Israel catch all

Farscry wrote:

And let's be honest here: there's plenty of dehumanizing anti-Palestinian propaganda likewise throughout Israeli society, so this is not the hill you want to choose to make your stand on.

There are Israeli extremists, that's correct. However you can't really compare the scale.
Palestinians do it on a national, cultural and educational levels. The incitement is everywhere.

I gave this example before but in the rare cases of Jewish terror acts, the Israeli society treated those people as the lowliest of terrorists. They were captured and sentenced to prison. Every Israeli knows the name of the killed Palestinian boy Mohammed Abu Khdeir and we, as society mourned his death. The Palestinian never publish names of killed Israelis. To them "settler" or "zionist" is enough.

It's very sad, really. People like me who believe in co-existence and peace seem to be in minority more and more as times goes by. It is evident by the insanity on the Palestinian side and the re-election of Bibi in Israel, who has little interest (nor the ability) in changing anything.

Not giving up yet. Majority of us on both sides just want to live normal lives *together*.
Terrorism, incitement and BDS deligitimization and demonization of Israel don't help. Some of Israel's policies don't help either.

I would like to note that the translated word is:

شَهيد - martyr, martyred, fallen, person killed in battle.

I'm finding a distinct lack of alternative words in online dictionaries when attempting to translate the English noun "slain" (which is what I would use in this case) into Arabic.

Translating across languages is difficult, and I would not be surprised if this is a case of the most appropriate translation for شَهيد being "martyr" in English, but the English word "martyr" carrying a lot more focused connotations than the original Arabic word does.

Alternative words I'm finding for someone who has been killed (like ضَحيّة) seem to have additional implications that the subject is a victim, or was a patsy, or other such things. I doubt that would go over any better after being translated.

In short: if we want to know the implications of this document and whether it differs from the provided English translation, we should look for a native speaker of Arabic and not place our trust in Google translate.

Hypatian wrote:

I would like to note that the translated word is:

شَهيد - martyr, martyred, fallen, person killed in battle.

I'm finding a distinct lack of alternative words in online dictionaries when attempting to translate the English noun "slain" (which is what I would use in this case) into Arabic.

Translating across languages is difficult, and I would not be surprised if this is a case of the most appropriate translation for شَهيد being "martyr" in English, but the English word "martyr" carrying a lot more focused connotations than the original Arabic word does.

Alternative words I'm finding for someone who has been killed (like ضَحيّة) seem to have additional implications that the subject is a victim, or was a patsy, or other such things. I doubt that would go over any better after being translated.

In short: if we want to know the implications of this document and whether it differs from the provided English translation, we should look for a native speaker of Arabic and not place our trust in Google translate.

Hypatian wrote:

I would like to note that the translated word is:

شَهيد - martyr, martyred, fallen, person killed in battle.

I'm finding a distinct lack of alternative words in online dictionaries when attempting to translate the English noun "slain" (which is what I would use in this case) into Arabic.

Translating across languages is difficult, and I would not be surprised if this is a case of the most appropriate translation for شَهيد being "martyr" in English, but the English word "martyr" carrying a lot more focused connotations than the original Arabic word does.

Alternative words I'm finding for someone who has been killed (like ضَحيّة) seem to have additional implications that the subject is a victim, or was a patsy, or other such things. I doubt that would go over any better after being translated.

In short: if we want to know the implications of this document and whether it differs from the provided English translation, we should look for a native speaker of Arabic and not place our trust in Google translate.

Awww, I totally wanted to look this up tonight, I just didn't have the time to do so at work.

I love it how you try to justify the Palestinians all the time but come on

I am familiar with the local dialect. There are no two ways about it. They actually mean martyr. This is a word that carries a lot of respect for them, it's not just "someone who was killed". The Palestinians teach their children that it is a great and glorious thing to become a martyr.
A guy who was killed in a fight between clans of Palestinians isn't referred to as a martyr. A terrorist who killed Jews is.

sonny615 wrote:

I love it how you try to justify the Palestinians all the time but come on

I am familiar with the local dialect. There are no two ways about it. They actually mean martyr. This is a word that carries a lot of respect for them, it's not just "someone who was killed". The Palestinians teach their children that it is a great and glorious thing to become a martyr.
A guy who was killed in a fight between clans of Palestinians isn't referred to as a martyr. A terrorist who killed Jews is.

