Freed Israeli hostage filmed extending hand to Hamas militant in video released by group

[Donkees]

Oct 24, 2023

[AntivaxHunters]

1. A gesture of humanity

It reminds me of what MLK once said...

"There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies."

[Donkees]

2. She and her husband are peace activists

Yocheved Lifshitz, an Israeli grandmother released by Hamas terrorists on Monday, is a peace activist who together with her husband helped sick Palestinians in Gaza get to hospital for years, her grandson told Reuters.

[AntivaxHunters]

3. We need more people like her

In this world

[Beastly Boy]

22. This is a loaded proposition

I hope you dont mean more people like her being kidnapped, beaten, held hostage, living in fear, her life threatened, and being used for propaganda so some bleeding hearts abroad can gush over the humanity of cold blooded murderers.

[AntivaxHunters]

25. Ya that's exactly what I meant

JFC.

I could write something about baseball & someone would say "why do you hate football?"

[Beastly Boy]

35. Perhaps if you were to stick to writing about baseball,

your snark would be warranted.

But you are writing about a woman who is a victim of a war crime, and you are wishing for more women like her. You can see the difference, can't ya? Context, please!

The least you can do is explain yourself without trivializing hostage taking.

And yes, I want you to say what you mean so I have a record of you saying it.

[AntivaxHunters]

55. Why the gaslighting?

It's quite obvious what I said & meant.
If more people had the sort of grace she has then this world would be a much better place.

[Beastly Boy]

62. Clearly, I have questions about what you said vs what you meant.

Not what you said about the victim, but what your statement inplies about hostage taking in general and this instance of hostage taking in particular. This is the immediate thing that entered my mind upon reading your post. Wouldn't it be far simpler to explain yourself rather than keep deflecting into snark and innuendo?

I find it strange that you keep skirting the direct response.

[AntivaxHunters]

74. I've explained what I meant

[Beastly Boy]

77. Snark is not synonymous to explanation.

Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2023, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

In fact, it signifies a desire to avoid an explanation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Obviously, they were replying to a post that described what Ms. Lifshitz did

and so they were saying more of that is needed.

You, on the other hand, are insisting on seeing her purely as a victim, taking her agency away, and pretending that a DUer would be saying "we need more victims".

Have some shame. Partly for pretending that's what DUers think, but mainly for ignoring the deeds of the person whose experience you are hijacking for your political purpose.

[boston bean]

68. She is a victim. You want to see her gesture as

Hamas humanity as well as her own. Nope.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. Bollocks. You don't get to say I want.

I've said fuck all about "Hamas humanity". You are the one saying her words shouldn't be reported.

[boston bean]

96. The implication is her handshake and his back because they treated her oh so well

is glorious. Bullshit.

[Beastly Boy]

75. Obviously, the reply was to what Mrs Lifshits did, not what she does.

And what she did cannot possibly be considered outside of her being a hostage. The "We need more women like her", in this particular case, can be taken in two different ways: either outside of the context of Mrs. Lifshitz being a hostage or, if taken within this context, implying that we need more hostages like her.

When the fact of her being a hostage is indisputable, and when the event depicts her action as a response of a hostage to her captor, my request for clarification is not exactly unexpected. The latter interpretation seemed too unbelievable to me, so I requested a response that would confirm that the former was the intention of the poster, however extraneous to the situation discussed in the thread. I received snark in response.

Shame on me for not keeping my mouth shut.

[TigressDem]

31. Consider it grace under pressure.

People who are constant with their values, no matter what the situation.

Even though Hamas did unspeakable damage and Israel is fighting back and possibly wounding civilians too..... this is one step toward peace.

IF these two countries can find a way to work together, it's better than constant war, don't you think?

Not even from a namby pamby peacenik perspective, but simply that having bombs going off in your town is destructive and causes the kind of life problems that sometimes can not be solved at all, because you die.

IF a person like her can get through to cold blooded killers and that helps turn the tide, it would have to be a good thing.

BUT there are a lot of hostages left that probably weren't treated with any respect.

