Elderly Swiss man busted with gun at Phuket Airport

[Thorgal]

 
But a pardon very well might be. The people of Israel understand why he was driven to commit a crime against someone who had just murdered his friends.

The IDF soldier who was stabbed didn't die till today...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[ilostmypassword]

On 1/8/2017 at 9:45 PM, Morch said:

 

Netanyahu hardly led the calls for pardon, but rather, was the one of those who followed suit. And like many of his fellow politicians, the motivations probably have more to do with pandering to voter base. The "profound" insight suggested sounds more like the opinions of the poster. 

Which makes it better?

The Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University released a survey last month of Jewish Israelis that found 47 percent support killing on the spot a terrorist who attacked Jews, “even if he has been captured and clearly does not pose a threat.” Support for killing the terrorist was highest among young Israelis and religious Israelis. Forty-five percent said such a terrorist should be handed over to authorities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-military-trial-thats-tearing-israel-apart/2016/11/01/7f0d203c-9b93-11e6-b552-b1f85e484086_story.html?utm_term=.941dbcfd2518

What makes it worse is that the support was highest among the young and the religious.  In other words, as the older generation dies off this attitude will predominate among the Israeli populace. Especially as the religious portion of the populace is also the fastest growing.

[Ulysses G.]

Don't really blame them. Very few people are sympathetic towards Islamic terrorists that target and murder innocent men, women and children.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Don't really blame them. Very few people are sympathetic towards Islamic terrorists that target and murder innocent men, women and children.

I notice how you continually refer to the Palestinians who attack Israeli soldiers as islamic terrorts. They may be muslims but their reasons for attacking the Israels is that they are colonizing the West bank and treating the Palestininas  terribly. They may use Islamic and even anti-semitic rhetoric, but they're not going after Israeli soldiers because they're jews. If Muslim jihadis from other parts of the world were migrating to the west bank to attack israel in the name of Islam you might have a point. But they aren't. As for the terrorist label. As i understand it, this Palestinian was attacking soldiers, not civilians. That would make him a guerilla fighter, not a terrorist.

[Ulysses G.]

No matter how one tries to spin it, Palestinian terrorists have targeted and murdered innocent men women and children for decades. Hamas' charter specifically refers to murdering Jews as well as Israelis and their intention to destroy Israel completely. Their dream is to create an Islamic state and no Jews will be allowed. The Fatah party is not much better.

There is no way to get away from the fact that these are Islamic terrorists. No wonder the Israel people are not sympathetic to them when they try to murder and are caught.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

No matter how one tries to spin it, Palestinian terrorists have targeted and murdered innocent men women and children for decades. Hamas' charter specifically refers to murdering Jews as well as Israelis and their intention to destroy Israel completely. Their dream is to create an Islamic state and no Jews will be allowed. The Fatah party is not much better.

There is no way to get away from the fact that these are Islamic terrorists. No wonder the Israel people are not sympathetic to them when they try to murder and are caught.

No matter how you spin it the palestinian who was killed was not a terrorist - he attacked soldiers of an occupying army. As for the rest, nationalist movements tend to get more extreme the longer a struggle goes on.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, bandito said:

 

67% of the Israeli population calls for a pardon of the soldier.

67% of the Israeli population disagrees with the militairy court.

How many times have you to be told that these 2 Palestinians tried to murder Israeli soldiers.

Why are you looking away from that?

It may well be that 67% of the Israeli population does want a pardon. But the poll you are referring to was called a flash survey and its methodology wasn't revealed.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/67-of-israelis-want-pardon-for-idf-soldier-convicted-of-manslaughter/

So I hope that the poll was not accurate.  But given that 47 percent of the population didn't even want Azaria tried, it might be correct. The poll did say that it surveyed Israelis so presumable Arabs were included.  Since roughly 19%  of the voters said no, and this roughly corresponds to the percentage of Israelis who are Arabs, this would mean that the Israeli Jewish population would be virtually unanimous in support of a pardon. That does seem a bit unlikely.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, bandito said:

 

67% of the Israeli population calls for a pardon of the soldier.

67% of the Israeli population disagrees with the militairy court.

How many times have you to be told that these 2 Palestinians tried to murder Israeli soldiers.

Why are you looking away from that?

Hey, in the southern united states not so long ago, there was always a majority of the population in favor of lynching. Not one person was ever prosecuted for lynching a black man.  I guess that made it right.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Hey, in the southern united states not so long ago, there was always a majority of the population in favor of lynching. Not one person was ever prosecuted for lynching a black man.  I guess that made it right.

