Israel brands Palestinian detainees with numbers on their foreheads
Israel brands Palestinian detainees with numbers on their foreheads
Troops humiliate Palestinians swept up in West Bank raid by referring to them only by their numbers instead of by name
When Israel re-arrested Palestinian men in the occupied West Bank town of Dura, the detainees faced familiar treatment.
They were blindfolded, handcuffed, insulted and kept in inhumane conditions. More unusual was that each man had a number written on his forehead.
Osama Shaheen, who was released in August after 10 months of administrative detention, told Middle East Eye that soldiers brutally stormed his house, smashing his furniture.
"The soldiers turned us from names into numbers, and every detainee had a number that they used to provoke him during his arrest and call him by number instead of name. To them, we are just numbers."
You're viewing a single thread.
The headline says "brands Palestinians". The article doesn't mention branding. They had numbers written on their foreheads. Most prisons identify prisoners by numbers. Probably not a great idea to just write it on their foreheads but if you have limited ways of marking prisoners it makes sense.
Israels soldiers are shit but how about we use accurate language to describe what they are doing. Lying helps no one.
I agree with your take. Shitty headline. When I think of “branding” , I think of hot iron burnt into flesh.
What they are doing is genocide and straight from the Nazi playbook
i would strongly urge you to familiarise yourself with figures of speech lest you're -- you know -- branded as an ignorant person.
Maybe the website should learn not to use language that is ambiguous in order to push an agenda. Looking at these comments there are already a bunch of people who are assuming brand to mean scarification by burning since they evidently only read the headline.
I think they're almost certainly deliberately using ambiguous language to push an agenda. (Either that or both the author and the editor are incompetent.) And I would add that the language isn't even actually ambiguous. It's simply deceptive. "Brand" in this context would be interpreted literally by a normal reader and claiming it's a metaphor is disingenuous.
Hmm
Branded with a yellow star: the Jewish houses marked for death by the Nazis
Just as an aside, even the Nazis had the decency to not tattoo the numbers on people's foreheads.
Pretending there's no dehumanisation or othering going on here is disingenuous.
https://museeholocauste.ca/en/resources-training/the-process-of-othering/
What is Othering?
Othering is a process whereby a group of people is made to seem fundamentally different, even to the point of making that group seem less than human. This process can trigger instinctive emotional reactions towards members of that group. In many instances, othering has been used to degrade, isolate, and render possible the discrimination, abuse, or persecution of a group.
A house can't literally be branded, so the use of "brand" in that context must be metaphorical. People, however, can and historically often have been branded quite literally.
As for othering: it is irrelevant to the point I was making, so your reference to it here is a good example of how people make a false and inflammatory statement, and then when challenged about it, those people retreat to a much weaker, uncontroversial claim. Meanwhile the public has seen the original, false, and inflammatory statement but not the challenge or the retreat.
No one would care if the headline said "Israelis see Palestinians as fundamentally different from themselves" or even "Israelis sometimes don't treat Palestinian prisoners with respect." However, what the headline does say is that Israelis physically mutilate Palestinian prisoners. Here in the comments you make a pitiful argument that the claim of physical mutilation is in fact just a metaphor, although even then you try to sneak in a comparison between Jews and Nazis. Jews aren't tattooing anything on anyone, but apparently they still have less decency than Nazis according to you.
Jews aren't tattooing anything on anyone, but apparently they still have less decency than Nazis according to you.
You're equating Israelis to all Jews. Not all Jews are Israeli. Zionist much?
You're making a pitiful argument yourself. You're genuinely, literally, explicitly claiming that the headline is "claiming Palestinians are being physically mutilated". I could give you a long lecture on why that sort of asinine prescriptive interpretation is literally linguistically incorrect, but you'd just ignore it, just like you're ignoring the genocide Israel is committing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
But since you bring up the mutilation of Palestinians: https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6477/West-Bank:-Mutilation-of-Palestinian-dead-bodies-by-Israeli-soldiers-requires-international-investigation-and-accountability
But I guess mutilating dead bodies is just fine. Just like it's fine to massively dehumanise people by drawing a massive number on their forehead. Any pitiful reasoning as to why the number can't be on someone's arm, for instance? Nothing to do with constantly reminding the people who are being dehumanised that they're being dehumanised, surely. It's not like Israel dehumanises Palestinians on a systematic level, right?
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1145132
Huh, that's more than a year old.
UN rights chief warns of ‘dehumanization’ of Palestinians amid West Bank violence as Gaza crisis deepens
"Othering is completely irrelevant here" sure man. I've been through military service in my country btw, and we actually got taught what things would be warcrimes.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
Why don't you stay on topic and instead retreat to ten different other points no one is discussing or disagreeing with?
Deceptive language is being used by both sides. What is 'from the river to the sea' as an example. It doesn't help the cause if you can't concede the most simple facts (ie yeah this article is using ambiguous language to create an inflammatory headline). There is plenty of factual horrible stuff being perpetuated by the IDF - we don't need to make stuff up.