So I get your point. Until they actually stop the violence and return all the hostages, it's only a token gesture.

[obamanut2012]

33. The poster said nothing like this

I do not understand why you attacked them.

This woman showed grace and courage many wouldn't have, she has been a peace activist almost her entire life, and that shows how true her heart and mind are. But you had to come and accuse a poster who said NOTHING BAD against anyone, but only showed praise for this brave woman.

Why?

[Beastly Boy]

54. "Them"?

The only people I am attacking are the hostage takers, including the man who shook his victim's hand.

The post you are replying to is my challenge to the implied sympathy for the hostage takers. There is no question about the handshake taking place in the context of perpetrator/victim relationship. regardless of the woman's intentions, she was being used. My tongue in cheek response to the mention of "women like her" is an expression of my awareness of this relationship, understanding the glaring inequality of the parties involved, as well as an expression of my intolerance and lack of sympathy for war criminals, not the woman.

I consider myself completely justified in attacking the war criminals and questioning the congruity of "women like her" statement.

[claudette]

57. Dear

Lord!

[Beastly Boy]

63. Your response leaves a lot to be desired.

Like content and context.

Too much to ask?

[Mossfern]

88. I thought as you did

this photo would be a great propaganda piece for Hamas.
(I think that was your point...)

[obamanut2012]

32. My first thought when I saw your OP

She doesn't see them as enemies. We can hope maybe her grace softened the hearts of some of her captors.

[Donkees]

60. She and her husband Oded devoted their lives to human rights:

Oded Lifshitz worked for decades for peace and the recognition of Palestinian rights, including in his work for the left-wing newspaper Al-Hamishmar. In recent years he was among the volunteers of the On the Way to Recovery, an association that transports Palestinian patients for treatment in Israeli hospitals. Every week, he went out in his car to the Erez checkpoint to transport sick residents of Gaza for treatment in the hospitals in Israel.

In 1972 he was one of the leaders in the defence of the Bedouin residents of the Rafah basin, south of Gaza, who were expelled by the occupation authorities in Sinai. He was among the first journalists who arrived in Sabra and Shatila and reported about the massacre that took place in the Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut in September 1982.

https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource/nuj-calls-for-release-of-hostage-oded-lifshitz.html

[Beastly Boy]

79. I am afraid that we will see how realistic your hope is very shortly.

We just have to watch how many hostages will be released, on what terms, and how many of them will be killed.

The odds don't look good for the hostages from where I stand.

Mind you, taking hostages is a war crime and releasing them does not absolve hostage takers of the crime. Killing or harming hostages in any way is an additional war crime. There is no "both sides" to this.

[Beastly Boy]

11. Under the threat of death

Or as a condition for release.

It warms my heart.

[AntivaxHunters]

13. :eye roll: sure

[Beastly Boy]

18. Tell me that her life and safety weren't threatened every second while

she was held hostage, including the time she was recorded for that propaganda flick.

I have that eye roll smilie and a "sure" ready to go.

[AntivaxHunters]

26. She's a peace activist

I'm sorry her gesture upset you.
I stand by what I said with the MLK quote I posted.

[Beastly Boy]

45. She was also a hostage.

What upsets me is the presumed reciprocity of the war criminals to her gesture that your MLK quote implies, not the gesture itself. It is not warranted in a victim/perpetrator relationship. Wishful thinking at its worst, which amounts to cuddling the perpetrators.

[flying_wahini]

93. You sure know a lot for someone who wasn't there.

You presume a lot.

[Beastly Boy]

94. That goes for 99.9% of DUers.

Some presume that they know a lot.

Others presume that I presume a lot.

So tell me what presumptions you find particularly offensive and why.

[boston bean]

4. Oh yes thanking your hostage taker for treating you well, while

they still hold your husband hostage means what?

I am not going to turn murderous hostage takers, kidnappers, murderers as having any moral character.

What about the babies and toddlers they have?

Release every fucking hostage!

[Mossfern]

5. Stockholm syndrome?

n/t

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. The concept of "Stockholm Syndrome" was made up to cover up cop incompetence in a hostage situation.

