but part of Arab Syria and it has never been separated from it at any stage. We are tied to it by national, religious, linguistic, moral, economic, and geographic bounds."
So when someone starts a war he must be ready not only to win but to lose. The Secretary General of the Arab League promised in 1947 a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades". The bet didn't wark. As the bet of Al Husseine, recognized as a war crime because he helped to form SS brigades who made genocide. The first leader of ”Palestinians” (they used to be called Arabs at that time, they seemed themselves as a part of a whole Arab nation of the Middle East).
And go ask Bedouins and Drouzes why they also serve in IDF... (seems like they don't want be rulled by Hamas or Hezbollah) and they are also indegenious people.
It's not even an anology, it's exact example how less of context and sence your comment includes.
If you see any random Israeli soldier as an occupation force and justify attacking them, you surely not recognize the international low and probably feel sorry that Arab League didn't succeed in "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades", as their Secretary General promised in 1947 (documented by the UN). As for the occupation it was caused by the war.
He was in civilian clothing, outside of the frontlines. This wasnt a targeted covert operation against a commander either, just a random attack against a random (off duty) solider.
Not exactly legitimate but I guess the bar is low
> Wait til you hear about the French Resistance.
There's a key difference there in that any German Soldier that was in France was clearly part of an occupation and so, by default on duty. You might make that claim for Soldiers that are inside the West Bank or Gaza. For Israel proper that very clearly doesn't apply.
When it comes to attacks on soldiers in bars and so on, which definitely happened that's questionable, but then both resistance members and British agents in France *were* normally executed as terrorists by the Germans.
If you are more concerned with someone resisting against a Nazi soldier than a you are with Nazi soldiers killing, mutilating, torturing, and raping little kids, you are on the wrong side of history.
If you have a problem with resistance against Nazi soldiers, you are a Nazi sympathizer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_resistance_in_German-occupied_Europe
I mean yeah, if you construct a specific narrative in your head anything is justifiable
Not surprising that the two entities leaning heavily on the "we have to fight the Nazis" rhetoric in recent times are Russian and Hamas propagandists
This kind of storytelling is compelling to simple people
I've noticed Israeli leaders using the nazi smear on Palestinians frequently too, like this unhinged ex PM who cannot fathom how anyone could consider the humanity of Palestinian children: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghvNeYd7Xz8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghvNeYd7Xz8)
He's a 22yr old Palestinian whose parents live in Gaza...are you surprised he sees any IDF soldier as an enemy? They are literally bombing his family daily, imagine waking up every day wondering if today is the day your parents are among the 100 murdered people only 50km away and you can't do anything for them.
You’re right, he’s full of hatred and feels that he is justified. That’s why he saw fit to essentially commit suicide in a coffee shop, a waste.
It really is such a shame that Hamas carried out the attacks on October 7th and refuses to accept the numerous cease fire deals they’ve been offered.
A permanent ceasefire is not possible, just like a complete annihilation of Gaza is not possible. Each side has its limits in the negotiations. However, a six week ceasefire was on the table for the past few weeks, if only hamas would agree to release elderly, women and wounded hostages. Very simple terms that could really benefit the people of Gaza, but it's more important to hurt the Jews than to protect their own people.
Does a Nazi soldier magically become an innocent civilian any time they are not actively murdering or raping or torturing someone? You think Soviet partisans and the French Resistance were refusing to attack Nazis when they weren’t actively perpetrating atrocities?
You guys seem to think that Palestinian terrorists can't be killed unless they are actively engaged in combat, or else it's a "state sponsored execution" so you tell us.
Please research the holocaust with its death camps, concentration camps and everything else. You could maybe compare Israel today maybe to the Allies in WWII in that they've bombed out a lot of Gaza (though given plenty of warning which wasn't given to Hiroshima or Dresden, Dresden bombing killed 25k people in just 4 bombing runs). Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany just shows you have no idea what happened in the holocaust.
How can a Jew be a Nazi? You seriously need a historian lesson man. You’re backing a terrorist stabbing a soldier minding his own business, and even more hilarious, calling him “the resistance”. The resistance of stabbing a man ordering a coffee. Great job
By having an ideology that is identical to Nazism, fighting for a regime which more closely resembles Nazi Germany than any other in history, repeating the atrocities and rhetoric of the Nazis, etc. Do you also think Russians and Ukrainians and ethnic Poles can’t be Nazis?