So, to clarify. Hyp posted evidence on how the word could be a simple mistranslation, given that there aren't many Arabic words that cover this (and others could be even more problematic)... and your response is "You're wrong, I know"?

sonny615 wrote:

I am familiar with the local dialect. There are no two ways about it. They actually mean martyr. This is a word that carries a lot of respect for them, it's not just "someone who was killed". The Palestinians teach their children that it is a great and glorious thing to become a martyr.
A guy who was killed in a fight between clans of Palestinians isn't referred to as a martyr. A terrorist who killed Jews is.

So, at best, you have the remnants of Palestinian authority in the region calling the Palestinian teen a martyr to further their political ends while the Israeli government is calling the same teen a terrorist to further their own political ends.

Each group gets to claim the mantle of victimhood and each group will use this tragic incident to justify future acts of violence against the other.

Meanwhile Israel still has an illegal settlement on the outskirts of Hebron and the little girl would still be alive if her parents hadn't decided to steal Palestinian land and build a settlement there for some f*cked up, religious and/or nationalistic reasons. Nor would she be dead if Israeli politicians had the balls to send the IDF into every illegal settlement and forcibly remove their citizens who are breaking international law.

And while you're doing your best to clear the Palestinians of their share in terrorism (including arguing with a local about the local dialect), terrorism doesn't stop.
After deadly two days, three major terror attacks and two Israelis dead, a rocket was just launched from Gaza into the city of Sderot. The rocket exploded near a kindergarten, which was luckily empty as it is night time in Israel.

Carry on.

sonny615 wrote:

The rocket exploded near a kindergarten, which was luckily empty as it is night time in Israel.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/fR9TmxQ.jpg)

back to justifying terrorism i see.

sonny615 wrote:

back to justifying terrorism i see.

Irony.

Jonman wrote:
sonny615 wrote:

back to justifying terrorism i see.

Irony.

Indeed. I noted that on the previous page and he simply ignored it.

Collective punishment is not okay, sonny.

It's never okay. Never, never, not ever. No matter how provoked anyone might feel.

In fact, it's actively illegal, not merely horribly wrong.

I agree.

Terrorism is even worse and considering the circumstances, Israel doesn't find a better way to ensure the security of its civilians.

The effort of the world should be directed at preventing terrorism (education, stopping enticement, entering negotiations) and not how to stop Israel from defending its citizens (even if it comes at the cost of unjust collective punishment).

Trying to switch to something positive (Israel catch all after all, amirite?).

Something you don't hear much (or at all) in the world media. I saw an amazing article about an Israeli woman who one day left her life behind and flew to Iraq to rescue Yazidi women and children from ISIS/Daesh captivity.
It's amazing to see how she acts at home in the middle of Iraq, risking her life and openly says she's a Jew and an Israeli. The video report is in Hebrew (sorry, couldn't find English!), I'll try to break down main points by their order of appearance.

Springs of Hope

1st minute: Driving in Iraq, on the road to Mosul. Reporter says - look at these Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers. You drive so freely here. In Israel people probably think you've lost your mind.
Lisa Miara: I didn't lose my mind, I have kids and grand-kids in Israel. I live my life with their picture in front of me.
Reporter: you're driving as if you're home.
Lisa Miara: I am home. You found a surprising word to describe this but this became my home. I have no explanation. They became my family.

*footage of Yazidi refugee camp*

3rd minute: background of Daesh executing Yazidis and kidnapping them. Trading women and children as slaves.

*later showing interviews of women who escaped thanks to Lisa telling their story. How they were sold and raped over and over*

3:30 - Telling about Lisa, came from London to Israel, dealt with academic research and became a business woman.

3:38 - in 1998 her son escaped a lynch by palestinian mob (such lynches often ended with murder, before the GPS era where Israelis would drive by mistake into Palestinian territories). Her son escaping was caught on camera.

Telling she got her boy back as a gift.

4:30 - 4 years later her son was in another terror event, when a Palestinian terrorist exploded himself inside a coffee house full of people, where 11 Israelis were murdered. Many of her son's friends died but he survived. Lisa saw it as a sign and decided she has to do good.

She founded Springs of Hope, an organization that saves Yazidi women and children from Isis (usually by buying them off the slave market) and help them restore their lives.

5:50 - showing more of the Yazidi camp, Sharia.

6:30 - more interviews of women who were kidnapped

6:50 - Showing ISIS selling women. Every young girl, child and woman has a price. Depends on their skin, eyes, figure, if they are virgins and if they let their masters rape them without resistance.