It's not deceptive in any way. You're trying to assert an insane prescriptive standard for journalists, something which is completely unrealistic. If we actually tried applying this asinine logic of yours to pretty much any other headline, you'd see how ridiculous it is.
And just like the other poster has repeatedly told you, this does conform to the definition of a brand. You just don't feel like accepting it has more definitions than a burning iron, because of course you won't, because then you'd have to accept this insane dehumanisation Israel is doing to Palestinians, something which you're literally incapable of.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand
: a mark made by burning with a hot iron to attest manufacture or quality or to designate ownership
(2): a printed mark made for similar purposes
No-one is making shit up, but you sure as shit are being apologetic about what Israel is doing. Almost as if you don't accept that Israel is committing crimes on humanity?
Who. In. The fuck. Did any apologia here? What a fucking imbecile thing to write to someone that stated clearly and emphatically that the IDF is committing plenty of heinous acts.
Hoooooly shit.
How insecure do you have to be to just pivot to name calling without engaging with what is being said. Are you a child?
"Heinous acts" is a start. Would you say they constitute genocide and/or other crimes against humanity?
You sure are spending a lot of energy arguing for genocide apologia.
There it is. The same stupid comment about genocide apologia. Even after I explicitly stated the IDF si committing heinous acts
Are you an imbecile? Can you not engage with more than one topic at a time?
Did you mix up your alts or something?
No? I'm responding to your idiotic claim about "genocide apologia" because you have nothing of value to contribute so you resort to personal attacks. It's the best the two remaining neurons in your brain can jizz out before you spaz out with froth dripping out of your ears.
Never mind. I was scrolling fast and assumed your comment was in response to mine. Point still stands: genocide apologia is so tired and old. Do better.
Also, my comment came before you even said what you said?
...Are YOU an imbecile? Are you so enraged and emotional that you're unable to logic and keep facts straight? I think maybe you shouldn't be arguing with people when your perception of reality is so faulty.
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one that brought up "genocide apologia" in peak lemmy fashion although it is not at all the topic and I've conceded that genocide is happening. Cant help yourself I guess?
It's important that you use some label in a convo at least once a day, right?
... there are already a bunch of people who are assuming brand to mean scarification by burning since they evidently only read the headline.
anyone who actually thinks that that headline means literal branding is an illiterate dumbass who needs to read more.
anyone who's trying to sidestep the dehumanisation of prisoners mentioned in the article by throwing focus solely on the literal meaning of the word brand is an amoral dumbass who needs to understand humanity and history more.
I will admit that my first thought was literal branding. This is the IDF we're talking about.
So... 99% of the users in these comments?
Yes, but I think it's also intentional to mislead for clicks.
This is still a heinous act of dehumanization,... When I hear of a human being marked as a "brand" I think of a hot iron. I opened the article fearing the worst. Thankfully this is not that.
If we're comparing with established prison practice let's also mention how prisoners also get human rights, habeas corpus, due process, equal treatment and stuff like that. Israel has none of that for Palestinians.
According to the article this is not standard practice at all. The number practice continued during their arrest while they were beaten and tortured
More unusual was that each man had a number written on his forehead.
"The soldiers turned us from names into numbers, and every detainee had a number that they used to provoke him during his arrest and call him by number instead of name. To them, we are just numbers."
According to the PCHR, most detainees are beaten during these campaigns, and the Israeli army is trying new steps to intimidate them.
"Usually, a Palestinian is arrested and transferred to a known interrogation centre where he is interrogated. But the Israeli soldiers have replaced that with these humiliating measures, and they say that they have the right to detain any person for six hours without reporting him as a detainee to the Israeli army," Abu Hawash said.
Here is an article about numbering of prisoners in the California penitentiary system. It's been a system to identify prisoners for more than 100 years. Numbers are used to dehumanize all prisoners. It isn't an israeli/palestinian thing.
I only have an issue with the use of "branding" in the headline. If you can't link to a source that doesn't use deceptive headlines then don't post anything. You can't really convert people in good faith to your cause if you're lying to them with ambiguous language.
They do not write the numbers on their forehead from the pictures I see in that article
They wore clothing with numbers on it. The prisoners were numbered and only referred to by that number while they were in the system. Just because they had a number written on their forehead instead of on their clothing doesn't really change the fact that they were numbered.
The only reason your article is getting upvotes is because people assume the palestinians are being branded with numbers (since that's what the headline says). They aren't being branded. Numbers written on someone are not the same as numbers branded on someone.
Again I think the israelis are a bunch of cunts and are dehumanizing the palestinians but you shouldn't lie in a headline. That is unless you're trying to be deceptive...
This user made a great analogy https://lemmy.world/comment/13210775
But besides that, there is a different level of dehumanization when writing directly on people. Especially when combined with beatings and torture.
The parallels are eerily similar, which was likely what the author was trying to evoke as well.