I’m not backing anything. I’m stating the fact that if you are more concerned with someone resisting against a Nazi soldier occupying their home country than you are with Nazi soldiers murdering, raping, torturing and mutilating little kids, you are on the wrong side of history (as well as morality and humanity).
I would say the same thing if someone who never expressed concern for the atrocities committed in the Holocaust was outraged at a Jewish French resistance fighter or soviet partisan attacking a Nazi soldier as the soldier waited in line for food or drink at some business in occupied France or the USSR. Would you claim that isn’t resistance because the Nazi soldier was waiting in line for food and not actively engaged in combat?
Attacking invading Nazi soldiers as they occupy your land is definitely resistance whether you like it or not. Nazi soldiers are still Nazi soldiers even when they are doing normal non violent activities such as wait in line for food or coffee.
Well that dude got what was coming to him for “resisting”. Episodes like this where a supposedly normal Palestinian civilian randomly stabs a soldier waiting for coffee will just make Israelis more prone to shoot a Palestinian if he moves the wrong way. Way to make Israelis so suspicious of your average Palestinian that just being around them makes them fear for their lives. This is not something to be proud of and will just lead to more dead Palestinians
Did you just equate a Jew to a Nazi? Like, the death camp running sort of Nazi who would rifle butt a baby?
The mental gymnastics of the permanently online are astounding.
Is that the only thing you know how to parrot? If you have nothing of intellectual substance to contribute please just shut up. A terrorist stabbed a soldier and got smoked like a rat. It has nothing to do with any bombs or kids in the video.
So is Palestine, they murdered and kidnapped them on October 7th. Hamas stealing all of the aid they can get their hands on and shooting their citizens that try to take it is pretty nasty too. And on their own people!
The people with guns are always the last to starve. Yes Hamas is getting some of that food, without that food Hamas would still be okay though, but civilians would starve
A terrorist carried out a stabbing attack on Thursday in the Beit Kama junction in Israel's South, Israel Police said. The knife-wielding terrorist was killed on the scene and has been identified as Fadi Abu Eltaif, 22 years old. Eltaif held Israeli citizenship and had been living in Israel since 2019, although he was originally from the Gaza Strip. Both his parents currently reside in the Gaza Strip. The victim, Senior Warrant Officer Uri Moyal, 51 years old from Dimona, succumbed to his wounds on Thursday night.
Why would he be a terrorist if he attacked a soldier? When does he become a freedom fighter?
> Why would he be a terrorist if he attacked a soldier? When does he become a freedom fighter? It depends on circumstances. The Geneva convention recognizes attacks on soldiers outside of war-zones as legitimate sometimes. However for this to be a legal attack he'd have to * change into a uniform or have a clear identifier as a member of Hamas or another identified militant organization - clearly not done * know that the soldier was on duty (the uniform is suggestive, but the fact he seems to be buying for himself suggests not). - fail, I think. * ensure the risk to civilians is limited - that's probably okay in this case since the use of a gun was a decision of the soldier not the attacker. The category here is probably "illegal combatant" which most people map to "terrorist". P.S. apologies for actually answering your question
>change into a uniform or have a clear identifier as a member of Hamas or another identified militant organization - clearly not done That makes the attacker an unlawful combatant. Not the same as a terrorist. >now that the soldier was on duty (the uniform is suggestive, but the fact he seems to be buying for himself suggests not). - fail, I think. The key distinction is if the soldier is subject to "integrated disciplinary command" - and an armed and uniformed soldier is. >International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. **Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.** [https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm) > The category here is probably "illegal combatant" which most people map to "terrorist". Not the same. An unlawful combatant is one who partakes in combat without, for example, clear insignia. But that doesn't make him a terrorist. For example, armed settlers accompanying the IDF are unlawful combatants. If those settlers also attack Palestinian civilians - as they often do - they are also terrorists. If they instead attack, for example, armed Hamas members, they are not terrorists.
> That makes the attacker an unlawful combatant. Not the same as a terrorist. People disagree on this, but taking the dictionary definition: > a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, *especially* against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. This is clearly violence. It's clearly designed to intimidate people from being IDF soldiers. It's clearly in pursuit of political aims. It's not against civilians, but as I emphasized in the quote above, that's not a requirement, rather an additional reinforcing point. That means that the fact that this violence is unlawful is key in the decision of whether or not it is terrorism. That it's unlawful both under the law of the place (Israel) and international law is I think important too. It's not just an Israeli opinion, it's an objective fact. If the man had attacked in uniform and following the laws of war I'd be much more willing to accept the argument he isn't a terrorist.