[Happy Hoosier]

10. Probably not.

More like trying to reach her captor and demonstrate her humanity. After all, her husband is still held.

It's harder to kill someone when it becomes personalized and you can't dehumanize them.

[Beastly Boy]

14. Hostages have no choice in matters like this

If she were free and safe, she probably would have cut his throat, like he did to those he didn't take hostage

[Celerity]

15. Stockholm Syndrome's a misogynistic construct, invented by one of the worst of our most influential Swedes

Nevilledog's OP:

Stockholm Syndrome is a myth invented to discredit women victims of violence

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217540135

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1611171203783294977.html'm

I just read -- in the book SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO by Jess Hill -- about the incident in Stockholm for which Stockholm Syndrome is named, and I am royally pissed off on behalf of all women, buckle up.

So, in 1973 there was this bank robbery In Stockholm. Two gunmen took four bank clerks hostage. This doesn't happen much in Sweden, and the police response can most charitably be described as inept. They surrounded the bank and kept it under siege for six days. The public was rapt. The police probably felt they couldn't back down.

They got off to a bang up start when they sent their psychiatrist Nils Bejerot and a teenaged kid THOUGHT was the gunman's younger brother into the bank to negotiate. The kid was not in fact the younger brother and he got shot. Nils got out, though. Put a pin in that.

One of the hostages was a woman named Kristin Enmark. She strategically got close to the gunman who seemed more sane and more stable, because she thought that getting his protection was the best bet for getting out of there. Definitely she didn't want to leave their lives in the hands of the police. She tried to talk to our friend Nils on the phone -- he refused to talk to her.

snip



my add to that OP thread

Nils Bejerot was an asshole on many fronts, one of worst of the influential Swedes. Besides inventing Stockholm Syndrome, he was one of the chief architects of Sweden's crazy draconian drug policy, and also helped shaped the US's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bejerot

Nils Johan Artur Bejerot (September 21, 1921 – November 29, 1988) was a Swedish psychiatrist and criminologist best known for his work on drug abuse and for coining the phrase Stockholm syndrome. Bejerot was one of the top drug abuse researchers in Sweden. His view that drug abuse was a criminal matter and that drug use should have severe penalties was highly influential in Sweden and in other countries. He believed that the cure for drug addiction was to make drugs unavailable and socially unacceptable. He also advocated the idea that drug abuse could transition from being a symptom to a disease in itself.

snip

Before Bejerot began to participate in the debate on drugs in 1965, it was the dominant view in Sweden that drug abuse was a private health problem and that law enforcement measures should be aimed at drug dealers. Before 1968, the maximum offence for a grave drug crime was one year in prison. Bejerot objected to this and stressed the importance of measures against the demand for drugs, against users, and their importance in the spread of addiction to new addicts. Bejerot did not accept unemployment and poor private economy as explanations for increased use of illegal drugs. He pointed out that alcohol abuse in the 1930s was comparatively limited in Sweden, despite high unemployment and economic depression.

snip

Berejot also strongly advocated for strict anti-drug laws. In 1965 Bejerot started to engage in the Swedish debate on drug abuse, encouraging tough action against the new and rapidly growing problem. He followed closely a rather clumsy experiment with legal prescription of heroin, amphetamine, etc. to drug addicts, studies that formed the basis for his thesis on the epidemic drug spread. Bejerot claimed that the program should increase the number of drug addicts and showed through counting of injection marks that the number of drug addicts in Stockholm continued to grow fast during the experiment. The program was stopped in 1968. From 1968 and onward, the difference between the epidemic type, the therapeutic type and the endemic type of drug abuse was a repeated issue in Bejerot's writing and lectures. In 1969, Bejerot became one of the founders of the Association for a Drug-Free Society (RNS), which played - and still plays - an important role in shaping Swedish drug policies. RNS don't accept any of the state grants which are available. Bejerot warned of the consequences of an ‘epidemic addiction’, prompted by young, psychologically and socially unstable persons who, usually after direct personal initiation from another drug abuser, begin to use socially nonaccepted, intoxicating drugs to gain euphoria.

