Ahed Tamimi: Palestinian viral slap video teen goes on trial

[Eugene]

Source: BBC

Ahed Tamimi: Palestinian viral slap video teen goes on trial

13 February 2018

A Palestinian teenage girl filmed slapping an Israeli soldier has gone on trial in an Israeli military court in a case which has split public opinion.

Ahed Tamimi, 17, is charged with 12 offences, including assaulting security forces and incitement to violence.

If convicted, she could face a lengthy jail term.

For Palestinians, Ms Tamimi is a symbol of resistance to Israeli occupation, but many Israelis regard her as a violent troublemaker seeking publicity.

Amnesty International has called for Ahed Tamimi's release, accusing Israel of discriminatory treatment of Palestinian children.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43032411

[Nitram]

1. It seems to me Israel loses the high ground here if they imprison an unarmed girl for slapping an

armed soldier. Don't Israeli soldiers get enough self-defense training to block a slap or two? From what I understand, the soldier was standing on her private property.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Like Shitler, anything that can be ignited for use as a racial flame will be doused with gas.

Shitler and Bibi have the same base Base.

[Mosby]

3. seriously?

What would happen if you tried to punch an American cop? Or any cop anywhere in the world?

The IDF guy showed a remarkable amount of restraint, as he should when dealing with a child. He should be applauded, and she should be prosecuted for assault and battery.

[Nitram]

4. Isn't the soldier part of an occupying army that has invaded this girl's homeland?

I'd say she showed restraint.

[aranthus]

5. So hypothetically

A German teen in 1947 would be justified to slap an American, British, French, or Russian soldier?

[Nitram]

6. Interesting analogy.

Are you suggesting the Palestinians have invaded and annexed the surrounding countries, while murdering millions of civilians in their own country? Has the UN authorized Israel to occupy Palestinian land to keep the peace? Isn't it the Israelis who are illegally occupying and annexing more and more Palestinian territory for additional Lebensraum?

[aranthus]

7. The Palestinians started the war.

With genocidal intent. They are the original aggressors. The major difference between Nazi Germany and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians did not have the military power to carry out their intent.

[Nitram]

8. The Palestinians have not committee the atrocities that the Germany did. But Israel

has great military power (thanks to military aid from the US) and has committed crimes against humanity on multiple occasions. You can't punish Palestinians for not doing things they said they wanted to do. Think about it. Israel has the power and the responsibility to wield it humanely. Israel has failed to meet that challenge. Considering the history of the Jews, I hoped they would behave in a more humane way when the opportunity arose. Is it a case of becoming that which you hate? It shouldn't be the first time. Hate is corrosive. Israel has disappointed me.

[aranthus]

9. It's not about atrocities.

It's about who started the war. Who is the aggressor. That is the Palestinians. So you blame the Israelis for going overboard defending themselves when if the Palestinians hadn't started the war, then the Israelis wouldn't have to defend themselves in the first place.

[Nitram]

10. You narrow the topic to suit your beliefs. I stand by my previous post.

Tell me where I'm wrong or let it go.

[aranthus]

11. No. You are bringing in irrelevant assertions.

To review. You claimed that the soldier was part of an occupying army, as if that made the girl's slap legitimate resistance. I pointed out that that would mean that a German after World War Two could legitimately slap an Allied soldier. You have no real answer to that, so you have to make up that the Allied occupation of Germany was the result of German attrocities. Except that it wasn't. Germany was occupied because the Germans started a war to conquer other countries and lost. The Palestinians started a war to conquer the Jewish state, and so far they have lost. That the Palestinians have not committed attrocities on the scale of the Nazis is irrelevant.

[Nitram]

12. The occupation of Germany was by inernational agreement to keep the peace after a World War

started by Germany. The occupation of Palestinian territory is in opposition to international agreements. by the way, I referred to atrocities to remind you that it is inappropriate to compare Palestinians to Germans during WWII. As a Jew, I assumed you would understand the reason for that.