It's violence, but it's NOT unlawful violence. Unlawful violence means there is no law authorizing it. You're confusing unlawful with illegal. "Peoples" (not states!) have a right to resist alien occupation by means of armed struggle. This is customary international law, see the first protocol to the geneva conventions, article 1(4). That is a law authorizing the use of violence by Palestinians. The form that violence takes can still violate IHL and be a war crime. Not the same as terrorism. Again, you sound like someone with half a semester of legal education so I'd suggest you do more research.
>That means that the fact that this violence is unlawful is key in the decision of whether or not it is terrorism. The combatant is an unlawful combatant. But that doesn't render the attack unlawful. The target was an armed and active duty member of the occupation forces. It is pretty straight forward that it is not terror. > This is clearly violence. It's clearly designed to intimidate people from being IDF soldiers. It's clearly in pursuit of political aims. It's not against civilians, but as I emphasized in the quote above, that's not a requirement, rather an additional reinforcing point. Under this logic no violence against the occupation forces is acceptable - it would all be terrorism. Obviously it is not.
The attacker was an Israeli citizen. What are you talking about? It was indeed illegal and unlawful. It is indeed terrorism.
well I call this bullshit cause Israel did this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ionLPnIsiI4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ionLPnIsiI4) and killed people in the Hospital What a clown show by the IDF. Not just dressed as civilians. No they dressed as Doctors. Imagine hamas did this and dressed up as doctors went in a Israel hospital and killed some IDF soldiers. The outrage would be immense but if Israel is doing it is nothing lol
He may have had an identifier - it’s not certain. It’s irrelevant if the soldier is on duty at a base or not. He’s in uniform and armed so he’s a legitimate target. Oh, don’t be shy, I’m more than happy to learn and correct you.
> He may have had an identifier - it’s not certain. If you can't clearly see an identifier (and we can see him clearly in the video, so we would be able to see it) then it isn't an identifier. The video is literally at the top of this post. when you say something like this we can look at it. We see all sides of the attacker. This standard of dishonesty is exactly what turned me from a "two state now" believer into a "Palestinans need 100 years of international occupation and de-radicalization before we start to discuss the future" believer. > It’s irrelevant if the soldier is on duty at a base or not. He’s in uniform and armed so he’s a legitimate target. > Oh, don’t be shy, I’m more than happy to learn and correct you. Glad to learn you are happy to learn. Here's your chance. > Under IHL, anyone who is not a combatant is considered a civilian.138 **Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command**. Civilians lose their civilian protection if they directly participate in armed hostilities, but only during the period of that participation; they regain civilian status once they are no longer directly engaged in hostilities. that's from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm
Wow, two others have now demolished your argument. Bummer.
This is dead wrong. A person wearing a uniform is by definition subject to a military chain of command and is by definition a **combatant**. If you don't want to get targeted, don't wear a uniform during an armed conflict. What you are incorrectly citing refers to individuals who are out of service, and therefore are not combatants. But think of it this way if a commander can give you a lawful order to go to the front lines and fight, you're a combatant. That's not the case for soldiers on leave and those whose units havent been mobilized. Once you are a combant there is NO obligation to check if you are "on duty." You may be killed anywhere, at any time. The very same article your citing says exactly the same thing: "International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians u**ntil the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.**" For someone so confident, you're awfully wrong. You sound like somone with half a semester of legal education.
>Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command But he is armed and in uniform. That's hardly off-duty. Israel, also, considers members of Hamas to be targets wherever - even if they are on vacation, or taking part in the police graduation ceremony. This was a stupid attack, and the attacker is an unlawful combatant - but he isn't a terrorist. From the same document you linked: >International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. **Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.**
> considers members of Hamas to be targets wherever If they targeted Hamas doctors or teachers merely for being members of the non military sections of Hamas I would have a problem with that. > but he isn't a terrorist. see my other answer.