8:20 - showing a kid who was kidnapped at 2 years old and rescued. he doesnt remember his parents and speaks only arabic.

8:50 - interviewing one of the yazidi representatives. saying how lisa helps.

9:40 - another story about a woman who was bought by a palestinian man who beat up her and her daughters.

10:30 - reporter asks how do you manage to turn kids back to normal after they were educated by isis to murder , train to behead cats and so on.
Lisa says: they were brainwashed. They are used to pray 5 times a day, kill, behead, make suicide bomb belts. it goes down to 4 year old kids, they become little soldiers.

11:20 - back to the story of the woman. a man, her relative, says he had 6 hours to bring a large sum of money to buy her or she would be sold again.

12:10 - Lisa tells about how she loves and appreciates Zeri, the woman she helped rescue.

12:53 - fashion show in the refugee camp arranged by Springs of hope in order to raise awareness in the world. the black clothes the women escaped in are shown and new, modern clothes they are wearing now.

13:30 - lisa speaks in english, quoting a hebrew saying in the middle of Iraq in front of everyone.

I was really moved seeing this. These kind of people make me proud being an Israeli.

sonny615 wrote:

I agree.

Terrorism is even worse and considering the circumstances, Israel doesn't find a better way to ensure the security of its civilians.

The effort of the world should be directed at preventing terrorism (education, stopping enticement, entering negotiations) and not how to stop Israel from defending its citizens (even if it comes at the cost of unjust collective punishment).

So, Israel can continue to do this stuff that LEADS to terrorist actions against themselves, but the rest of the world needs to help fix the results.

"I'll continue sh*tting my pants, you just make sure it doesn't stink!"

Yeah, no.

You mix up the cause and result.

Terrorism leads to more restriction and more security. Terrorism was here first. When there's no terrorism there's less (or no) restrictions. When there's no terrorism, no houses of terrorists are being destroyed, when no rockets are shot from Gaza into Israeli cities, no fire is being shot on Gaza.

Don't mix cause and result.

Now I know that someone will say "oh but settlements! land steal!" and so on. While I remind you that I am against settlements as a whole, let me also remind you that Palestinian terrorism (or Arab terrorism) was here long before that.

What leads to the land confiscations and settlement expansions?

Paleocon wrote:

What leads to the land confiscations and settlement expansions?

sonny615 wrote:

Now I know that someone will say "oh but settlements! land steal!" and so on. While I remind you that I am against settlements as a whole, let me also remind you that Palestinian terrorism (or Arab terrorism) was here long before that.

And I will add - nothing good comes out of that.
I don't believe in the "whole Israel" sh*t the settlers believe. I believe there's a slightly different way of doing things.

However,

Israel tried simply leaving its settlements in a one sided manner. It didn't work in Gaza. Following a FULL evacuation of ALL settlements in Gaza, instead of mortars to Gush Qatif, we got rockets on Ashkelon, Beer Sheva, Ashdod and Tel Aviv. Most of Israel is now under rocket threat (and actual fire, as proved again yesterday) of the Palestinians.

Israel tried lifting the security restrictions - the result? More terrorism. Israel tried freezing the settlement building. I believe it was for 10 month or so but I'm not sure of the exact period. The result? More terrorism. Israel tried letting terrorists go, releasing them from Israeli prisons. You know the result....

Israel tried negotiations and made fair, GOOD offers (according to all parties involved in the negotiations, not only to the Israelis themselves). The Palestinian chose... yep, more terrorism. I probably sound like a broken record but it's true.

So what else should we do? The same in the west bank as in Gaza? Walk out one sided and let Hamas or Isis take over? Lay down and die maybe? The Palestinians don't acknowledge us as a country (sometimes not even as people).

AS A RESULT of the terrorism the wall was built (which, btw, drastically reduced it). AS A RESULT of terrorism Israel started destroying houses. AS A RESULT of the deadly events in the past couple of days and months Israel will start reducing from the tax payments to the PLO the same amount the PLO pays salaries to terrorists.

A country cannot care more about the social conditions and comfort of a group more than it cares for LIVES of its own citizens. No sane country would chose otherwise.

The beatings will continue until Palestinian morale improves?

Not really seeing that at all. The only thing leading to the annexation of Palestinian land is the desire to possess that which does not belong to you. It is evidence of a war against the Palestinians whether by design or coincidence.