[aranthus]

20. International agreements?

No. Maybe some UN Resolutions, but those aren't agreements, and don't have the force of law (or morality) in any case. As for comparing the Palestinians to the Nazis, it depends on what you are comparing. Have the Palestinians committed atrocities on the scale of the Nazis? Of course not. Did they intend to? Yes. But even that isn't the point. They are clearly the aggressors. If they want the occupation to end, the the solution is for them to make peace with the Jewish state.

[sabbat hunter]

14. If the Arab Armies

Last edited Fri Feb 16, 2018, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)

had defeated Israel in the War of Independence, there likely still would not have been a Palestine formed. It probably would have been split up between Egypt, Jordan, Syria, with a likely war between those three to see who controlled what areas.

Even before the declaration of the state of Israel, Jordan tried to come to an agreement with Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir, to not declare independence, and instead become a part of Jordan/TransJordan, with guaranteed seats in their parliament, etc. There would have been no state of Palestine.
It really wasn't until after 67 when Israel captured the WB that the Arab countries suddenly found a passion for a state of Palestine. Otherwise they could have declared one well before that.

This is not to say that Palestinians do not deserve their own state (based in most of the WB with the exception of the old city of Jerusalem). They can have their capital in the eastern sections of Jerusalem, outside of the old city.

edited to correct eastern where I had western.

[Nitram]

15. "They can have their capital in the western sections of Jerusalem, outside of the old city."

Why is the old city of Jerusalem excluded?

[sabbat hunter]

17. If you notice

Israel doesn't have its capital in the old city, but in the areas out side the old city.

Jerusalem was supposed to have been an international city run by the UN. But the UN long ago abrogated that duty. It does not belong to the Palestinians. They have no historic ties to it as a capital city, only a religious one.

[Nitram]

18. I see your point. I agree.

[aranthus]

19. I think it's much worse than that.

Not only would there not have been a Palestinian state, but any Palestinian who seriously thought about it, especially the leadership, would have known that a war would mean that there would be no Palestinian state. On the Palestinian side, the war wasn't about whether there would be a Palestinian state. It was about whether there would be a Jewish state.

[sabbat hunter]

21. I think that

the Palestinians wanted a state of their own, but none of their fellow Arabs in the other countries cared one way or another, as long as there was no Israel. If the Arab armies had won, Jordan would likely have split the area up with Egypt, with eventual wars between the two countries over territory.

[aranthus]

22. Maybe, but it's hard to explain two things.

If the Arab states had the intention of splitting up Palestine (and it was pretty obvious that that was what they were going to do; the British certainly were in on that), then how could the Palestinians have not known? Pretty sure the Israelis figured that one out, so how come not the Palestinian leadership? If they truly wanted a state of their own, the one thing that they would not have done is to start the war that they actually started. So how is it that they did the one thing that prevented them from having a state, if they wanted one? And if the Palestinians truly wanted a state of their own, then why is it that they never called for it until after 1967? Why not demand a state in the West Bank and Gaza all those years?

[sabbat hunter]

23. I agree

Why not call for it before 67. I think we know the answer. At the time the destruction of Israel was paramount over everything else.

Who knows if we would have an intra-arab war now with Palestinians fighting Egyptians and Jordanians if there was no Israel.

We do know that King Abdullah certainly didn't want a Palestine in 47. He even offered Golda Meir a guarantee of seats in his parliament if they did not declare independence, and instead became a part of Jordan. He knew that the nascent Israeli forces were well armed and trained, and that they would likely win. He was forced to fight the war due to pressure from his fellow arabs, who wanted to fight, thought they would win.

[sabbat hunter]

13. First off

Israel has not murdered millions of civilians. No where close.

Secondly, a German citizen may have easily seen US forces after WW2 as an occupying army. The agreement to have Allied forces in Germany after WW2 was forced on Germany.

[Nitram]

16. Sabbat, you are a little confused. Aranthis was comparing Palestinians to Germans, not Israelis.

Aranthus also compared Israelis to the Americans and other nationalities that occupied Germany for 3 years. I merely suggested that it was a very poor analogy in both cases.

Germany could look at it any way they liked, but the international community took measures to restore peace and set up a democratic system of government. Germany had committed heinous crimes against humanity. After the war they had no government and the country was occupied for 3 years to keep the peace until a democratic government could be formed. How long has Israel occupied portions the West Bank?