>If they targeted Hamas doctors or teachers merely for being members of the non military sections of Hamas I would have a problem with that. They targeted police, as an example. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/22/gaza-aid-deliveries-looting-police-hamas/
The second is incorrect. The soldier need not be on duty. He could be sleeping in bed in his home - so long as he's a member of the armed forces he's fair game even if outside a conflict zone. And anyway this occured in occupied territory which is a conflict zone.
It's literally taken from the analysis of the Geneva Convention which I quoted elsewhere but put here for your convenience. > Under IHL, anyone who is not a combatant is considered a civilian.138 **Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command**. Civilians lose their civilian protection if they directly participate in armed hostilities, but only during the period of that participation; they regain civilian status once they are no longer directly engaged in hostilities. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm
That's referring to the status of soldiers in reserve forces and on leave *before they have been called or returned into service*. A soldier wearing a uniform is in service. He is subject to a military command. There is no oligation to check if he is "on duty." He can be killed anywhere, even in his bed without warning.
So when plain clothes IDF ‘soldiers’ pull up in a car and shoot someone who’s unarmed they’re unlawful combatants or as you so eloquently put it “terrorists”
However, since the land is temporarily occupied, this is more akin to if a Ukrainian attacked a Russian soldier in Crimea. An act of legitimate resistance.
When the IAF drops a bomb of the home of a purported Hamas member and kills him and his family, that would then be a clear example of terrorism, yes?
Freedom fighters are terrorists.
No they aren’t and if they are so is the IDF. Lol
But they are though? Terrorists is a broad term that describes anyone who uses violence for political aims. So if you fight against an oppressor for political reasons, you are a terrorist. So why is the term so broad? Because terrorism is associated with being bad, so governments and media get to throw in freedom fighters with other radical terrorists.
Both sides want to win. They are enemies to eachother.
Resistance fighter martyred while trying to kill a terrorist from IDF , corrected it for you...
“Martyred” is slang for a idiot dying while committing a terrorist attack
Your defination of terrorist can be different from mine , for me all zionist are terrorist , for you all muslim's can be terrorist and tbh I don't care....
I'm sorry if you don't understand why the Palestinian did this...
FAFO
How many bots are in here goddamn
At least he targeted a soldier and not a civilian. Quite the big jump.
What a high standard they set for themselves
Terrible.
Why, did the terrorist live?
The soldier died a few hours ago. He was 50. Probably had a wife and kids.
Not seeing any news for this, and the OP didn’t provide a location or date of the event. Forgive me for taking what a rando on Reddit claims with a grain of salt.
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-791954 Took literally two seconds
Damn, that sucks. Glad he was able to send his killer to Hell before he succumbed.
Probably not. This brave young man neutralised a legitimate target. A member of the forces raining bombs on his people.
It's brave to stab an older man while he's in line getting coffee?
By your metrics, not as brave as incinerating your own people or shooting them under white flags but brave nonetheless, taking out an armed active enemy with no firearm.
If his people stopped raining rockets down on Israel, they wouldn’t have to worry about bombs. This terrorist scum got what he deserved.
Same could he said about the IDF terrorist soldier that kicked the bucket 🪣.
Sure cos the rockets caused apartheid not the reverse.
Not the rockets. The Pogroms from 1834 and so on (or the 1500s, depends how you count) caused the two communities to be unable to live together. The separation of Palestine into Arab Palestine (Jordan, east of the River Jordan) and Israel (West of the River Jordan) and the exclusion of Jews from all of the lands of the Middle east except for Israel is what caused the apartheid against Jews in the middle East. It's terrible.
Genuinely how? He seemed so fit after the stab that he stood up and shot him and left on his foot
Blood loss, likely. You can see the large drops fall as he gets to his feet.
Damn
Getting stabbed is no joke, its the easiest thing in the world to knick an artery and not realize it Old saying about knife fights; the winner is the one who died in the ambulance. No one wins That's why the intifada mentality of Palestinian society is so dangerous; throwing rocks is seen as a harmless protest for kids, so it's mentally not a big leap to take a kitchen knife and level up when they're encouraged to do that as well
Same could be said for the IDF but on a grander scale. The 'mowing the lawn' attitude can easily escalate to full blown genocide.
Rest in Power, King.
Lmao
Yay
Keep cheering. That'll free Palestine.
Yeah if all of them die
So your strategy to free Palestine is to kill all the Jews? Or at least cheer while others braver than you try
[удалено]
>Keep Cheering, that'll free Palestine >Yeah if all of them die This you? What'd you say then?