In 1972, Bejerots' reports were used as one of the reasons for increasing the maximum penalty for grave drug offences in Sweden to 10 years in prison. In 1974 he was called to testify as one of 21 scientific experts on marijuana for a subcommittee of the United States Senate on the marijuana-hashish epidemic and its impact on United States security. He advocated zero tolerance for illegal use and possession of drugs, including all drugs not covered by prescription, something that today is law in Sweden. In the early 1980s, he became one of the "Top 10 opinion molders" in Sweden for this. Bejerot is by UNODC and many others recognized as founder of the Swedish strategy against recreational use of drugs. His demand for zero tolerance as a drug policy was for a long time seen as extreme, but during the late 1970s opinion changed. He is without doubt the person most responsible for changing the Swedish drug policy in a restrictive direction something that made him a controversial person, both before and after his death. Many people considered Bejerot as a good humanist advocating a viable policy against narcotics and Robert DuPont considers him "the hero of the Swedish drug abuse story." Others view this as a reactionary hindering of new treatment practices against drug abuse.

snip


INTERVIEW: The past, present and future of Sweden's zero-tolerance drug policy

The new RW government is going to try to go even harder (our drug laws are already very hardcore. the police can legally stop you and do a forced blood test anytime on even the slightest suspicion you are using drugs) into a war on drugs stance. Many Swedes were raised to believe that there is no difference between weed and all the hard drugs, it is all so so bad to do.

The first part is in this podcast

Sweden in Focus: Easter traditions, threats to democracy, and Swedish attitudes to drugs explained

The drugs discussion starts around 15:30

https://play.acast.com/s/77ca3392-3d6f-434f-8821-6472a6c25d8d/642eeabb63f9a2001160c2be

The 2nd part is here

Sweden in Focus: INTERVIEW: The past, present and future of Sweden's zero-tolerance drug policy

https://play.acast.com/s/77ca3392-3d6f-434f-8821-6472a6c25d8d/642ef68c65d9170011e7825d

How did Sweden end up with its zero-tolerance attitude to drugs? (for many Swedes pot equals heroin)

Sweden has one of the most conservative attitudes to narcotic use in the world. But as recently as the 1940s, the use of amphetamines was not only legal but encouraged. We spoke to Johan Wicklén, author of a book on Sweden's zero-tolerance policy.

https://www.thelocal.se/20230503/how-did-sweden-end-up-with-its-zero-tolerance-attitude-to-drugs/

https://archive.is/5Wdiw



Wicklén, a prize-winning journalist for Sweden's public broadcaster SVT, last year published a book on the history of Swedish drugs policy titled Vi ger oss aldrig, or "We will never give way", subtitled: "This is what happened when Sweden lost the war on drugs". Generations of Swedes, Wicklén argues, have been through a process of indoctrination on drug use and drug policy, making it difficult for policy makers today to propose more rational, pragmatic solutions to the problem.

"Indoctrination", he admits in an an interview for the Sweden in Focus podcast, is "a word you're not supposed to use recreationally. But in this case, I worked on my book for two and a half years. I've been deep down the archives. I've have done my due diligence. And it's absolutely has been an indoctrination process, and you can see it in a million ways." He said that since the late 1960s, government after government has constantly sought to drill a zero-tolerance message into the public mind.

"What you can see is different amounts of political propaganda in different time periods, sometimes harder, sometimes a bit softer. But information has always been a big part of this, up until maybe the middle of the 1990s," he reports. People who went to school in the 1980s were particularly heavily indoctrinated into the idea that all illegal drugs are dangerous, with cannabis use inexorably leading to heroin addiction, and a zero-tolerance approach the only political solution. "There's a big generational gap. It's really easy to see which generations have been through this indoctrination process," Wicklén said.

