PSYCHOLOGIST FINDS ISRAELI TROOPS ENJOYING BRUTALITY AGAINST CIVILIANS
CONAL URQUHART, OBSERVER, UK - A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behavior of the country's soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. . .
According to Yishai Karin: 'At one point or another of their service, the majority of the interviewees enjoyed violence. They enjoyed the violence because it broke the routine and they liked the destruction and the chaos. They also enjoyed the feeling of power in the violence and the sense of danger.'
In the words of one soldier: 'The truth? When there is chaos, I like it. That's when I enjoy it. It's like a drug. If I don't go into Rafah, and if there isn't some kind of riot once in some weeks, I go nuts.'
Another explained: 'The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides... As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.'
20 Comments:
And since when has this psychology not been true of soldiers in all places, all wars, all times?
Palestine has been putting up with the IDF's crap since 1949. The fact that other soldiers in history have misbehaved does not excuse the IDF's sadism.
It doesn't "excuse" anybody's sadism, so what precisely is your point, 6:20?
I'd interpret 6:20's comment as being the typical victim mentality: my people's current suffering is worse than any other suffering that has ever happened anywhere, anytime and the whole world has an obligation to agree with me. Sounds a lot like the rhetoric we hear from the other side about the Holocaust. Neither side in this conflict appears to have any interest in peace; they just want the other side obliterated.
Wow 5:43 and 6:19 it is amazing how you Zionists twist everything! You guys are geniuses in the art of obfuscation and misdirection. Unfortunately, you are evil. Zionist hatred of Palestinians (and in fact of all "goyim") plus the fact that you oppress them so totally even though your own people suffered greatly in WW2 is nothing more than hypocrisy of the grossest kind. I guess it is only a holocaust when it happens to Jewish people, right?
Little known fact, Jewish lobbies were campaigning against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Probably, they feel anyone else getting recognition for suffering in the past would detract from their monopoly on having suffered. In the Jewish world view, only Jews have suffered, all other ethnicities' and cultures' suffering is not as meaningful as Jewish suffering. It is this mentality that allows them to gleefully keep Palestinians in ghettos and kill them.
You must have stopped reading 6:19 after the first sentence, 9:03. There is nothing Zionist about the post in its entirety. It is the only even-handed comment here in that it makes justifiable criticism of both sides.
The Palestinians are entirely innocent victims here.
If possible, they are even more innocent than the Jews were in Europe since at least many European Jews had gained the kind of prestigious and/or lucrative positions that tend to excite jealousies among the petty-minded.
Of course if it was sick and sickening evil (which it was!) for Germans to hate and butcher Jews wholesale out of mythologised jealousy, what word do you use for European Jews who killed total strangers in a different part of the world for gain and continue the atrocities today, 60 years on and counting, refusing to own up long after their threadbare mythologies have been exposed as the lies they were and are? What do you call that?
I think there's something wrong with anyone who can think that the Nazi leadership got the hangings they deserved ...and at the same time believe that "there's fault on both sides" in Palestine.
--Mairead
Mairead, regardless of the fact that the UK, the US, and Zionist Jews stole land from the Palestinians, the Palestinians' practice of setting off bombs in civilian areas is still immoral and counterproductive. Neither side has any moral high ground here.
Read an actual, objective history of the region from 1949 onwards. The Palestinians have no perticular moral high ground; and if the Arabs were so almighty concerned over Palestinian's 'survival' one wonders why it didn't behoove them to offer some of their own vast lands in the Saudi peninsula to aid them. Oddly, no one ever seems to think to posit questions like that these days.
the Palestinians' practice of setting off bombs in civilian areas is still immoral and counterproductive.
Sorry, but you can't possibly defend that. When people have only one way to resist, they're entitled to use that way. No ethical system worth the name requires that victims treat aggressive criminals better than the criminals treat them.
if the Arabs were so almighty concerned over Palestinian's 'survival' one wonders why it didn't behoove them to offer some of their own vast lands in the Saudi peninsula to aid them. Oddly, no one ever seems to think to posit questions like that these days.