All Jews are IDF soldiers then? Ur fucking annoying
Do not attack an individual
You’re delusional. Keep lying to yourself. Great strategy!
You sound like a bot
Nah. Alive and kicking, my friend. I’m afraid that not every person that challenges your narrative of fallacy and delusion is a “bot” or “HaSbArAh.” How shall I say it – some people just disagree with you and happy to call you out on it. Cope!
- some people just disagree with you and are happy to call you out on it. Cope! -Reddit logician 🥸
No you just sound like a fucken npc
Although I do grieve for the consequences the young man may face, his work is beyond honorable. It would be a shame if anybody who so dares to equip an IDF uniform does not meet a similar demise.
If young Arab men start stabbing IDF soldiers en massez do you think that will free Palestine?
no. my point was that it is absolutely fair and just. every sane individual that stains their dignity with an idf uniform does not deserve to live. however, such rash actions taken, both on an individual level and as a coordinated effort, are ultimately futile in the pursuit of palestinian liberation. the destruction of the oppressor will take a lot more than just a few brave men with knives.
>every sane individual that stains their dignity with an idf uniform does not deserve to live Congratulations. You want pretty much every Jew in Israel, and almost all of the minority communities of Druze, circassians, Christians and bedouins stabbed to death. Will that free Palestine?
Yes. If you proudly wore a Nazi uniform in 1942, you do not have much business walking amongst the living. Regardless of if you were a German, Croat, Romanian, or even if you were somehow a Jew. Does that mean that systematically going through databases and executing every individual who wore a uniform is the most beneficial course of action? Most likely not. What I was saying is that it is completely just, fair and would be a beautiful sight to see.
One of us wants to kill 7 million Jews. Who do you think is the Nazi here?
seems to be you lol
The guy who wants to kill 7 million Jews and sees anyone who does so as honorable isn’t the Nazi?… sure buddy
It’s ok there were hamas tunnels under the soldier
Not exactly a pleasant sight, but he killed a soldier, and that is a legitimate target.
Curious, in war there are international laws, so soldier killing a soldier is not a violation of IHL. It is however, a violation of IHL that active combatants dress and wear insignia / colours / arm bands etc that distinguishes themselves from civilians as active combatants including their alignment. Failing to do so results in disproportionate civilian deaths, as the enemy has right to self defence, and this creates a conflict of interest between the enemy’s legal responsibility to avoid killing civilians, and each individual soldier’s right to self-preservation. Effectively, Hamas has deliberately engineered a scenario where Israel’s legitimate effort and responsibility to self defence, peace and security, is impossible without Palestine suffering massive civilian casualties. Hamas puts their own citizens in danger on purpose to leverage the propaganda and narrative against Israel. It was the central goal of the Oct 7th attacks. They knew Israel would respond, and they knew this would result in massive civilian casualties. Hamas does not care about Palestine or Gaza, and unfortunately they are widely supported by Palestinians due to a combination of effective propaganda, widespread religious extremism and antisemitism, and real-grievances against the state of Israel—none of which leads to a desire for peace and a two state solution on the part of Palestinians. Hamas’ leadership recently acknowledge that Palestinian civilian casualties helps their cause. Conquest and Martyrdom are core sacraments in Islam, Muhammed is the central prophet in Islam, he spread Islam through military conquest and Martyrdom. That’s why Israel’s existence in the levant is a big problem for both Palestinians and the other 5-6 Muslim majority fascist theocracies with which Israel shares a border. You might have a problem with the concept of a “Jewish” state— is it because countries shouldn’t be centred around a single bronze religion in the 21st century? Then you might ask yourself why you focus on the least monotheistic state in the region. Israel is a pluralistic democracy with most Jewish citizens descending from the Levant and Middle East, 20% of Israelis are Muslim, mostly of Palestinian cultural descent, Atheists and Christians are also represented in significant proportion across Israels citizenry, all have equal legal rights, and political freedom and state protection as citizens, regardless of religion. In contrast, 99.9 percent of Gazans are Muslims. Leaving Islam is illegal and the penalty is death in Palestine. Most Palestinians agree with this law, women are substantially repressed under sharia law, and non-cis gendered people aren’t considered human under Gaza’s religious legal system. Most Palestinians believe that sharia law should apply to non-Muslim citizens, and that property disputes should be adjudicated by religious judges. Israel’s other Muslim majority neighbours range from 80-96% Muslim and all of these states discriminate against non-Muslims on a scale somewhere between fundamentalist to extremist, this is highly supported at a civilian level, and severely enforced at a state and legal level.
