Home | About | Donate

Complying With Israeli Censorship Order, NYT Conceals Name of Soldier Who Shot Wounded Palestinian


#1

Complying With Israeli Censorship Order, NYT Conceals Name of Soldier Who Shot Wounded Palestinian

Glenn Greenwald

Last Thursday, an Israeli soldier was arrested after the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem posted horrific video of the soldier shooting a 21-year-old Palestinian man in the head from point-blank range, and killing him, even though he was already shot, wounded, and lying incapacitated on the ground. The killing took place in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron after the Palestinian man, Abed al-Fatah al-Sharif, stabbed an IDF soldier at a military occupation checkpoint.


#2

"The soldier’s name was not used in the Israeli media, but his supporters online, calling him a hero, drew attention to what appears to be his Facebook profile."

With "heroes" like him, who needs villains?


#3

I keep thinking about how the dehumanization of human beings leads to murder of the other as if they weren't human but to be disposed of if they fight back and object to being confined in a ghetto or whatever. Rachel Corrie was murdered too and she hadn't attacked anyone.

Straight out murder is being justified? Is this our ally?

What the hell is this? And let's be real... Where does this lead as time goes by?


#4

yeah, the problem remains that when we mentally dehumanize the other, we lose touch with our own humanity.


#6

Yes but we are not walking around with loaded assault rifles! I agree with you. It takes an effort to train to become dehumanized. Some people are like that anyway of course but there is also a cultural process involved here where people are trained to 'see things differently' than they normally do for themselves.

The golden rule is inverted. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' ...becomes 'It is okay to do unto them what you dont want done to You!'

All I am asking is whether outright murder is being justified now?


#8

You know I agree with your points but why is it that everything has to be lumped together with a big picture viewpoint when a crime is right there by itself and matters 'by itself'?

Yes things are related but when talking about one event then talk about it and when talking about the big picture then talk about that because otherwise this murder becomes shuffled into the big picture and is lost. I am not saying that the big picture shouldn't be talked about because it should and like you say, it should be talked about more but isn't.

However, putting aside this uniquely obvious murder is unfair because it is deserving of its own disciussion because it is so damn obvious and inescapable. The big picture can be debated and so forth. What can be debated here about this murder? The person was immobile and splayed out on the ground. There was no movement or any mitigating circumstances to invite a shooting. It is plain murder and the question should be whether open murders like these are going to be permissible?

Just my opinion but if every incident is cause for discussion about something else (like the big picture) then it is soon lost in the discussions that follow. The discussions will only be about that something else and things like this murder become another statistic and soon forgotten.


#9

Wicklund, maybe this incident being so clear cut is an answer to your question about how

This incident shows that dehumanization in action. This is what it looks like. A casualness towards the murder of a human being.


#10

murder is never, ever justifiable! however, in the minds of those who view themselves as the "good guys" their violence is presumed just and honorable.


#12

Right... Your "right to violence" would certainly cure violence.

Endgame said:

"I'd like to kick those smug fucking smiles off the faces of the two front assholes in the picture."

The Israeli soldiers' behavior is typical of what goes on when males get together, wear uniforms, and are taught to kill an illusory enemy.

Is it any different from the group-style orgies unleashed when a U.S. border guard kills a Mexican trying to get to see his family in Caifornia, or when a Black kid ends up targeted for merely walking down the street when a couple of cops feel like "getting some action"?

I am not condoning what was done. Far from it. However, it's so easy for people in this forum to RAGE at Israeli soldiers when their own nation's cops, border guards, soldiers, and alphabet soup agency punks are doing THIS on a DAILY basis!

Here's an apt clip:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/30/family_of_mexican_man_tortured_killed


#13

Looking at the way MALENESS and MASCULINITY are framed, shaped, codified, insisted upon, rewarded, reinforced, and normalized in a macho military culture would be the most intelligent starting point. Of course, such a stance is precisely what all the closet soldier boys don't want; nor do their Conservative Christian counterparts DARE make gender part of ANY discussion relevant to the actual state of things... with patriarchy's most dominant dominators STILL at the wheel shaping and defining the collective course.


#16

Repeating a truth doesn't make it untrue. It isn't slander if it's true.

And surely you won't contest that the perpetrators of the vast majority of violent incidents are men.

So what's your problem?


#17

You are OUT of control. Using the word "f--k" in any of its derivatives doesn't make you tough, intelligent, or convincing. It shows that you feel like a trapped animal stuck inside a cage.

I also find it curious that the odious "St. Jimmy" is suddenly missing in action, and his posts were notable for the same verbiage.

Up until relatively recently, no one saw women torturing soldiers, women marching around with weapons knocking down the homes of innocent civilians in foreign lands, women gang-raping anyone, or women lynching the Black family out back.