Sweden's hardline stance on drugs was set in the late 1970s, Wicklén reports. "That's when the authorities formulated the idea of a drug-free society. That's when we were starting to distance ourselves from a lot of other countries. The policy is restrictive: that means that illegal drugs are not tolerated in any way. In the 1970s, our politicians stipulated that non-medical drug use was foreign to Swedish culture. It could never be tolerated." Surprisingly in the 1920s, cocaine use was widespread and in the 1930s and 1940s use of amphetamines, which Wicklén describes as 'the most Swedish drug of them all' was positively encouraged.

snip

[obamanut2012]

34. There ia no such thing as "Stockholm Syndrome" -- it is a myth

There is trauma bonding, which this isn't.

[boston bean]

6. Possibly.

But this is already being turned into, look, she thanked her kidnapper for treating her well. See they (kidnapper terrorists) aren’t so bad.

I whole heartedly reject it.

Every hostage must be released. Where are the infants and toddlers?

[obamanut2012]

36. Really? I see a life-long peace activist making an emotional connection with with "the other side"

They literally teach you this. We have no idea if she did this on purpose. She has helped those on the Gaza side for years get proper medical care, and SOP is for people who are held hostage to try and make emotional connections with your captors. She showed grace and courage and did what she should have done.

[boston bean]

50. Oh dear god I am going to gag.

This is obscene. This woman is a victim. Not grateful for what happened to her.

[Beastly Boy]

80. Think of a rape victim's emotional connection to the rapist.

And thanking him for treating her well as he raped her and releasing her when he was done with the raping.

[Mossfern]

84. Been there

hope you meant to include the sarcasm smilie.
It didn't engender any warmth from me to the monster who decided to let me live.

[Beastly Boy]

86. I meant to invite an objective analysis of the described situation.

Without additional comments, this scenario shows glaring dissonance with the sentiments expressed in the post I replied to. The dissonance is especially self-evident to rape victims, but is immediately recognized by any human being who is not totally tone deaf. The irony of even attempting to find mitigating circumstances in a rape is akin to trying to find mitigating circumstances in hostage taking. I have high hopes that this is universally understood without the assistance of a sarcasm smilie.

[Mossfern]

90. Thanks for the clarification

This entire situation has triggered my PTSD, and I may jump to erroneous conclusions because of that.

[Beastly Boy]

91. Your reaction is perfectly appropriate and far from being erroneous.

I would be more concerned if you didn't have this reaction.

Take care!

[MorbidButterflyTat]

97. OMG

I've read you inserting yourself into this conversation and making outrageous demands of posters over and over, which has been nauseating enough. You quite obviously are incapable of acknowledging anyone's viewpoint except your own.

Invoking rape survivors to use to bolster yourself is going too damn far.

This thread is not about YOU.

[Beastly Boy]

106. I take it that you have no response other than going over my perceived faults.

I hope you can contain your gag reflex as you continue to read my posts.

I can certainly contain my amusement as I read your replies.

[ms liberty]

9. So do you think she should have spit on them on her way out?

How helpful would that have been to the situation? According to the article, she and her husband are peace activists, and have helped Palestinians for many years. She probably understands this situation far better than any of us, and knows more than we ever will about it.
IMO, it is obvious. She wasn't thanking him...she was making a gesture of peace from one person to another. She humanized herself to him, and made him recognize her humanity, while she recognized his. She was almost certainly doing that because they have other hostages, including her husband. Did you see the way his hand returned her pressure when she gripped it? That woman moved at least that one terrorist, just a bit. We may never see any results from her effort, but the bravery and humanity we saw from that woman should be applauded, not insulted.

[boston bean]

12. No. I don't think it means anything other than

Being afraid. She didn’t even know where she was going. She didn’t know what was happening. What worse could have been awaiting her. It was obvious in the video.

I am sure she doesn’t thank her kidnappers for kidnapping her and her husband.

This is so twisted. I can’t even begin to comprehend that this is where we are. Hey the terrorists aren’t so bad. Right? An 80 year old peace activist who is a victim of terror shakes the hand of her captor.

