It clearly says combat zone. And, no, I’m not trolling. The article is written to highlight the fact that it might have been warranted. Not my fault you are slow.
Basically Israel can declare anything a combat zone… A house in the West Bank, a Gaza area they already deemed “Safe” an hour ago, you name it… and they’ll have a military purpose for it!
Seems to say they were shot for good reason. So, I don’t get it, why use that article?
You claim that israel did not violate the ceasefire there?
I don’t. No one knows. It’s anecdotal, genius.
If there are people approaching you in a warzone after they were warned to stop, shooting them is a good call.
During a ceasefire when you’re not supposed to be in enemy territory?
It’s clear you are trolling. Hope you get banned.
It clearly says combat zone. And, no, I’m not trolling. The article is written to highlight the fact that it might have been warranted. Not my fault you are slow.
There is no combat zone it’s a ceasefire.
You know what the word ceasefire means?
Were these Palestinians invading israel according to the article? Did they cross the giant wall?
Realistically if someone is pointing a gun at you and ordering you to stop, you stop. Unless of course you have other plans and don’t stop.
It would be more reasonable to argue they were stupid rather than the ceasefire was in effect.
Basically Israel can declare anything a combat zone… A house in the West Bank, a Gaza area they already deemed “Safe” an hour ago, you name it… and they’ll have a military purpose for it!
There’s footage of Hamas pointing a gun at a civilian car on 7 October and them not stopping and then Hamas shooting them.
Are you saying that Hamas was justified in shooting those people who were clearly not a threat?
False equivalency.