These are almost always MALE rituals. They reflect the MALE need (largely, conditioned) for a TOP-down pecking order based on prowess, aggression, and the will to use naked force.

My courage in talking about this is not male-bashing as much as it is THERAPY aimed at exposing where the dis-ease of such unchecked violence comes from.

Males who defend the behavior, cast aspersions at the whistle-blower who exposes it, or seek out diversions... are complicit. Arguably, they are the reason this sickening behavior survives generation after generation.

Oh, and I sure as hell will NOT stop speaking about it since so few do; and since it is the CORE of what's off-balance and what has led to the M.A.D.ness of so much war costing so much in the way of human lives, financial treasure, and natural resources.

Now you can go back to cursing yourself in your own hall of mirrors.


#18

There is nothing hypocritical about my comments here.

On the other hand, you sound like a 9 year old who's lost his cookie.


#19

It's the mark of DEEP insecurity to not be able to look HONESTLY at an issue.

Women--a few--may be capable of doing violent things but it is not typical to women, nor natural to the Feminine experience.

However, and this is what tunnel-vision, defensive males like you are infinitely resistant to recognizing: what's key is cultural conditioning.

The more violent a society, the more BOTH genders are conditioned to adapt to that violence.

However, males more readily take TO violence.

Women are not taught from age 5 not to cry.
Women are not taught from age 6 how to hunt or to glorify guns and war.

They may, instead, be taught to become nurses to patch up the dying and wounded... from war after war.

Women are not told that to "be a man" they must show aggression.

Like I said, it's males like you who keep the patriarchal monstrosity in place. And yes, some women--since they typically grow up in military and/or authoritarian, Christian Conservative homes--identify with patriarchy. A few manage to recover. Thank the Goddess for that!


#20

Hillary is which men/man's fault? How about Thatcher what man do we have to blame for her? All those soccer moms cheering the war economy and killing of the other... who's fault is that? The women reporting news on Fox, CNN who cheerlead the military. Madeleine Albright or Victoria Nuland are both architects of mass murder - better then most men at cold blooded murder. Condoleezza Rice who's fault exactly? Sarah Palin - her husband's fault? Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina ? Or how about Ann Coulter?

The list of horrific women is endless. The above is off the top of my head.

Women can vote to and they do vote so the cruise missile factory in (fill in state) can keep producing and they can keep their jobs. That's not a man's fault, that is ignorant venal women's fault. Those Israeli citizens supporting the murder are proportionally women.

You forgive the mentally lazy who don't read or think when those options are available to them but when the dumb "MAN" takes a job in the military - its a male problem.

I don't forgive the mentally lazy - and that includes men in uniforms (military or sports) but women do not get a pass either.

Yours is a blatantly sexist position. Against women. They are conditioned and can't think for themselves?

All people are responsible for their behaviour- who they vote for, what policies they support. Women too! And ignorance is not an excuse.


#22

How much time ya got? :smile:


#23

Care to try to back up such a claim? Oh and by the way please balance the scales and mention just how many millions that the people and government of the USA have fed and helped over that same period because that counts too.


#24

Why are you so full of this aggression?

Look at how dumb this is.

Um??? who does most of the child rearing after age five if not women? Who teaches the boys to toughen up and discourages girls from being tom boys if not their moms? You blame men...it is sexist. Just as it is when men blame women for something. Anything that differentiates people by groups or in this case genders is bias. Individuals all every one of us.

You come here attacking progressive men which is such a joke because we are the men who agree most with women's goals for equality. You feel powerful by attacking people who don't actually disagree most of the time about the issues presented on CD. Where is your courage or ethics? Attacking men here is not accomplishing much either.. Call it attacking the choir.


#25

SusanR never touches on the reality that Hillary is a Mars based aggressive war loving, gun promoting, laugh about a brutal killing, militaristic female.

Imagine if Hillary were a male with her same positions and war like intentions? What would Siouxrose have to say about that guy?

That is the measure of her hypocrisy... She isn't lambasting Hillary with that Mars based bullshit is she?

Anybody else figure if anyone is Mars based... It is the female candidate most of any of them (maybe Cruz is standing next to her but she leads).


#26

I am not exactly sure what Mars has to do with the matter, but Venus is most certainly a vitriolic overheated sort of place hiding behind the hypocritical glory of her silvery reflective skirts of clouds of sulphuric acid. Mars is pretty cool and hasn't done much for billions of years, though its redness could symbolise a socialistic bent.............

Behind every alpha male is an alpha female ensuring that her 24-chromosome contributions to the next generation survive to come out on top.

Need I say more? You will agree that I need not.