Israeli soldiers admit war crimes in Gaza

I blame Christian crusaders. Jews and Muslims co-existed peacefully in the holy land until the first crusade brought death and destruction and turned everything upside down. IIRC, there were accounts of Jews fighting side by side with Muslims in defending Jerusalem from rampaging crusaders.

 

Wouldn't that be cause to unite Jews and Muslims instead of pitting them against each other?

 

Weren't the in peace because the Jews had been conquered?

 

Indeed. I'm saying the whole Jew v Muslim thing was ultimately caused, in part, by Christian meddling.

 

Muslim society in the middle ages was much more enlightened and relatively more open-minded than was Christian europe. Jews were allowed to worship in peace in Jerusalem but everything went to ***** during the Crusades.

 

But they weren't allowed to have their own state. They were allowed to live freely within Islamic borders, but most Islamic empires charged taxes on non-Muslims, and while there may have been some forms of local self government (not sure) they weren't independent people groups free to rule as they chose either.

So sure, as long as they were loyal subjects all was peachy. I think the Israelis would offer that to the Palestinians now...

 

That's not accurate. The Israeli conflict began long before "Christian meddling." The Israelis had lost already though and were now subjects.

If a bunch of people came and invaded us right now and created a "Native American State" in Florida, would we say "Native Americans and Anglos lived in peace before (foreign) meddling?" No. They lived in peace because they got conquered. Before that they fought.

 

Allegations of civilian shootings in Gaza categorically false
Allegations that IDF soldiers deliberately shot and killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead have been found to be categorically untrue by official army investigations, an IDF source told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

IDF reservists enter the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead.
Photo: IDF Spokesperson's Office [file]

The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the results of the investigations have not yet been officially released to the public. He stressed, however that the investigations were close to completion.

The investigations examined claims made by graduates of the Rabin Pre-military Academy during a conference held last month, which were later written up and printed in an academy pamphlet.

Sections of the Israeli media then seized on the claims, and the allegations went on to make headlines around the world.


During the conference, one soldier claimed a marksman opened fire on a mother and two of her children, in full knowledge that they were civilians, after a squadron commander told them to walk into a no-entry zone.
"All of the soldiers who were involved in the conference were questioned - not as a punishment - but in order to understand whether they had witnessed these things. From all of the testimonies we collected, we can safely conclude that the soldiers who made the claims did not witness the events they describe," the source said.

Aftermath of IAF strike in Rafah at the start of Operation Cast Lead.
Photo: AP

"All of it was based on rumors. In the incident of the alleged shooting of the mother and her children, what really happened was that a marksman fired a warning shot to let them know that they were entering a no-entry zone. The shot was not even fired in their general direction," the source said.

"The marksman's commander ran up the stairs of a Palestinian home, got up on the roof, and asked the marksman why he shot the civilians. The marksman said he did not fire on the civilians. But the soldiers on the first floor of that house heard the commander's question being shouted. And from that point, the rumor began to spread," the source added.

"We can say with absolute certainty that the marksman did not fire on the woman and her children. Later, the company commander spoke with the marksman and his commander. We know with certainty that this incident never took place," he said.

The source said that a second allegation of killing of civilians was also false, though he could not provide further details at this stage. "We investigate every allegation in order to see whether these incidents took place, and to draw conclusions if necessary," the source stressed.

"Unfortunately, due to competition, sections of the press picked up this story and ran with it. It is a shame the media promoted this sort of spin all over the world," he added. It is unlikely the damage to Israel's image from the allegations can be repaired, irrespective of the results of the investigation, he noted.

"It is a shame that the media allowed Palestinian manipulations to spread," he said.

"Look at the allegation that we killed 48 civilians in a UN school in Gaza. In reality, seven people were killed, and four to five of them were terrorists. The UN apologized, but the damage is done," the source said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727539851&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

 

I mentioned my own religion to point out the fact that I have very little stake in the matter. I'm ignorant and dumb because after everything I have read I've drawn the conclusion that Islam is a violent religion?

Instead of calling me dumb and ignorant, rebuttal what I've said to prove how peaceful and respectful Islam is. Women completely covered, not allowed to drive, beheaded for speaking with other men. Are the violence, kidnapping, and terrorist bombings all made up? I think you're angry because what I've said threatens your beliefs and way of life.

 

You've already told everyone your research was comprised of youtube videos and yahoo answers, how can you call that extensive research? Go to the source of the information you are trying to condemn, make your own judgement...BTW I think Ari said somewhere he's Jewish, so your above post was a waste of time, much like this one.

 

I've been reading recently about this "tax" you are reffering to and, in order that people don't get the wrong idea from general statements, would like to shed some light on this tax.

1) Everyone in the Islamic Ummah was taxed. Muslim and non-Muslim. However, the Muslim tax was higher than the non-Muslim tax.

2) Here is the reason for the tax existing. All Muslims were obliged to join the army if needed. Similar to the U.S. today with its citizens. Some members of other faiths claimed that their religion barred them from serving in the Muslim army. Therefore this tax which you are reffering to was created. Since the presence of non-Musilms and their temples made it an obligation of the Islamic state to protect those people and their temples, and those people could not join the army, then the Islamic state collected the tax in exchange for protection.

3) Handicapped, elderly and female non-Muslims were all unconditionally exempt from the tax. This means that a LOADED elderly person would not even have to pay the tax. Muslim women were NOT exempt from their tax.

4) In cases where the elderly non-Muslim did not have money, the Bayt Al Maal (house of treasury) would give them money (equivalent to pension today I suppose).

5) In the event the Islamic State became unable to protect them, the money would be returned in full. There are several instances of this happening when lands on the border were becoming less secure due to enemy forces. There is a letter in existence today from a Jewish tribe thanking the Islamic state for returning their money because (I paraphrase) "no other state would return this money at this point in time."

6) All non-Muslims were allowed to practice their faith freely and have their own temples. Any Muslim who got in the way of this would be punished. There are several instances of these punishments.

7) Whether they were allowed to have their own state was a moot point. They lost the war, just like the Native Americans. They agreed to the tax and conditions by choice, just like the Native Americans. The tax was not burdensome at all. In fact, the Muslim tax was ridiculously more burdensome than the non-Muslim tax. Everyone treated equal in one state.

8) There are so many instances of non-Muslim tribes battling side-by-side with Muslim tribes. Clearly they were allowed to do this so the choice was theirs. Had they fled the state, they would be left alone.

Here is a link with a tremendous amount of detail for those interested:
Link to more details about tax

In the interest of efficiency, I'd rather not to respond to any questions which are discussed either in my post or in the link.

Hope that's helpful.