 

Were the black people terrorists that purposely ran down people with a truck? If so, your argument makes sense.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Were the black people terrorists that purposely ran down people with a truck? If so, your argument makes sense.

My arguments make sense because in a civilized nation people don't get to commit murder and go unpunished. Or are you saying that the slain palestinian was going to get acquited?

[ilostmypassword]

On 1/8/2017 at 8:59 PM, DaddyWarbucks said:

It is no coincidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - who was then followed by a slew of ministers and Knesset members - has called for a presidential pardon for Israeli soldier Elor Azaria.

This striking mobilization to exonerate Azaria, which cuts across party lines and includes MKs from Labor, should actually come as no surprise, since the desired pardon is not really about absolving one lone murderer, but rather an effort to vindicate Israel's 50 year occupation.

Consciously or unconsciously, each and every government official calling for such absolution understands that Azaria is in no way an aberration of Israel's occupation of Palestine, but a clear symptom of its very structure.

The bystanders are testimony to the structure's effect. The video released by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem first depicts al-Sharif lying on the ground, wounded, as scores of soldiers and settlers stand near his body chatting, talking on the phone and taking pictures. Several medics are at the scene, but they, too are oblivious to the injured Palestinian. Indeed one of these medics is the killer.

The laid-back everydayness of those standing just metres away from an execution can certainly be understood as a manifestation of what Hannah Arendt has called the "banality of evil." Yet, it also profoundly captures something crucial about the structure of Israel's colonial project.

You really shouldn't use that word "colonialism" or, for that matter, "colony" or "colonist" to describe the Israel activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It's true that Israelis seizing land that doesn't belong to them and are settling on it, often destroying the Palestinians' property in the process.

 

It's true that there are separate laws governing the 2 populations with preference being shown to the Israeli. And it's true that there is unequal enforcement of the laws in a way that favors the Israelis.  So while it may be that their activities can be described in a way that meets the definition of  "colonial" I object to you using that that term on the grounds that it has 19 century connotations and this is the 21st century.   (Slavery is another word I object to being used to describe ownership of human beings even when people nowadays are bought and sold as property because it also has such 19th century connotations.)  

 

Not only that, but it's well known on this forum that I oppose the Israeli settlement project and therefore my objections to using that word are entirely legitimate and not intended in any way to destigmatize what is going in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

 

On the other hand I do have an obligation to provide a term in place of colonialism and i promise to deliver it someday soon. It's probably going to have a lot of hyphens. And it will mean the same thing as "colonialism". But in a very deep and significant way that can't be put into words, it will be different.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Which makes it better?

The Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University released a survey last month of Jewish Israelis that found 47 percent support killing on the spot a terrorist who attacked Jews, “even if he has been captured and clearly does not pose a threat.” Support for killing the terrorist was highest among young Israelis and religious Israelis. Forty-five percent said such a terrorist should be handed over to authorities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-military-trial-thats-tearing-israel-apart/2016/11/01/7f0d203c-9b93-11e6-b552-b1f85e484086_story.html?utm_term=.941dbcfd2518

What makes it worse is that the support was highest among the young and the religious.  In other words, as the older generation dies off this attitude will predominate among the Israeli populace. Especially as the religious portion of the populace is also the fastest growing.

 

I didn't say anything about "better", but commented on the merit of the explanation a poster put forward. It might be useful to bear in mind that for many of the politicians involved, what ultimately matters is re-election or increasing their political power. Approaching some of the issues that often come up on these topics from a more mundane point of view (rather than the ideological musings and theorizing) may be more useful both for understanding events and figuring out ways to address them.

 

The link to the poll mentioned goes nowhere (at least for me), but I'll comment seeing as I'm familiar with said institute, and that the poll must have be an addition to a series of polls and analysis dealing with these issues. There is indeed a gradual increase of support as suggested. It is more prevalent among right wing voters, those identifying as religious and younger people. The first two groups are somewhat interchangeable, so no big surprises there. The interesting bit was that over time, a similar increase (at a slower pace) was found among sacrilegious and centrist/left voters. I'm not sure if there is/was a clear analysis of contributing factors - so guess that describing the interplay between the perceptions of deteriorating security situation, incitement on social media and by politicians, and preexisting views is somewhat of chicken and egg thing.