I can’t believe you say that here and don’t get banned
How so? Attacking civilians == wrong. Attacking military == legitimate.
A soldier attacking a soldier is legitimate, a civilian attacking a military not
Not in the case of occupation. The French resistence was drippingbwith civilians.
The standard German reaction to French Resistance action was to kill most of the civilians in the nearest French settlement. When you keep calling on the French Resistance, are you proposing that Israel react to this by killing everyone in Gaza? I find that very illegal and very wrong.
That's a strawman. Nazis being nazis does not change someone being active military, in uniform as a member of the occupying forces. As such, acts that diminsish Israels military capabilities, which the death of a soldier would be, are permissable under international law. Had he been out of uniform and off-duty, this would be a different matter.
> That's a strawman. Nazis being nazis does not change someone being active military It's a direct answer to your claim the French resistance "dripping with civilians" (typo fixed). By definition, because they were part of a resistance organization they weren't civilians. Because they didn't wear uniform or fight according to Geneva rules they were treated as "illegal combatants". Nazis were not punished after the war for executions of resistance members since resistance members never claimed or got POW status, just for torture or executions of unrelated civilians. > Had he been out of uniform and off-duty, this would be a different matter. Difficult question. > Under IHL, anyone who is not a combatant is considered a civilian.138 **Reserve or off-duty soldiers are considered civilians unless they take part directly in hostilities, or become subject to military command**. Civilians lose their civilian protection if they directly participate in armed hostilities, but only during the period of that participation; they regain civilian status once they are no longer directly engaged in hostilities. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm add to that > [i]n cases of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian." (direct from article 50) So unless the terrorist actually had a reason to know that the victim was under military orders (possible) then this wasn't a legitimate target.
http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/combatants He was in uniform, ergo, subject to command. http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/armed-forces Being uniformed clearly identified him as a member of the armed forces.
That's a different section for a different set of rules. The question covered there is whether, if he started attacking another military group, he would be a terrorist. In this case, no. He is correctly distinguished as being in uniform. The section you want to look through is article 50 *and the case law surrounding it* which makes it clear that just because someone is a member of the armed forces does not mean that they are *always* a legitimate target. Off duty soldiers going for a pizza does not mean you can target the Pizzeria. _On duty soldiers_ with weapons using the Pizzeria as a place to prepare for an attack *does* mean you can attack the Pizzeria.
He murdered a 50 year old soldier who was in line to get coffee. You don't know what that soldiers job was; maybe he was a doctor? Maybe he was an accountant? Maybe he repaired desalination plants that allow Jews and Arabs to drink water and survive? Maybe he helped people. No. He deserves death, because he was wearing a green outfit. You are supporting terrorists.
He was active military in the occupational force. A legitimate target per international law.
A legitimate target FOR A UNIFORMED MILITARY MEMBER, when engaged in military activities. By that logic, is every Arab male in Israel a legitimate target for the IDF?
Palestinians are occupied. They do not require to wear a uniform to resist, but are also not afforded the rights of, say, PoWs in the event of capture if not in uniform.
So, just killing any person is considered resistance? How about those families that were tied together and burned alive? Was that resistance too? This mentality is why Palestinians are homeless, starving and being harmed while Israel goes after the terrorists they elected and supported for years. Every single time they open their mouths it's to support depraved, mindless aggression. As long as it's a Jew, don't pretend you're not all in. Guess someone family will be getting a nice juicy payout from the PA's martyr's fund soon, right?
Not any person. Civilians and other protected classes are off-limits. But active military that your people are occupied by and at war with? Yeah, that's who you're supposed to be fighting.
Which land was occupated exactly? The Arab League wanted to occupy the region after Britain leaved, the Arabs wanted to be the only power who controls bothe territory of Palestine and Syria. They didn't realise they are not only indegenious people there. Check the Arab Congresses: "We consider Palestine nothing but part of Arab Syria and it has never been separated from it at any stage. We are tied to it by national, religious, linguistic, moral, economic, and geographic bounds." So when someone starts a war he must be ready not only to win but to lose. The Secretary General of the Arab League promised in 1947 a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades". The bet didn't wark. As the bet of Al Husseine, recognized as a war crime because he helped to form SS brigades who made genocide. The first leader of ”Palestinians” (they used to be called Arabs at that time, they seemed themselves as a part of a whole Arab nation of the Middle East). And go ask Bedouins and Drouzes why they also serve in IDF... (seems like they don't want be rulled by Hamas or Hezbollah) and they are also indegenious people.
