Support NeoGAF

[Chie Satonaka]

Well, gee, no wonder we love them so much here.

Looks like we have a lot of similarities.

 

[Dude Abides]

This logic in israel's case with a mandatory draft would basically excuse terrorism on all adult non-religious males. 20-25ish.

I don't believe all such people are in the IDF occupying the territories.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't believe all such people are in the IDF occupying the territories.

see my edit as well. There's also the fact that these attacks violate the laws of war.

I just find the excusing of going on stabbing sprees without provocation absurd.

 

[kmag]

This logic in israel's case with a mandatory draft would basically excuse terrorism on all adult non-religious males. 20-25ish.

Also perfidy is a war crime.

So is collective punishment but you don't see the Israeli's stopping it. If we're going down oh but it's a war crime then Israel's catalogue of horror is more than a match.

 

[KimiNewt]

It's generally considered morally and legally permissible to used armed force against the occupying army, yes.

Not by the occupier and its apologists, of course, but by everyone else.

At the end of the day, stabbing some lone soldier accomplishes nothing but terror. This isn't someone acting out against an immediate threat.

I'm not saying I can't understand the feelings that will bring someone to stab someone like that, and I'm not saying that because some government gives you a uniform and a gun it IS okay to kill (particularly relevant to this case).
However, I still certainly do not think it is morally permissible to stab someone who may not have a direct oppressive effect on you, and might not be doing this out of choice. It is at best a very dark shade of grey in terms of morality.

Saying one side is morally reprehensible doesn't immediately excuse the other side of any reprehensible acts they may do themselves.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So is collective punishment but you don't see the Israeli's stopping it.

I don't disagree. I just have an issue with someone coming in here and going. "War Crimes are permissible and accepted doctrine, don't call him a terrorist"

I mean is the king david hotel bombing not terrorism?

 

[knight123]

see my edit as well. There's also the fact that these attacks violate the laws of war.

I just find the excusing of going on stabbing sprees without provocation absurd.

Provocation? The longest modern day military occuptation isn't provocation? More than half a million people living in illegal colonies isn't provocation? Denying the refugees their legal right to return isn't provocation? An illegal wall that annexes 10% of the West Bank isn't provocation? Violant settlers given near free reign isn't provocation?

Would you be opposed to those in Russian annexed Crimea resisting? Or those in German occupied France? Maybe that's perfidy too

 

[GrantDaNasty]

Regardless of the crimes of the victim in this situation, what the soldier on trial did is still wrong, at the very least it should be acknowledged.

 

[Dude Abides]

see my edit as well. There's also the fact that these attacks violate the laws of war.

I just find the excusing of going on stabbing sprees without provocation absurd.

What acts? What exactly did this "terrorist" do that you consider a war crime? What convention was he bound by that prohibits it?

And of course you don't consider armed occupation provocation. That's no surprise.

 

[kmag]

I don't disagree. I just have an issue with someone coming in here and going. "War Crimes are permissible and accepted doctrine, don't call him a terrorist"

I mean is the king david hotel bombing not terrorism?

Where the French and Dutch resistance terrorists? When you're under occupation it's pretty fucking difficult to put on a uniform and march in formation to a pitched battle. Soldiers forcibly and illegally holding land are fair game for the populace of that land to attack. I have no quibbles with that and I doubt most people do. Don't like it? hand the land back and leave. Attacks on the Israeli's whether military or not in Israel proper are unacceptable, but in occupied land attacks on uniformed military personnel should be fair game.

Let's not forget another war crime under article 49 of the 4th Geneva convention is the transfer of the occupiers own populace into occupied land

 

[AlphaSnake]

Yes! Both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

If your country was under a brutal occupation and colonisation spanning several decades would you really object if people in your country started attacking soldiers?

They've been stabbing all sorts of people. Most of them just random passerbys, tourists, and even accidentally mistaking Arabs for Jews all outside of Palestinian territory.

 

[sirap]

Happy (and disgusted) to see the "but both sides.." argument alive and strong in this thread.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

It would be crazy if he gets pardoned, this guy deserves jail time. I watched a video earlier today and this fucking guy was actually grinning and had this smug look on his face, when they brought him to the court. Bet he didn't grin much after the judges were done with him. Really impressed by the court's decision!

 

[knight123]

They've been stabbing all sorts of people. Most of them just random passerbys, tourists, and even accidentally mistaking Arabs for Jews all outside of Palestinian territory.

Yeah and I've no objection to these attacks being condemned and labelled terrorism but here we're talking about an occupying soldier being attacked, don't evade the subject.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Kid is a killer and deserves to do time.