 

A couple of other observations. First, there were connections found between support and perception of IDF performance. Those who saw the IDF as less effective were more in favor of taking the law into their hands. Similar trends exist with regard to seeing the legal system as too lenient when it comes to meting out punishment. These are, incidentally, two themes which are often repeated by some of them right wing politicians.

 

With regard to age group - that's not a huge surprise. Generally speaking,  younger people tend to be more extreme in their views, and grow moderate as time goes by. Doubt that the assumption that political views remain unchanged is supported. The issue, perhaps, is more to do with ratios - how many young extremists vs. grown up moderates (and I do use "moderate" as a template, not necessarily an indication of a specific political view). On that front, things do not bode well - as indeed,  demographic trends are rather skewed.

 

My answer to this would be to address those areas in which change can be affected, rather than bash indiscriminately (which seems to be the favored approach among some posters). Religious people, young people, aren't easily swayed by head on confrontations. If anything, makes them more entrenched in their views.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I notice how you continually refer to the Palestinians who attack Israeli soldiers as islamic terrorts. They may be muslims but their reasons for attacking the Israels is that they are colonizing the West bank and treating the Palestininas  terribly. They may use Islamic and even anti-semitic rhetoric, but they're not going after Israeli soldiers because they're jews. If Muslim jihadis from other parts of the world were migrating to the west bank to attack israel in the name of Islam you might have a point. But they aren't. As for the terrorist label. As i understand it, this Palestinian was attacking soldiers, not civilians. That would make him a guerilla fighter, not a terrorist.

 

Yes and no. The problem here is trying to attach uniform labels to people and motivations. In reality, the distinctions are not as clear as some seem to imagine.

 

Are all Palestinian attackers "Islamic terrorists"? No. Some do not have a whole lot to do with Islam, or aren't even practicing. But in the same way, and even more so - there is definitely a religious element to many of these attacks, and it is getting more predominant. There is no requirement for the motivations to be discreet as they are not mutually exclusive. And oh yes, there's also that thing about going after Jews. It goes hand in hand with the religious element mentioned above. Dismissing it as non-existent is wishful thinking at best. Granted, less of this in English - each side's nastiness is more readily found in their respective languages.

 

Islamic terrorism is not limited to IS or AQ, these are just the currently hyped brand names. Apart from both having a rather relatively minor presence among Palestinians, there are other organizations subscribing to similar, if less ambitious, notions. Islamic Jihad and Hamas are among the most known, but there are other, smaller, local verities.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Hey, in the southern united states not so long ago, there was always a majority of the population in favor of lynching. Not one person was ever prosecuted for lynching a black man.  I guess that made it right.

 

9 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Were the black people terrorists that purposely ran down people with a truck? If so, your argument makes sense.

 

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

My arguments make sense because in a civilized nation people don't get to commit murder and go unpunished. Or are you saying that the slain palestinian was going to get acquited?

 

Most so-called civilized nations do not exist in a reality which involves constant threat of attack. Both ignoring the effect of this reality or switching the argument to Israel's part in creating and maintaining it, are not going to change the fact that strictly applying the same standard is questionable. On the other hand, it is true that over time, a society cannot hold on to certain values if it constantly puts them "on hold" due to security consideration.

 

These issues apply to the Palestinian society as well, perhaps even more so than to its Israeli counterpart. Less of a solid ground to fall back upon, even if conditions will allow it. And similarly, in Europe, these dilemmas crop up with the flow of migrants/refugees and the ongoing wave of Islamic terrorist attacks.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

Most so-called civilized nations do not exist in a reality which involves constant threat of attack. Both ignoring the effect of this reality or switching the argument to Israel's part in creating and maintaining it, are not going to change the fact that strictly applying the same standard is questionable. On the other hand, it is true that over time, a society cannot hold on to certain values if it constantly puts them "on hold" due to security consideration.

 

These issues apply to the Palestinian society as well, perhaps even more so than to its Israeli counterpart. Less of a solid ground to fall back upon, even if conditions will allow it. And similarly, in Europe, these dilemmas crop up with the flow of migrants/refugees and the ongoing wave of Islamic terrorist attacks.

 

The same could be said of just about any nation engaging in colonization. It brutalizes both the colonizers and the colonizees(?).  Why should Israel be considered a special case? This is a self-inflicted wound.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

The same could be said of just about any nation engaging in colonization. It brutalizes both the colonizers and the colonizees(?).  Why should Israel be considered a special case? This is a self-inflicted wound.