What does her handshake mean to you? Thank you for not killing me? Thank you for keeping my husband, please keep him alive too? Or, HAMAS isn’t so bad, see this woman shook their hand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Maybe we should listen to her and her daughter

Asked by a reporter why she had shaken hands with the gunman, Ms Lifschitz said the hostage takers had treated her well and the remaining hostages were in good condition.

Sharone said she wasn't surprised by her mother's gesture - "the way she walked off and then came back and then said thank you was quite incredible to me. It's so her," she earlier told the BBC.
...
Ms Lifschitz and her 83-year-old husband, Oded, are known peace activists who helped transport sick people out of Gaza to hospitals in Israel, according to their families.

Oded is a journalist who's worked for peace and the rights of Palestinians for decades, Sharone told the BBC.

According to the National Union of Journalists, he used to work for newspaper Al Hamishmar, and was among the first journalists to report on the massacre in two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut in 1982.

"He speaks good Arabic so can communicate very well with the people there. He knows many people in Gaza. I want to think he's going to be OK," says Sharone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67204479

[boston bean]

20. It is being used to illustrate, see our kidnappers aren't so bad.

I reject and object to that. Why was she even ever in the position for thanking them for the slightest nicety?

I am glad they aren’t slaughtering the hostages, like they threatened, but that doesn’t change my opinion if HAMAS in the least.

What they did on Oct 7th was a terrorist attack where over 1000 were brutally murdered. Civilians, soldiers, infants, toddlers. She may not have even understood this at that time.

HAMAS want to do something good? Release every single hostage right now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. So you want the media to censor her and her daughter.

You have the choice to just not listen to them, rather than objecting to others doing so.

[boston bean]

24. No, I reject that her handshake means

anything but thanks for letting me go, but my husband remains a hostage. If she totally understood at the time what was actually happening. She looked quite confused to me.

You think she and her daughter are going to risk their husband/fathers life?

I am not going to fall for this. It should be rejected. I find it a very sad affair.

It is being used by many for propaganda reasons. That is my objection. And it is obscene. HAMAS MUST RELEASE ALL HOSTAGES NOW.

[obamanut2012]

40. You are literally implying she and her daughter are liars and/or dupes

Good lord.

[boston bean]

48. No I am not. Who took and released the video?

Who in their right mind is gonna go on offense against the people who just released you and still hold your loved one, especially when they got you on video shaking their hand? It is completely understandable.

Let’s use some common sense?

[AntivaxHunters]

27. Thank you for posting this

[Beastly Boy]

28. She was kidnapped, dragged out of her home against hr will, beaten,

transported across a state line, dragged through a maze of tunnels into a windowless room, left there woth other two dozen victims... and then she was treated well.

But let's not dwell on the part before "she was treated well" because... the hostage takers seemed like nice guys?

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. You want to know why she shook his hand? Listen to her. Listen to her daughter, who said

it was "so her". Don't just make shit up and post it here. Maybe she's different from you.

[boston bean]

30. Her husband and her daughters father is still a hostage.

What do you expect them to say?

Is her husband/father sitting there thanking them for their humane treatment after taking them hostage?

Stop using this elderly woman’s handshake to show the humanity of HAMAS. They have none.

[Beastly Boy]

47. I did listen to her.

And I listened to her entire interview, not just carefully selected parts of it. You should listen to the whole thing, not just the momentary expression of her forgiving nature at the most vulnerable period of her imprisonment.

[obamanut2012]

39. Thank you! I keep saying this and no one cares

Thank you.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

98. I do

I care about every one of your posts.

[ms liberty]

66. You seem so invested in seeing this woman

As a helpless victim, unaware of what she was doing or saying, and brainwashed by her captors. But the comments from her and her daughter show them both to be anything but that. Why are you so driven by your own opinions and prejudices that you deny these women their own agency in a situation that THEY experienced.

You're accusing people, including me, of saying terrorists "aren't so bad" but I haven't seen that comment made and I didn't make it. You're the one on this thread jumping to conclusions and jumping on people based on your interpretation of their comments. In my case, you're wrong.