Edit - additionally, as an American jew who has spoken to many other jews about this stuff, I will just say the feeling of "They tried to wipe us off the face of the earth and y'all sat there and did fucking nothing (in reference to both the Germans and then after, the Arabs)" dies really really hard in these people. They don't give a shit about the judgement of people who don't give a shit about the jews.

As a Jew I would tell these people to grow the fuck up.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Yeah and I've no objection to these attacks being condemned and labelled terrorism but here we're talking about an occupying soldier being attacked, don't evade the subject.

Nobody's evading the subject. You made what seemed like a fairly blanket and general statement that sounded like only soldiers were being targeted. When in reality its all Jews being targeted, as evidenced by the incitement of violence on Hamas' official social media profiles and televised programs.

 

[Madness]

Yes! Both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

If your country was under a brutal occupation and colonisation spanning several decades would you really object if people in your country started attacking soldiers?

Of course. If you are for the killing of soldiers considered occupiers why be up in arms if the soldiers kill attackers. If you value life, you value ALL life. You can't be for someone who tried to kill someone else and then be upset when he himself was later killed in the process. I agree the soldier should face punishment. His onus and burden is greater to bear. But ask yourself, if given the chance, would the deceased not have killed the IDF soldier if he saw him wounded? It is all morality though. Your freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. Your liberator could be another person's conqueror.

 

[knight123]

Nobody's evading the subject. You made what seemed like a fairly blanket and general statement that sounded like only soldiers were being targeted. When in reality its all Jews being targeted, as evidenced by the incitement of violence on Hamas' official social media profiles and televised programs.

There's racist incitement on both sides and both are bad.

Of course. If you are for the killing of soldiers considered occupiers why be up in arms if the soldiers kill attackers. If you value life, you value ALL life. You can't be for someone who tried to kill someone else and then be upset when he himself was later killed in the process. I agree the soldier should face punishment. His onus and burden is greater to bear. But ask yourself, if given the chance, would the deceased not have killed the IDF soldier if he saw him wounded? It is all morality though. Your freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. Your liberator could be another person's conqueror.

Except these aren't two balanced sides. There's the occupier and the occupied. The coloniser and the colonised. It's structural oppression on a huge scale.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

I feel sick.

 

[ActWan]

Damn, our whole country went ablaze with this story. I'm so sick of hearing about it.
Those who justify the soldier always say that it's alright because he killed a terrorist and that would make them more afraid and they should die etc. the soldier himself gave a lot of versions (like, that there was a bomb because the terrorist wore a coat in a very warm day)
But - he should get punishment because he broke laws and commands by his commanders and army laws too, and the bomb thing doesn't make sense because why would he shoot him instead of telling anyone?! He could miss and hit the bomb you know!
Fuck I hate all the majority in our country who think he can just take the law and do whatever he wants and get away with punishment because it was a terrorist. If you think a punishment isn't necessary then criticize the many laws and commands and foundations his army was built upon ("spirit of IDF" - every soldier gets a document like this), but he should get punishment nevertheless!
I have no words to say about Bibi, I just hope he won't get elected again.

 

[knight123]

But he wasn't a terrorist Actwan, he attacked an armed soldier in the West Bank. Terrorism is the targeting of civilians. An army can't occupy a country and build illegal colonies then complain when people attack the military. That's resistance, not terrorism.

 

[ActWan]

But he wasn't a terrorist Actwan, he attacked an armed soldier in the West Bank. Terrorism is the targeting of civilians. An army can't occupy a country and build illegal colonies then complain when people attack the military. That's resistance, not terrorism.

Hmm no, terrorism is by definition not "the targeting of civilians", there are a lot of definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism the main one that pops up in google is: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
And see this for explanation I guess, might explain my definition more:

The Hebrew word most used for terrorist is the same as saboteur, or destroyer rather than how English handles the connotations of spreading terror.

Terrorism is regarded not the same way as "to terrorize" but in an existential way to "eliminate or undermine" the state.

I guess I should've used the word Saboteur, it's the most accurate translation of the Hebrew word.

 

[knight123]

Hmm no, terrorism is by definition not "the targeting of civilians", there are a lot of definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism the main one that pops up in google is: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
And see this for explanation I guess, might explain my definition more:


I guess I should've used the word Saboteur, it's the most accurate translation of the Hebrew word.

Under that definition any act of war or resistance should be labelled terrorism.

My point is that there is nothing immoral about an occupied people attacking the occupying militants