 

Well, you can go on with your "colonial" nonsense and I could repeat it does not apply. Hence, not a "special" case, but different. That aside, it doesn't really matter. All it amounts to is a biased, dubious, one dimensional argument about the supposed roots of the current situation. It does not contribute an iota for better understanding of motivations and ways to address them.

[ilostmypassword]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, you can go on with your "colonial" nonsense and I could repeat it does not apply. Hence, not a "special" case, but different. That aside, it doesn't really matter. All it amounts to is a biased, dubious, one dimensional argument about the supposed roots of the current situation. It does not contribute an iota for better understanding of motivations and ways to address them.

Insisting that it's nonsense while offering no analysis of why it's nonsense somehow doesn't seem so convincing.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Insisting that it's nonsense while offering no analysis of why it's nonsense somehow doesn't seem so convincing.

 

Not particular wish to accommodate the derailing of yet another topic by the same nonsense. This was covered on many a past topic, and it's still nonsense. Further, even if you think it isn't - it doesn't provide much insight other than laying one-sided blame. Not much applicability to the present or to existing conditions.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Stay on topic and keep it civil. 

[wreckingcountry]

Netanhanyu the personification of liar and a fake! The life of a Palestinian is worth nothing in his and his cohorts eyes! Two states agreed? .. His Israel have no intention of letting that happen !


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Ulysses G.]

"The life of a Palestinian is worth nothing in his and his cohorts eyes!"

 

A Palestinian terrorist anyway. That is what the OP is about.

[bandito]

22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I notice how you continually refer to the Palestinians who attack Israeli soldiers as islamic terrorts. They may be muslims but their reasons for attacking the Israels is that they are colonizing the West bank and treating the Palestininas  terribly. They may use Islamic and even anti-semitic rhetoric, but they're not going after Israeli soldiers because they're jews. If Muslim jihadis from other parts of the world were migrating to the west bank to attack israel in the name of Islam you might have a point. But they aren't. As for the terrorist label. As i understand it, this Palestinian was attacking soldiers, not civilians. That would make him a guerilla fighter, not a terrorist.

 

You not only lost your password but also lost your marbles.

Palestinians who try to murder Israelies are terrorists.

What's your comment about the Palestinian who drove a truck in an Israeli crowd and killing soldiers and wounding a score of bystanders?

He is classified as a terrorist with connections to the Islamit State terrorist organization.

Well?

[Ulysses G.]

9 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

The Palestinian victim came from a family who was there for centuries.
 

 

 

You mean the terrorist who drove a truck into a bunch of Israelis? THEY were the victims.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Thorgal]

 
You mean the terrorist who drove a truck into a bunch of Israelis? THEY were the victims.

I was quoting the OP IDF soldier, Elor Azaria.

The others are off topic...
Maybe another time, or you can open a separate thread if you require more feedback.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, got my terrorist attacks confused. The Israeli soldiers that were stabbed were the real victims - not the murderer who did it.

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

"The life of a Palestinian is worth nothing in his and his cohorts eyes!"

 

A Palestinian terrorist anyway. That is what the OP is about.

How many times are you going to make the same false assertion. He attacked soldiers, not civilians. Soldiers of an occupying army. That would make him a guerilla, not a terrorist.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

Sorry, got my terrorist attacks confused. The Israeli soldiers that were stabbed were the real victims - not the murderer who did it.

So soldiers are now victims? No, they're combatants. In a war, soldiers tend to get injured and die. Even in low intensity wars.

[Ulysses G.]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So soldiers are now victims?

 

So the Muslim nuts who hacked Lee Rigby to death in London were "guerillas" - not Islamic terrorists? Not buying it.

 

http://www.thetower.org/3203-violence-against-soldiers-is-terrorism-in-israel-and-everywhere-else/

[wreckingcountry]

"The life of a Palestinian is worth nothing in his and his cohorts eyes!"
 
A Palestinian terrorist anyway. That is what the OP is about.

Exactly my point ! In your eyes an illegal act.(shooting someone on the ground ) is justified if it's a person of little worth!

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

So the Muslim nuts who hacked Lee Rigby to death in London were "guerillas" - not Islamic terrorists? Not buying it.

 

http://www.thetower.org/3203-violence-against-soldiers-is-terrorism-in-israel-and-everywhere-else/

Nice try at deflection. The subject in question was the Palestinian who attacked Israeli soldiers.  That was not a terrorist attack.