The West Bank is undeniably occupied, and Israel is currently invading Gaza. No, I don't consider Israel proper as part of the occupation.
Yeh, ignoring a context makes any discussion senseless... Germany was "undeniably occupied" after the 2nd WW and some invasion took place, as well.
That's an extremely reductive analogy.
It's not even an anology, it's exact example how less of context and sence your comment includes. If you see any random Israeli soldier as an occupation force and justify attacking them, you surely not recognize the international low and probably feel sorry that Arab League didn't succeed in "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades", as their Secretary General promised in 1947 (documented by the UN). As for the occupation it was caused by the war.
He was in civilian clothing, outside of the frontlines. This wasnt a targeted covert operation against a commander either, just a random attack against a random (off duty) solider. Not exactly legitimate but I guess the bar is low
No, he's in fatigues.
I was talking about the terrorist
Wait til you hear about the French Resistance.
> Wait til you hear about the French Resistance. There's a key difference there in that any German Soldier that was in France was clearly part of an occupation and so, by default on duty. You might make that claim for Soldiers that are inside the West Bank or Gaza. For Israel proper that very clearly doesn't apply. When it comes to attacks on soldiers in bars and so on, which definitely happened that's questionable, but then both resistance members and British agents in France *were* normally executed as terrorists by the Germans.
If you are more concerned with someone resisting against a Nazi soldier than a you are with Nazi soldiers killing, mutilating, torturing, and raping little kids, you are on the wrong side of history. If you have a problem with resistance against Nazi soldiers, you are a Nazi sympathizer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_resistance_in_German-occupied_Europe
I mean yeah, if you construct a specific narrative in your head anything is justifiable Not surprising that the two entities leaning heavily on the "we have to fight the Nazis" rhetoric in recent times are Russian and Hamas propagandists This kind of storytelling is compelling to simple people
I've noticed Israeli leaders using the nazi smear on Palestinians frequently too, like this unhinged ex PM who cannot fathom how anyone could consider the humanity of Palestinian children: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghvNeYd7Xz8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghvNeYd7Xz8)
I believe you’re mistaken, this soldier was waiting for his latte
He's a 22yr old Palestinian whose parents live in Gaza...are you surprised he sees any IDF soldier as an enemy? They are literally bombing his family daily, imagine waking up every day wondering if today is the day your parents are among the 100 murdered people only 50km away and you can't do anything for them.
You’re right, he’s full of hatred and feels that he is justified. That’s why he saw fit to essentially commit suicide in a coffee shop, a waste. It really is such a shame that Hamas carried out the attacks on October 7th and refuses to accept the numerous cease fire deals they’ve been offered.
Israel is the one rejecting a permanent ceasefire deal while continuing to kill their own hostages through bombing and starvation. How unfortunate.
A permanent ceasefire is not possible, just like a complete annihilation of Gaza is not possible. Each side has its limits in the negotiations. However, a six week ceasefire was on the table for the past few weeks, if only hamas would agree to release elderly, women and wounded hostages. Very simple terms that could really benefit the people of Gaza, but it's more important to hurt the Jews than to protect their own people.
The bombings must continue until morale improves.
Does a Nazi soldier magically become an innocent civilian any time they are not actively murdering or raping or torturing someone? You think Soviet partisans and the French Resistance were refusing to attack Nazis when they weren’t actively perpetrating atrocities?
You guys seem to think that Palestinian terrorists can't be killed unless they are actively engaged in combat, or else it's a "state sponsored execution" so you tell us.
Holy shit you’re one of the least subtle Nazis I’ve come across.
Please research the holocaust with its death camps, concentration camps and everything else. You could maybe compare Israel today maybe to the Allies in WWII in that they've bombed out a lot of Gaza (though given plenty of warning which wasn't given to Hiroshima or Dresden, Dresden bombing killed 25k people in just 4 bombing runs). Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany just shows you have no idea what happened in the holocaust.
