IOF Destroys Two Houses, Injures One Citizen and Arrests Four

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2003/2003-08/064.html

Israeli occupation forces (IOF) destroyed Friday two Palestinian houses and arrested three citizens in two separated attacks in Rafah and Nablus. Meanwhile one citizen was wounded and an other was arrested in Qalqilia.

In the refugee camp of Yebna, in the southern Gaza Strip city of Rafah, IOF destroyed one house and randomly opened fire on the residents’ houses, IPC correspondent said.

Israeli bulldozers, backed by armored vehicles, invaded the Al-Barahma neighborhood (in Yebna camp) and destroyed the house of DR. Sliman Barhoom. The armored vehicles were opening fire in the air to terrify the residents and to prevent any attempt of protesting, witnesses told IPC’s.

The wife of Dr. Barhoom (Suhaila), 37, said that she escaped with her two children “Ahmad and Nahla” from her house before the arrival of the Israeli bulldozers.

Never heard of them.

It's stated in the very first sentence of the article.

Perhaps you mean the IDF. There is no occupation force.

but the IDF should be called the IDF, regardless of what it really does. I don't think the Patriot Act is in any way patriotic, but I don't call it "the Vile Stealing of our Precious Civil Liberties Enshrined in the Bill of Rights by John AshKKKroft Act," however accurate that name might be.

to "Palestinian Defense Forces" - would you have a problem when someone calls them Palestinian militants, rather than 'PDF'?

If the term was used to refer to Palestinian militants in general, of course. If the term was used to refer to only those operatives of the PDF, yes, I would have a problem.

Just thought you should know.

Arab News always refers to Jerusalem as "Occupied Jerusalem".

Well, we could call Arafat "Corrupt Psycho terror leader and murderer" Yassir Arafat. It's kinda wordy though.

An even worse terrorist and bloodthirsty murderer. Your point?

Oh, right.

Like IOF and such only destroys the debate before it even starts.

Is people who either are totally ignorant of international law, or don't give a shit about it, and those people who despite any weak protestations they might make don't view all people as equal and don't recognise the self-determination of some groups of people...

I don't know what the big deal is. Israel IS occupying the Occupied Territories, and while I tend to stick with IDF, I'm aware that the word 'Defence' is very out of place when it comes to the actions of the IDF in the Occupied Territories...

Violet...

Is not like laws we all follow every day. All nations pick and choose what they follow and very little attention is paid to most of it except when it becomes a cause of one group or another.

There are no international cops going around internationally arresting people in other nations. Maybe there will be one day, but in the meantime, it isn't the case.

I don't actually think there is much point in using the term IOF myself. The IDF is not solely an occupation army. But does it occupy the Palestinians?

Of course.

Two contexts:

IOF = occupying forces :thumbsup:
IOF = IDF :thumbsdown:

In this instance, this article's use of the IOF term is closer to absolute accuracy than further away from it.

eh.. analogy not as good on paper as it was in theory. forget it.

to make this not quite completely useless, explain this if you could:--"There is no occupation force."

The UN and every country besides the Israel also deem it occupied.

If it's occupied, then it's occupied.


IOF - Israeli Occupation Forces. They are on occupied territory hence they are occupying and hence they are Occupational hence the IOF.


Make sense?