Again, if that is what you choose (and it appears it is) it is your right. We just have no moral or political obligation to be party to it.

The hard truth is that when the Jews in Palestine were in a similar situation, they turned to terrorism too, for more than ten years. That's why it's so hard for me to accept that "it's just the Palestinians fault". Yes, they should not be perpetuating it in education and social brainwashing and such. But the methods of terrorism? Ask Menachem Begin and Moredecai Olmert about whether terrorism is justified in the struggle for a country... And then look at the parties they founded and their strength today. Overwhelming power can be used to create terror in a population too.

Not acknowledging this kind of continual, humiliating, grinding abuse is one part of the problem that hobbles Israel's approach to the West Bank today. The various settlers councils control up to 40% or so of the West Bank, with more land coming under their control every month, and the Army, rather than the civilian government, controls the process. And the Army is more and more controlled by the Right every year, it seems like.

And they have done their best since 1980 to set fire to Palestinian hopes. It takes two to tango.

Just touching on Paleocon's post about the national right to exist.

Why is it so hard for both nations to exist? From what I know about the conflict (which isn't much) the conflict concerns land and denial of market participation and other human rights. Religion seems a distant issue when it seems to be a fight over who gets a roof over their heads and the means to sustain a living. Can't both sides just redevelop the land so more people can have roofs over their heads and create jobs and livelihoods while they are at it?

Anyone cornered with nothing to lose will lash out without fear of reprisal. Maybe that is what Israel wants as it forms the justification of reprisal without addressing what drove the assailant to violence. Dunno but what I think the region needs is secure housing and food security, once you solve that problem there might be less reason to use the Israeli settlement strategy or Palestinian guerrilla warfare.

The leadership of the Palestinians is split between two factions of Islamic extremists with a history of terrorism, and Israel is increasingly moving towards it's own religious right. Make no mistake, religion drives the two countries, in a bad way, effectively over-riding the humanistic concerns you listed.

I do know it's both obvious and simplistic to compare Israel and South Africa, but it was essential for the peace process for the South African government to commit unilaterally* and totally to peace and not be baited into responding to violence with violence.

And once the ANC, as an example, committed to the peace process then the government didn't respond brutally to attacks from ANC factions or other organisations. Attacks would be investigated and responded to, but wouldn't be excuses for bombing campaigns and other collective punishment.**

It sucks, and it's hard, but the onus is on the party with the power to make the larger commitment to peace.

* Well, it seemed unilateral, turns out the Apartheid government was in talks on and off with the ANC for years and secret agreements were made. But outside of certain inner circles nobody knew about this.

** I've started slowly listening to Countdown to Armageddon and it struck me in this context how at the beginning of WW1 the German propensity for collective punishment, besides their attack on Belgium, was a major part of why the Germans had such a terrible reputation, and was probably a big contributor to how onerous the Treaty of Versailles was. Collective punishment isn't good for anyone except for immediate 'satisfaction.'

Israel could learn a lot from SA, in this regard.

Ditto Northern Ireland. Actually, what is so sad was that there was a moment where all three countries almost followed similar paths out of the cycle of violence. From roughly 1989 to 1995 there was a genuine hope that we had all learnt our lessons from such conflicts. Unfortunately it seemed we all hadn't.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...

Lovely.

Col. Eyal Karim, the IDF's intended next chief rabbi, has previously provided misogynistic interpretations of Jewish law that consider female conscription 'utterly forbidden' and permits raping 'attracting Gentile women' as a way to keep up morale; female MKs and women's rights organizations, incensed, call for his appointment to be cancelled.

RE: Wartime rape to boost morale

While I think it's a good idea to find common ground with extremists and bring about a peaceful resolution to conflict, I don't think adopting their policies regarding war crimes is the way to go.

peanut3141 wrote:

RE: Wartime rape to boost morale

While I think it's a good idea to find common ground with extremists and bring about a peaceful resolution to conflict, I don't think adopting their policies regarding war crimes is the way to go.

Yup. And this is precisely the sort of crap we endorse by our continued extraordinary support of Israel.

edit: the result of two political parties competing to provide "unconditional support" for Israel has emboldened the worst elements and silenced the voices of moderation. We own a large part of that responsibility. We have created a political equilibrium in Israel that doesn't tolerate compromise. It demands extreme solutions. And we embolden it by removing or owning for ourselves the consequences. We have literally stunted their political development.

It is time we stopped.

Edit: This thread is shameful. I forgot why I didn't bother participating.