Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Is it? Does it say "Israeli blood attacks on occupied Palestinian knives"?
depends witch news source you follow , hard to find a neutral one
Israeli soldiers execute a defenceless woman in cold blood at a bus station. Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajioon.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/attempted-afula-stabber-identified-as-nazareth-woman/
A woman shot by security forces in the northern city of Afula on Friday morning after trying to stab a security guard was identified as a resident of the predominantly Arab Israeli city of Nazareth.
The woman, named by the Shin Bet security service as 30-year-old Asraa Zidan Tawfik Abed, was shot after she brandished a knife and attempted to stab a security guard, police said.
Footage captured at the scene shows Abed holding a knife in one hand, while surrounded by IDF soldiers and security guards. In Hebrew and English, they instructed her to put down her weapon. Channel 2 said she was also holding a mobile phone, and had a bag over her shoulder.
Israel Police arrived at the scene and again told Abed to drop the knife. When she refused again, soldiers and police officers shot her in the lower body. She was taken to Poriya Hospital in Tiberias, where she underwent surgery for her injuries, the Hebrew-language Maariv website reported.
A woman shot by security forces in the northern city of Afula on Friday morning after trying to stab a security guard was identified as a resident of the predominantly Arab Israeli city of Nazareth.
The woman, named by the Shin Bet security service as 30-year-old Asraa Zidan Tawfik Abed, was shot after she brandished a knife and attempted to stab a security guard, police said.
Footage captured at the scene shows Abed holding a knife in one hand, while surrounded by IDF soldiers and security guards. In Hebrew and English, they instructed her to put down her weapon. Channel 2 said she was also holding a mobile phone, and had a bag over her shoulder.
Israel Police arrived at the scene and again told Abed to drop the knife. When she refused again, soldiers and police officers shot her in the lower body. She was taken to Poriya Hospital in Tiberias, where she underwent surgery for her injuries, the Hebrew-language Maariv website reported.
Meanwhile the stabfest continues. Two more terrorist attacks at the Damascus Gate.
Meawhile the occupation continues heading towards its 50th year
What do you draw from this? Is it just another point to add on the scoreboard of who is more in the wrong?http://www.timesofisrael.com/attempted-afula-stabber-identified-as-nazareth-woman/
A woman shot by security forces in the northern city of Afula on Friday morning after trying to stab a security guard was identified as a resident of the predominantly Arab Israeli city of Nazareth.
The woman, named by the Shin Bet security service as 30-year-old Asraa Zidan Tawfik Abed, was shot after she brandished a knife and attempted to stab a security guard, police said.
Footage captured at the scene shows Abed holding a knife in one hand, while surrounded by IDF soldiers and security guards. In Hebrew and English, they instructed her to put down her weapon. Channel 2 said she was also holding a mobile phone, and had a bag over her shoulder.
Israel Police arrived at the scene and again told Abed to drop the knife. When she refused again, soldiers and police officers shot her in the lower body. She was taken to Poriya Hospital in Tiberias, where she underwent surgery for her injuries, the Hebrew-language Maariv website reported.
Do you wonder what would drive a woman to such insanity? She's surrounded by men holding rifles, anyone with any sense would put the knife down.
Is she a terrorist? I think she looks terrified, and desperate.
The citizens of both sides, Israeli and Palestinian alike, share this.
Jerusalem has been occupied for nearly 50 years?
Glib.
What occupation?
Yeah she was defenceless... Because she was trying to attack others with a fecking meat cleaver.
I thought that the blatant lie about executions should be corrected, otherwise I would not have bothered. It's blatant lies about the status-quo at the Temple Mount that triggered the recent wave of terrorism.
BTW, the woman is both Israeli and Palestinian. It's that complicated. She is terrified, and desperate, but she did not drop the knife and attacked the policeman who tried to approach her and then got shot. She's quite lucky to have been shot at her lower body, considering the circumstances.
Is she a terrorist? As they said in the other thread, there is no one definition we will all agree on. Attacking people with a butcher's knife qualifies in my view, but does it really matter? She is also a student at the Technion, 5 minutes drive from where I live. Terrorist or not, I reckon that's her fellowship gone.
Defenseless woman? She was carrying a knife to stab and kill Israeli policemen. It's a wonderful thing that the Israeli authorities took her to a hospital to treat her, the very person who wanted to kill them.
But don't allow truth and reason to come in the way of your biased posts in this Current Events forum.
Sorry I missed Uzz's post. You are correct on that and this isn't the first time I've seen him post something that is misleading.
With regard to me asking if she is a terrorist terrorist - I hate words like this because there is no one word that is fit to adequately describe any of the people in this situation. You call her a terrorist and then when you talk about her you are putting her under the same definition of the likes of Bin Laden. It means there is no need to look into what led her to her actions and what has created this fear, desperation, and sheer insanity that unleashed themselves upon and from her.
It's like others using words like oppressors or apartheid to describe Israelis. These words are not fit to describe the motivations of Israelis even when discussing the bad things they've done because it relieves you of the need to understand what led them to their actions. Once you do that you can't treat them as some sort of homogenous mass of stereotypical bad guys.
(It's something I've probably been of guilty in the past and this thread has certainly helped me to develop my opinion a lot on the subject)
We will not agree on definitions here, even though I'm sure we could agree that some people are terrorists despite not being Bin Laden. It would be a waste of time trying to work on a definition here, so let each of us have his own name for people who go out to slaughter other people they have no business with. At the very least I think we can agree that it shouldn't surprise us that armed people respond to attempts to cut their throat.
I already agreed with you on that. You seem to be unintentionally confirming my second point though.
