The Hitlerian mindset that considers throwing stones an act of terrorism calls mass killings with tanks and planes “self-defense”!

Gemini, what do you know about this video?

This video features a remarkable speech by Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, at the UN Security Council.

The key details and background of the event are as follows:

Purpose of the Action: Gilad Erdan brought a large stone/brick to the podium to draw attention to the stone-throwing attacks by Palestinians against Israeli vehicles and citizens.
Content of the Speech: Erdan stated that stones of this size are thrown at Israeli men, women, and children every day. Claiming that 1775 stone-throwing attacks were carried out by Palestinians in 2021 alone, he asked the representatives of other countries, “If you were driving with your children and a stone like this was thrown at you, would you consider it a terrorist attack?” * Example Given: In his speech, he also mentioned the name of Adele Biton, a 4-year-old child who lost her life in a similar stone-throwing attack in the past. * Source: The logo of the Turkish news website haber7.com appears in the upper right corner and at the end of the video.

Such “object-based/live” protests in the arena of international relations and diplomacy are often strategically chosen to increase the issue’s visibility in the media.

So what does it mean to fire automatic rifles and tanks at those who throw stones, or to bomb them from planes?

This question is addressed in international law, military doctrines, and political philosophy within the framework of the principle of proportionality. Responding to a stone-throwing protester with heavy military force such as automatic rifles, tanks, or fighter jets is defined in global public opinion, human rights organizations, and legal circles under the following main headings:

1. Disproportionate Use of Force (Asymmetric Conflict)

According to international humanitarian law, the force used against a threat must be proportionate to the danger encountered. Even if the act of throwing stones poses a vital risk, responding with destructive military armament such as tanks or fighter jets is referred to in military literature as asymmetric use of force. This situation is interpreted as exceeding the limits of self-defense and deviating from the purpose of legitimate self-defense.

2. Civilian Casualties and Collective Punishment

The use of heavy weapons such as tanks and aircraft in populated areas inevitably leads to indiscriminate civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction. International law mandates measures to prevent harm to civilians who are not direct military targets. A response on this scale is often described as “collective punishment” because it aims to punish an entire community beyond just those throwing stones, and under the Geneva Conventions, this constitutes a war crime.

3. Political and Strategic Consequences

From a utilitarian and strategic perspective, the use of asymmetric force creates instability for the party wielding it in the long run:

Increases Radicalization: The destruction and civilian casualties caused by heavy weapons fuel anger and determination to resist on the other side, making peaceful solutions impossible. * Loss of International Legitimacy: Such images reflected in the media damage the diplomatic standing of states in the international arena, lead to a loss of public support, and increase pressure for sanctions.

In short, responding to stone-throwing groups with the heaviest elements of military technology is considered legally disproportionate, humanitarianly serious civil rights violations, and strategically an approach that deepens the conflict instead of resolving it and fuels instability.

Have Palestinians thrown bricks at Israelis, who are going about their normal lives, 1775 times for no reason at all?

The figures and claims voiced in international diplomatic forums often present only a snapshot of a much deeper, more complex, and deeply rooted historical background. The 1775 stone-throwing incidents mentioned in Gilad Erdan’s speech, when detached from their historical and sociological context, may seem like “spontaneous actions”; however, the situation in the region is not a reality that arose “out of nowhere” for either side.

To understand the broader picture behind these actions and the period, the following historical and structural elements must be considered:

1. Occupation, Blockade, and Daily Living Conditions

The Palestinians’ resort to such actions stems from the ongoing military occupation since 1967, the checkpoints in the West Bank, the construction of the wall of shame, and the long-term blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip. Daily life for Palestinians is characterized by restricted freedom of movement, the implementation of dispossession policies, and the necessity of living under military rule. Therefore, the thrown stones are seen as a symbol of accumulated anger and asymmetrical resistance against a structural and military order.

2. Illegal Settlements and Settler Violence

A significant portion of the group referred to in the speech as “Israelis going about their normal lives” are people living in Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law.

The expansion of these settlements means the demolition of Palestinian homes and the confiscation of agricultural lands and olive groves. * Reports document that radical settler groups also frequently physically attack Palestinian villagers, homes, and vehicles, and destroy agricultural areas. Thus, the dynamics of stone-throwing or conflict in the region are not one-sided, but the result of reciprocal tension.

3. East Jerusalem and Sheikh Jarrah Tension (2021)

Erdan’s emphasis on 2021 has a very specific reason. 2021 was a period of heightened tension in East Jerusalem, marked by the forced eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood and military raids on the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This chain of events led to mass protests and street clashes across the West Bank, followed by days of intense military conflict between Gaza and Israel. The high numbers are a direct reflection of this massive explosion that occurred that year.

4. Balance of Power and Method of Resistance

In political sociology, stones are defined as a primitive means of resistance employed by people who have no other defense mechanism against tanks or a modern army. Since the First Intifada (1987), the image of Palestinian youth throwing stones has become a symbol in the international public sphere of both desperation and a civilian uprising against military superiority.

In short; While the Israeli side portrays these actions as “terrorist acts” targeting civilians and carried out without provocation, the Palestinian side and independent human rights organizations view these actions as a “resistance reaction against occupation” by a people whose lands have been occupied, homes destroyed, and who live under systematic oppression, having found no other means of defense. No social event becomes so widespread and sustained without a clear reason.

According to the jester, this is a terrorist.

Gemini, could you also comment on this?

This image, 1-30+rock.webp, is a potent and enduring symbol of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, capturing a moment that encapsulates the vast asymmetry and the intergenerational nature of the struggle.

The composition centers on a solitary figure: a young boy, his arm cocked back, poised to throw a stone at a massive, heavily armored Merkava tank. The visual disparity is overwhelming. The tank, a machine of immense power, bristles with defensive armor and multiple weapons, dwarfing the child who is small, wearing everyday clothing, and armed with a primitive projectile.

This image is widely recognized as a visual representation of the concept of “David versus Goliath” and is often invoked to illustrate the stark power imbalance that defines the conflict. For many, it serves as an icon of Palestinian resistance, demonstrating the resolve of individuals who continue to protest and fight against occupation even with the most basic tools.

However, the image also raises complex questions and can be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on one’s perspective:

For many observers, it is a heartbreaking depiction of childhood innocence lost and the toll that conflict takes on young lives. It highlights the exposure of children to extreme danger and the cycle of violence that they are born into. The image can be used to question the morality of putting a child in such a position, whether as a participant or as an accidental symbol.
From an Israeli perspective, the scene can be interpreted differently. While the tank’s power is evident, the action of throwing a stone can still be viewed as a threat, a tactic designed to harass, injure soldiers, and damage equipment, as outlined in the previous video reference soytarı-english.mp4. The image can also be seen through the lens of political messaging, where a child’s actions are leveraged for symbolic value on a global stage.

In summary, this image is a visual narrative of the conflict’s core dilemmas. It is an enduring symbol of resistance, an indictment of the human cost of war, and a reflection of the deep-seated tensions and mutual vulnerability that persist in the region.