The theft of Palestinian land and the attendent killings and maimings were legally equivalent to the Anschluss: a crime against peace, for which the penalty, exacted just 2 years before against the Nazi leadership --ex post facto, I might add-- was execution by hanging. The ongoing occupation, killings, home demolitions, etc are all crimes against humanity for which, again, the penalty established at Nürnberg was death by hanging.
Your disingenuous 'question' is equivalent to you as a home invader saying it's all the fault of the other people in the neighborhood for not paying to build and furnish a replacement home for the family you victimised. It's both ludicrous and repulsive in about equal measures and does you no credit at all.
--Mairead
As I said, read a good *objective* history of the region, not merely the stuff that supports your own predjudices regarding this (apparently endless) conflict.
read a good *objective* history of the region, not merely the stuff that supports your own predjudices
Funny you should say that. I was originally very much pro-Israel, having been steeped in pro-Zionist propaganda everywhere I turned.
But then I tripped over a few discrepancies and, to reconcile them, did some reading about the actual history of the region. After which I had no choice but to change my mind and my allegience.
Anent being steeped, I find it really quite remarkable how thoroughly the Zionist mythology was propagated in works of fiction from the '50s on, even by people with no personal motivation whatsoever, such as the late English author and attorney Michael Gilbert (see, e.g. his Night of the Twelfth and The Empty House).
Re-reading books from that time period, I'm struck by the consistency of the portrayals. The Palestinians are brutal cardboard cutouts, devoid of humanity or even a third dimension. The Israelis in contrast vary from noble to amoral, but are always dedicated, ruthless agents of the state, doing whatever serves the Higher Good of Israel's hegemony. Including, if need be, dying For The Cause. It's all bemusingly like Soviet propaganda from WW2.
So why don't you suggest some "objective" histories of the region for our edification. And in return I'll suggest a couple to you: the late Shabtai Teveth's biography of ben Gurion, and The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict by Jews For Justice.
--Mairead
Whoops! I just checked to be sure "Jews for Justice" could be found, and look what I got back:
Offensive Search Results
www.google.com/explanation
We're disturbed about these results as well. Please read our note here.
An explanation of our search results.
If you recently used Google to search for the word "Jew," you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you conduct this search.
A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for "Jew" brings up one such unexpected result.
If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:
http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp
Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than the single word "Jew." In fact, prior to this incident, the word "Jew" only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's likely that the great majority of searches on Google for "Jew" are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google's search results on this topic.
However, there is no corresponding apologia for terms like "raghead" or "sand n*gg*r" (the latter spelt out in full, of course).
Why would that be, do you suppose?
--Mairead
Why would that be? They own the freaking world!!
People who merely want their own predjudices reinforced will manage to find reinforcement for them any and everywhere, Mairead.
As for 941, the stupidity of his/her remark requires no further comment.
"As for 941, the stupidity of his/her remark requires no further comment."
The quoted words are a comment. If none is required, don't make one. Making one that tries to pretend it isn't one just makes you an @$$#*!^.
"As for 941, the stupidity of his/her remark requires no further comment."
The quoted words are a comment. If none is required, don't make one. Making one that tries to pretend it isn't one just makes you an @$$#*!^.
Could you parse that for us, please? I've tried several times without success.
Ah! As usual, the moment after I post a head-scratched request, what I didn't understand becomes clear. (Why is it always after?)
I'd have thought the comment to which you replied would have been clear, too. But maybe that's only because the meaning was clear to me. I'll insert the elided portion for your convenience:
As for [the person who wrote] 941, the stupidity of his/her remark requires no further comment [than this one (i.e., that it was a stupid remark)].
HTH.
--Mairead
Thanks, Mairead. Pity that there are folks out there who actually needed to have that pointed out to them. Elision is a common grammatical usage; unfortunately, few readers of the younger generation seem to possess the skills in reading comprehension necessary to parse it out.
Wonder if 823 is the one who made the stupid comment in the first place. If so, that would make them somewhat of an authority on making an ass of oneself.
Post a Comment
<< Home