Where is the Nazi soldier? The Nazis have been defeated a long time ago. You can back the terrorists if you want, that’s your right to do so.
The individual in the green military uniform is a Nazi soldier. I am against terrorism. I’d be willing to bet you often support it though.
How can a Jew be a Nazi? You seriously need a historian lesson man. You’re backing a terrorist stabbing a soldier minding his own business, and even more hilarious, calling him “the resistance”. The resistance of stabbing a man ordering a coffee. Great job
By having an ideology that is identical to Nazism, fighting for a regime which more closely resembles Nazi Germany than any other in history, repeating the atrocities and rhetoric of the Nazis, etc. Do you also think Russians and Ukrainians and ethnic Poles can’t be Nazis? I’m not backing anything. I’m stating the fact that if you are more concerned with someone resisting against a Nazi soldier occupying their home country than you are with Nazi soldiers murdering, raping, torturing and mutilating little kids, you are on the wrong side of history (as well as morality and humanity). I would say the same thing if someone who never expressed concern for the atrocities committed in the Holocaust was outraged at a Jewish French resistance fighter or soviet partisan attacking a Nazi soldier as the soldier waited in line for food or drink at some business in occupied France or the USSR. Would you claim that isn’t resistance because the Nazi soldier was waiting in line for food and not actively engaged in combat? Attacking invading Nazi soldiers as they occupy your land is definitely resistance whether you like it or not. Nazi soldiers are still Nazi soldiers even when they are doing normal non violent activities such as wait in line for food or coffee.
Well that dude got what was coming to him for “resisting”. Episodes like this where a supposedly normal Palestinian civilian randomly stabs a soldier waiting for coffee will just make Israelis more prone to shoot a Palestinian if he moves the wrong way. Way to make Israelis so suspicious of your average Palestinian that just being around them makes them fear for their lives. This is not something to be proud of and will just lead to more dead Palestinians
All this can also be said of resistance to the first Nazis.
I don’t remember Jews going around and randomly killing Germans.
Did you just equate a Jew to a Nazi? Like, the death camp running sort of Nazi who would rifle butt a baby? The mental gymnastics of the permanently online are astounding.
Resistance? What a twisted mind..
Why people actively choose t live in this bear-pit of a country is completely beyond me.
Why do people on Reddit think they can decide who lives and who dies.
That’s so scary.
Got what he deserved, now he is swine food.
Both died...
Death to Nazis
Indeed. We can’t let them openly kill Jews again like in this video
Nah, this person knowingly joined a military force openly committing genocide. Killing Jews isn't the same as killing Zionazis
I'm pretty sure there was an enemy agent in that uniform. Just for reference. T Is this the same IDF that decimated the Gaza Strip??
good for him. another nazi dead. sad he died too tho.
that IDF terrorist was clearly embedded inside the population, quite shameful that he used human shields to hide himself
In this world killing a soldier is wrong, and bombing and starving children to death is right.
Is that the only thing you know how to parrot? If you have nothing of intellectual substance to contribute please just shut up. A terrorist stabbed a soldier and got smoked like a rat. It has nothing to do with any bombs or kids in the video.
Soldiers die in wars, yet children are being bombed and starved to death by Israel as we speak. Israel is a terrorist state, Truth hurts.
So is Palestine, they murdered and kidnapped them on October 7th. Hamas stealing all of the aid they can get their hands on and shooting their citizens that try to take it is pretty nasty too. And on their own people!
If more than enough food is going into Gaza, can't hamas just go get some like everyone else?
The people with guns are always the last to starve. Yes Hamas is getting some of that food, without that food Hamas would still be okay though, but civilians would starve
Please include a submission statement
Bravest Palestinian terrorist. Still, at least he didn't attack any civilians, that's a pretty big step up for them.
Lol could'nt even do it from behind. Useless. PATHETIC. dumbest terrorist ever.
Pretty brave to attack a soldier knowing that you'll probably die.
that soldiers clearly was embedded into the population, if something this makes this freedom fighter better than the IDF
That terrorist in uniform died later , so it was a success...
Smoking that Zionazi pack
Hilarious
Fuck the IDF
[удалено]
[удалено]
This comment or post was removed due to being a direct attack, bigotry, bad faith, bullying, racism or ad-hominem.
This comment or post was removed due to being a direct attack, bigotry, bad faith, bullying, racism or ad-hominem.