So once again you just ignore the "branding" issue. I'm blocking you since you obviously have some sort of agenda and don't engage in good faith. Good day.
Once again you focus on irrelevant minutae to avoid acknowledging that it is a comparable dehumanization tactic.
Dehumanization happens to all prisoners.
They are not prisoners. They are Palestinian hostages who had been jailed and tortured without trial. Turns out they were innocent and then released.
Osama Shaheen, who was released in August after 10 months of administrative detention
Not all dehumanization is the same.
Numbers on an outfit are different than numbers written on foreheads.
As an aside, I've never understood why people announce they're blocking someone, unsubscribing, etc. Nobody cares except you. What's even more weird is when someone claims "I'm blocking you" then keeps arguing with that person.
Example:
And here you are two hours later still responding to the person you "blocked."
For someone being so pedantic about the definition and misuse of a word you seem to be doing the same thing you're complianing about: using a word to be misleading.
Blocking means you don't engage with that user in any way anymore. You mislead us into believing you were going to block someone (as weird as that is to announce it) and continue to debate that person.
I have no opinions on the debate you're having, I just felt the need to point out your hypocrisy.
Wow, what strong resolve you have for your side.
My side is proper use of language and not using rage bait or deception to try and get clicks.
I have no dog in the israeli/palestinian conflict other than saying the israelis should stop committing war crimes and end apartheid.
But keep making assumptions. It's a good look on all of you. /s
Sure.
That's why you gleefully announced you were blocking a person to close in your echo chamber more to ignore reality and why you refuse to look up the definition of brand and use a specific version that you want so you can claim it as wrong?
1): a mark made by burning with a hot iron to attest manufacture or quality or to designate ownership (2): a printed mark made for similar purposes : trademark
Cause printed would cover using a marker or tattoo on someone's body. Literally.
Or are you just upset people are upset at this and want to excuse it so that people are less so? If you have no fight in this leave and don't respond to people here anymore. You are off topic and bad at vocabulary anyways and it's distracting.
Oh look, another clown to block.
Brand
1): a mark made by burning with a hot iron to attest manufacture or quality or to designate ownership
(2): a printed mark made for similar purposes :
It mentions a printed mark. Read a dictionary next time you are
boardbored and want to defend the IDF.Edit: God I hate modern autocorrect and IDF bought people being wrong while pedantic
It's not a trademark and it's not a mark made with a hot iron, so atleast according to the definition that you tried to use as a gotcha, it's not a brand.
Edit: After I had commented, the person edited out part of the 2nd definition so that the definition would fit their narrative. What was edited out: " (2) : a printed mark made for similar purposes : trademark".
From Miriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand
They're basically using the (edited) definition of trademark branding to claim that these written numbers are a branding.
Its an example of. It was tagged as see also. And it's literally says "printed" what the hell.
I'm sorry I left in the direct dictionary text so it can be nitpicked as to how writing numbers on people isn't "branding"
How is there this many people that can argue against a dictionary?
Because it's not a brand and the dictionary is clear on that, you just lack reading comprehension.
Nazi Germany branded concentration camp inmates with numbers. And a thing about brands is that they last, those former inmates were branded with those numbers for life. An erasable tempory mark is not a branding. The paper is trying to paint it as such but their wording in the title, but it's not and because they used the wrong word, there will be people who will wrongly believe that Israel is marking prisoners in the same way as nazi Germany was (by branding them).
A printed mark to designate ownership.
Wrote numbers on their forehead to dehumanize them.
Nope. Not even touching the comparison to concentration camps cause it doesn't matter. They were branded. You not liking the word cause of your own connotations does not make it incorrect.
"A printed mark to designate ownership." is about trademarks, intellectual property. You're basically saying that Israel trademarked the skin of those prisoners.
Opening a dictionary and looking up a word is one thing, you still need some basic amount of reading comprehension to interpret what you are reading in that dictionary, which you're clearly lacking.
A representative example is not the whole beginning and end of a definition my dude/ette.
They did mark ownership. Their prisoners. They marked them to show they are in ownership of the IDF and used numbers to easier organize. It's a thing that's pretty basic just not usually done on skin which is why people are upset and trying to cover for this.
My grandmother was an ilenglush teacher and would be really upset if you were in her class.
You get a C- for definitions and reading comprehension. Class dismissed.
Damn, editing the definition of a word to push a narrative, what a shithead you are.
For the curious, here's the part that was edited out: " (2) : a printed mark made for similar purposes : trademark"
From Miriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand
The shithead is using the definition of trademark branding to claim that the article is correct in using "branding" to describe those markings. No hot iron or other permanent methods of marking (like tattoos like I've seen claimed elsewhere) were used afaik. So Teft was correct in their remark that "brand" was not the right word to use.
Read a dictionary next time you are board
So ironic.
Yeah that one is a bit funny. Autocorrect can be a bitch. Doesn't explain you demanding a different word because it has a definition you don't like and ignoring it.