Following up on the story posted below about the Global Peace index and how low Israel ranks comes this story that underscores that ranking and demonstrates how a country is sometimes its own worse enemy.
Two Israeli officers have testified that troops in the West Bank beat, bound and blindfolded Palestinian civilians as young as 14.
Both the soldiers, from the Harub battalion, highlighted the tight tying of the plastic hand restraints placed on detainees. “There are people who think you need to tighten the restraints all the way, until no drop of blood will pass from here to there,” one soldier said. “It doesn’t take much time until the hands turn blue. There were a lot of people that you know weren’t feeling anything.”
“The soldiers who took [detainees] to the toilet just exploded [over] them with beatings; cursed them with no reason. When they took one Arab to the toilet so that he could urinate, one of them gave him a slap that brought him to the ground. He had been handcuffed from behind with a nylon restraint and blindfolded. He wasn’t insolent, he didn’t do anything to get on anyone’s nerves … [it was] just because he’s an Arab. He was something like 15 years old.” The soldier said he saw a lot of soldiers “just knee [Palestinians] because it’s boring, because you stand there 10 hours, you’re not doing anything, so they beat people up.
There were a lot of reservists that participated, and they totally had a celebration on the Palestinians: curses, humiliation, pulling hair and ears, kicks, slaps. These things were the norm.”
This is systematic violence against people for the most part are under the authority of the Israeli government and it is this type of government sanctioned violence that keeps Israel in much the same company as Sudan, Somali, and Iraq, and it is all done with the knowledge and blessings of the US government.
It’s pretty amusing reading in a way, but I also wonder if it was written to be that way in order to obscure what is really going on; the New York Daily News is as mainstream a media outlet as they come, and we all know what that means, don’t we? Nevertheless, this article on one Daniel James Murray, aka the Capeman, threatening President Obama after insisting in a bank if he didn’t receive the money he wanted to withdraw (read that steal) without producing the necessary identification would result in someone’s death reads almost like a comic book. Capeman claims he was on a mission to kill the President, and thankfully he was caught gambling his heist away in a Nevada casino before accomplishing that mission.
Two things about this; first the kook nature of it. I believe all murderers are kooks, mentally unhinged, unstable, but the tendency to consistently portray those who plot to kill a president or actually do so in that way is conspiratorial in my view, because murderers are also calculating, and methodical, two characteristics that embody saneness. That said, why make references to this guy muttering while walking down the streets of his upstate New York neighborhood with a cape on in order to underscore that point, and why is he withdrawing money from a bank in Utah an area which houses unsavory movements some of which vehemently oppose a President Obama and a continent removed from his home state of New York? Had he moved there to become a part of the community of like minded people in Utah? That relationship has not been explored or revealed by the corporate, read mainstream, media. Finally the reference in almost all news stories on this to how Murray owns guns is telling, all too predictable and typical. It is media’s attempt to get people to recoil at the idea of private gun ownership; anyone who owns weapons must by nature be suspicious and plotting towards a violent goal. My retort to the anti-gun bias in Murray’s story is if he is as mentally unbalanced as some assert in news reports, how was he able to legally possess so many firearms? In many municipalities sound and emotional well being are key in order to legally purchase firearms. Was the guy mentally unbalanced or not and does the area where he purchased his firearms prohibit people who are unbalanced from owning guns? If yes, someone else is also responsible for his illegal procurement of weapons. Perhaps this isn’t the lone gunman plot we are so accustomed to reading about when it comes to attempts against politicians as it may seem?