[boston bean]

67. She was a helpless victim. I stopped reading right after I read that sentence. P

[ms liberty]

76. She was not a "helpless victim" she was a kidnapped hostage with a brain

Who used it. She kept her s**t together and used her head. She was relatively calm, and was aware and alert at her release. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that she had provided information to her rescuers.

She was a victim of kidnapping and was a hostage. She does not appear to have been "helpless." "Helpless" falls apart when s**t goes down. "Helpless" melts into a puddle of tears and has to be frickin' carried because they're paralyzed by their fear.

She didn't. She walked out on her own and had the presence of mind to perform an act of peace that was central to her being. Not your being or mine - hers.

Your insistence in categorizing a really brave woman as "helpless" is insulting to her, in my opinion. I believe she should be admired for her strength in the face of terror.

[boston bean]

82. She was certainly helpless in her predicament and under control of others.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. I'm not sure you even know the meaning of "certainly" any more

You're adamant that you know this woman better than she or her daughter does. Face it, you hadn't even heard of her before this. But it's all about your feelings, not reality. So much disrespect to a woman. What can we call it, since "mansplaining" isn't available? "Armchairsplaining"?

[boston bean]

95. I am certain, that I understand the word certainly.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

100. +1

[MorbidButterflyTat]

99. +1

[Beastly Boy]

17. I think that, as a hostage, she had no say in the matter whatsoever,

and was used for Hamas propaganda.

If she had a real choice that didn't involve threats to her life and freedom, she would have done worse to him than spit in his face.

[obamanut2012]

38. Yup, she literally said "Shalom"

She has helped those on the Gaza side for years get proper medical care, and SOP is for people who are held hostage to try and make emotional connections with your captors. She showed grace and courage and did what she should have done, and made that connection. I have no idea why so many here are spinning this into a negative.

As you said, she has worked with Palestinians in Gaza for many years to help them, she has been boots on the ground. It is possible to condemn Hamas and admire this woman at the same time. She obviously is still sharp, she wasn't duped, and it is annoying and disrespectful it si being implied she is a dupe and tricked into making propo.

[claudette]

52. I agree she should be applauded

It's a sad day when a gesture of simple humanity by one Israeli is cursed here as somehow being wrong. War does not create peace - war creates death and destruction (no matter WHO starts it or finishes it).

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. She said in a press conference that her experience was hell, which makes sense.

She was kidnapped. An expensive fence meant to keep her safe didn't. One of the kidnappers hit her with a stick several times. She said that during her captivity, she and the others were treated well. They were kept in clean conditions, given food and medical care, and "took care of all our needs." She exchanged greetings of peace with one of her captors as she left. All of these things can be true at the same time.

[obamanut2012]

41. The black and white thinking by some folks is gobsmacking to me

They are not even listening to what she said about her captivity, and know nothing about her background of Palestinian peace activism, or are handwaving it.

[inthewind21]

56. And that black and white

thinking Is why this nonsense never ends.

[Tomconroy]

16. The terrorists continue to hold hostages.

Hamas must be eliminated.

[DemocratInPa]

37. So innocent people should;d be killed in the process?

400 bombs dropped last night is crazy..

[Tomconroy]

46. Let me know if you have a different way to destroy hamas.

[inthewind21]

58. You mean

destroyed like the US did with Al Queda? That kind of destroy?

[Tomconroy]

61. Works for me.

Of course you have no answer to the question.

[claudette]

53. How awful

But, comments like yours and mine only get ridiculed. Hamas is BAD - is the only acceptable observation.

[boston bean]

65. They are not only bad?

Yes they are only bad. What they do to further their evil reign may include a few acts of kindness. But only for their stated goals. Which btw are the obliteration of israel and all Jews.

What do you not get about this.

They are not the Palestinian peoples savior.

[claudette]

69. Dear

Lord!

[boston bean]

70. Well, you wrote it.

[claudette]

71. I know

I was responding to your post. I'm outta here. Don't want to cause arguments. bye

[boston bean]

72. Adios.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

101. Do you think

you could cut back a bit on your dripping condescension?