What do you think led her to do what she did, which would possibly make hers special circumstances we should perhaps understand?
Her being mad enough to refuse to back down against bunch of armed soldiers armed with just a knife in itself is a special enough circumstance in itself that you can't just treat her as a bad person or a terrorist or whatever you want to call her.
You've just cleared suicide bombers from being described as "bad people", let alone terrorists.
With the word I've added to your post above, then that may be true in many cases. I feel like you are missing my point in general though.
Rudolf Hoess raised 5 kids literally two hundred yards from the Auschwitz I gas chamber. I'm sure he was a devoted husband and loving father, hence not "simply" a bad person.
Far from being an analogy, my point is that sometimes there is no need to overanalyse. No matter what her background (divorced Muslim woman, mental breakdown), other people don't go out trying to murder others. That makes her "bad" compared to them.
You're comparing her to Rudolf Hoess now?
If you just have words like "bad person" to describe people then you end up comparing crazy desperate women to Rudolf Hoess. That's exactly my fecking point.
No, that's internet point scoring at its worst. I said pretty clearly it wasn't an analogy, so you ignore it and call a "win". She may be a loving mother and daughter, very nice to her neighbours and fellow students but she went out to slaughter people in a bus station yesterday FFS.
There are millions of desperate people in the world, and very few go out slaughtering people out of their desperation. That's exactly my fecking point.
You used the extreme and singular example of Rudolph fecking Hoess to illustrate why we shouldn't give a shit about what drove a woman to do something insane and desperate. Call it an analogy or not or whatever you want, you deserve to get called out on that.
I'm not even trying to say that it's okay because she's a loving mother or daughter or nice to her neighbours. Further proof that you are missing the point.
Shooting people like her in self defence is justified but it isn't going to stop more people like her doing crazy and desperate things Maybe you and others on both sides of the argument should care more about "overanalysing" instead of just caricaturing those you oppose. Probably one of the reasons why 50 years on the situation only seems to be getting worse.
What is your opinion on occupation of Palestinian land and an open air prison of Gaza ?
I think this is where some of us benefit from distance (both physical and emotional) from the conflict, it makes analysing these situations with a bit of objectivity a lot easier. Much harder to give a shit about 'root causes' and all that when you've an immediate stake in what happens.
I agree, and I should be more understanding of that, but I also find it very frustrating to see.
I used the one exaggerated example and made it clear enough what my point was. You chose to score points, so be my guest and "call me out". Do you want to go with this. Were Stalin, Mao et al "simply" bad, or were they not? How about Arafat, Carlos or Bin Laden? Closer to home, the 7/7 desperate bombers or those who chopped Rigby's head off? Jihadi John, is he not "simply" bad? How about the insane bunch that torched the Jordanian pilot, or the Palestinian family? Is no one "simply" bad?
The stereotyping that should be avoided is that of entire people or nations. As for individuals, trying to reason with the evil of going out slaughtering innocents is a lot more dangerous than shooting these people first, and trying to be creative later.
I wonder why you (and Mozza before you) mention the figure 50 years. The conflict is more than a century long, and the Arabs are not shy about their ultimate goal. Excuse us for not being too bothered about their motive.
Last edited:
Excuse me, but we were discussing whether her actions can be called bad or not. Whether she was emotionally unstable should not make a difference when analyzing this regardless of distance.
No I don't bloody want you to go on with this ridiculous bringing up famous horrible people from history when we're talking about a stupid and desperate woman.
I said it's reasonable that she was shot. But if you want to stop more like her then you should be asking the question.
"The Arabs" are probably saying the exact same thing as you right now, just about people on your side of this conflict.
That's not what we've been discussing.
No, because no Israeli believes that there should not be Arab states, but how many Arabs accept a Jewish one?
How famous are the extremely bad, horrible 7/7 terrorists? What qualifies a person as "simply" bad?
I'll blame my bad English and we'll leave it at that then.
Her actions are obviously bad, I was just suggesting that the fact that her actions and those of say, Rudolph Hess, took place in entirely different contexts will appear more important to someone not at risk of getting stabbed by their neighbour tomorrow morning.
Just like in caricatures, you make an exaggeration in certain features to make a point. The mention of Hoess is an exaggerated example where you can find a good side in every evil. I just saw a German drama called Generation War, where you identify with the characters be them a German Jew or a Wehrmacht soldier. This is all good in TV dramas, but in real life there is no place for moral relativism of this sort. The political situation here is complicated, and I understand different people prefer various narratives. I still reckon stabbing people is plainly wrong, but each to their own I guess.
The woman is Israeli btw. No oppression, apartheid or any other "context"
I specifically said that people using those terms against Israel is wrong for crying out loud, that a major was part of my point.
The "context" in the immediate sense is the 'outrage' over the Temple Mount issue (which I've already argued in this thread is largely manufactured by mainstream Palestinian religious and political officials and some extreme right-wing Israelis), and in the general sense the 'root causes' of the conflict (which I agree with you go back more than a century). If we can't discuss the present violence without reference to these issues then there's no point in this thread (a possibility I'm certainly open to, although @Shamwow's admission above that the thread has perhaps changed his mind on certain questions suggests maybe all is not lost).
The bunch you leave out when mentioning the culprits for this round of violence which centers on the Temple Mount issue are the Israeli Arab members of Knesset. Their incitement which results in attacks on their fellow Israeli citizens does nothing but disservice to Israeli Arabs, and I'm not referring just to individuals like that woman who got shot. The violent demonstrations in Arab towns here will not go unnoticed. Shame really.
You will have to accept that both sides will do the same in that case, as will HR.