I'm sick of the bullying on this thread.

[boston bean]

102. I take offense to your characterization of my comments.

They are in response to some very hostile comments to me.

My responses match the responses sent to me.

[moonshinegnomie]

21. the motorcycle rider hit me with a wooden pole,"

shes 85 years old and the were hitting her with a wooden pole


"As we rode, the motorcycle rider hit me with a wooden pole," Lifshitz recalled. "They didn't break my ribs, but it hurt me a lot in that area, making it difficult to breathe. They stole my watch and jewelry while I was on the motorcycle."

[Arthur_Frain]

42. Dollars to donuts says that particular hamas bro gets fragged in the next firefight.

Masked or not, his homies know who he is, and I’m betting they view that as betrayal.

She may as well have given him the kiss of death.

[LeftInTX]

43. We might be comparing kidnapping by US standards.

In the US, kidnapping victims are almost always killed and if not, they are usually dumped at a gas station or some place similar.

However, kidnapping of the rich in Mexico is quite frequent. They are treated better because the kidnappers usually get their money. They release their victims and are off to repeat their crime another day. In other words, kidnapping in parts of the world is literally a way of making money.

In the US, it's usually a rouse/pretext for rape, torture and murder. There is a cultural difference. Hardly anyone in the US is kidnapped for ransom. Even if there is a ransom, it's a BS ransom and they victim is usually already dead.


In other countries, when the ransom is paid, the victim is very often released.

Hamas is probably using the hostages as bargaining chips.

I think at this point, they likely don't want dead hostages, but you never know. They are unpredictable.

[obamanut2012]

59. Someone on Reddit who is from Syria said the same thing

They stated they have no idea what Hamas would do, but that it isn't a given the hostages would be treated badly (I know being kidnapped is being treated badly, but you get what I mean).

[Beastly Boy]

81. By definition, taking hostages means treating them badly.

[obamanut2012]

85. You know, you don't let one person say something without correcting and editing them -- I mean what I mean

It is just constant with a group of y'all on here -- you refuse to say anything that is not a lecture or implying the poster is wrong or stupid.

The whole damn point is that there is cultural differences in hostages and kidnapping ie expectations. You can't even say, "That's an interesting POV for non Americans. Unfortunately Hamas' record isn't great with hostages." Or whatever.


Jesus.

[Beastly Boy]

87. That's what a discussion board is about, isn't it?

If agreements with opinions were the only thing permitted, there would be no purpose to a discussion board.

I strongly believe that the act of hostage taking itself implies bad treatment of hostages being taken. I can't fathom why anyone would contest this, cultural differences and all, nor do I find any point of view that denies the evil in hostage taking particularly interesting. So why would you expect me to say something that I deplore? I doubt that even the hostage takers themselves would consider it a good deed.

BTW, who exactly do you include in a "group of y'all on here"? I am curious.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

103. +1

[Bonx]

44. She's a good person. They aren't.

[boston bean]

49. That is true.

[claudette]

51. That was

heartwarming to see. Hopefully, it means that ALL the hostages are being treated well until they are released - even while Palestinians are having their lives, homes and land destroyed every day by the bombs.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

104. It really sounds like you're saying that...

(1) this woman was treated well (she wasn't)
(2) that the hostages don't deserve to be treated well because of Israel's military campaign.

Do I have that right?

[CoopersDad]

78. I cannot give this enough Ks and Rs.

It should make it to the greatest page and linger there awhile.

Let's stop with the dehumanizing of individuals we have never met.

Lead with love.

[totodeinhere]

83. I would shake their hand as well if that could get me released from being held hostage.

And as soon as I got safely in the hands of Israeli authorities I would denounce Hamas as the egregious terroristic organization that they are.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

105. See, Hamas isn't so bad.

If you discount the whole cold-blooded massacre of 1200 innocent civilians, hostage-taking, and declaration of genocidal intent. And repression of their own people. See, they even gave this lady a free 2-week vacation in the Gaza tunnels, and her husband gets to stay even longer!

What kind and noble people.