Video: #Flagwoman protester raises Palestinian flag on Israeli military vehicle outside Ofer prison

Israel/Palestine
on 119 Comments

Earlier today, we posted an inspiring photo of a protester climbing on top of an Israeli military vehicle as she protested outside Ofer prison in solidarity with the ongoing prisoner hunger strike. The photo has gone viral under the hashtag #Flagwoman and the protester has been identified as Rana Hamadeh.

Above is video of the protest and the aftermath when Israeli military tried to arrest her. Activists protected her from the military and were pepper sprayed at point blank range.

Abir Kopty tweeted:


Linah Alsaafin added:

119 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka
    May 1, 2012, 12:22 pm

    What insipring heroes the nation of Palestine to face down the cockroaches of the I”D”F.

  2. Annie Robbins
    May 1, 2012, 12:33 pm

    that boot in the video ….

  3. Philip Weiss
    May 1, 2012, 12:44 pm

    truly inspiring. remember the outrage in the us when a cop peppersprayed college activists at close range?
    what is the differenc.e beautiful bold palestinians hugging one another on the ground, and they spray them in the face.
    i hope the world sees this and americans honor our tradition of civil disobedience

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 1, 2012, 12:53 pm

      “i hope the world sees this and americans honor our tradition of civil disobedience”

      Sadly, we also have a much more concrete tradition of finding ways to justify injustice, especially when it comes to the oppression of the weak by the strong. I hope, but I doubt.

    • Citizen
      May 1, 2012, 6:17 pm

      Phil, you know there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of this video getting on mainstream network or cable TV. That’s the big problem. We have no in informed citizens because our press is now a propaganda arm of the government. And why is that? Look to who has controlling shares of our big five. The employees just do what they are told , those talking heads. Since we have no military draft active, nobody cares unless they get the facts tossed in their face on TV. If that ever happened you’d see a sea change in US foreign policy re I-P conflict and foreign aid to Israel.
      But it won’t happen, so on to the next Iraq (Iran, Syria), and more snatching of Palestinian land and daily oppression of the natives there.

      • Kathleen
        May 2, 2012, 9:18 am

        “now” on this issue decades

    • Today in Palestine
      May 1, 2012, 7:47 pm

      The girl getting pepper sprayed in the face is Linah Alsaafin, a journalist that has contributed to this site, Al Akhbar and Electronic Intifada. The strength that she and her younger sister show in the face of watching Israeli thugs beat, maim and kill their friends and acquaintances is inspiring, they symbolize Palestine to me.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 12:02 am

        they symbolize Palestine to me

        me too

  4. rensanceman
    May 1, 2012, 12:49 pm

    I was confused as well. I had believed that an IDF boot’s normal position was On the neck of a Palestinian–not on the hands.

    • Kathleen
      May 1, 2012, 5:27 pm

      depends what kind of mood these thugs are in

      link to youtube.com

    • Miss Costello
      May 2, 2012, 4:26 am

      It was her HANDS, not her neck, (tho’ she had plenty of that!) that did the deed; i.e. hoisted the Palestinian flag. Who knows what goes on in the warped, sadistic mind of an IDF soldier/ thug?

  5. Avi_G.
    May 1, 2012, 1:17 pm

    Time and again, Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank are arrested, attacked or punished for raising the Palestinian flag, or using Palestinian symbols.

    Since Israel and its sponsor, the U.S., continue to peddle the two-state paradigm, one would think that at the very least, Israel would allow/tolerate/condone the use of Palestinian symbols as legitimate.

    But that is not the thrust of my argument here. The thrust of my argument here is that Israel’s suppression and persecution of Palestinian symbols/flags, should give the world an idea how Israeli authorities view the non-Jewish minority living in Israel when that minority refers to itself as “Palestinian citizens of Israel” or “Palestinians of Israel”.

    And that is the reason behind Israel’s insistence on using the term, “Israeli Arabs”.

    Wholesale erasure of anything Palestinian is the goal of this Jewish state, whether on this side of the Green Line or on that side of the Green Line.

    As an aside, some fifteen years ago, at the height of the Oslo Accords, Israel built a four-lane highway — known as highway 5 or Trans-Samaria Road (Kvish Khotze Shomron) — from one of Tel-Aviv’s main junctions, known as the Glilot junction, to the Israeli colony/settlement of Ariel. The highway effectively connects the center of Israel to Ariel in the occupied West Bank.

    And professor Finkelstein still thinks the two-state solution is possible?

  6. Elliot
    May 1, 2012, 1:32 pm

    This video is evidence of IDF soldiers used pepper spray not as a “non-lethal tool for crowd control” but as a punitive measure. Similarly, IDF soldiers tasered Yonatan Shapira on board one of the boats that tried to breach the Gaza blockade.
    In both cases, there was no justification for the use of violence.

    The message is clear: if you cross us we will use violence against you.

    • Miss Costello
      May 1, 2012, 2:34 pm

      “The message is clear: if you cross us we will use violence against you”

      Even when it’s crossing a checkpoint .

  7. Denis
    May 1, 2012, 2:03 pm

    This is a Palestinian woman pepper-sprayed. No blood. No death. No lasting damage.

    Please explain why anyone would expect these images to have anymore of an impact on normal, head-in-the-sand Americans than the Israeli point-blank murder of American Furkan Dogan (The Mavi what??) or brutal murder of American Rachel Corrie (Gaza what??). Which is to say: ho-hum. I mean, the Americans barely even blinked an eye at the dozens of deaths caused by the Israeli attack of the USS Liberty.

    As long as the Israeli-firsters control the dialogue, there will be no outrage and Americans will just keep feeding the beast until it turns on them.

    • Miss Costello
      May 1, 2012, 2:29 pm

      Good point. but when she got up there, she didn’t KNOW she wouldn’t end up like
      the Rachel Corries, Tom Hurndall’s, etc. Yet, she still did it. That’s why this image SHOULD have an impact. And will.

      • Citizen
        May 1, 2012, 6:27 pm

        Remember the sole human facing China’s tanks in T Square?

    • eGuard
      May 1, 2012, 2:56 pm

      The image itself is the news, Denis.

      For me, it is pictures of armored cars between unarmed civilians that connect Israel Apartheid with South Africa Apartheid. For others, this picture rhymes essentially with the Marines erecting the flagged pole in the Pacific.

      And Israeli PR knows that it is nigh impossible to un-tell such an image & its association once it is engraved. Here is another such icon link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Blake
      May 1, 2012, 3:02 pm

      I think the internet is changing all that Denis. Far more people are aware of the Palestinian plight now thanks to the internet.

      • Citizen
        May 1, 2012, 6:30 pm

        US government is doing its utmost to block the internet chat re Israel. Check out Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Czar with a mission to infiltrate sites like these same as Hasbarabots do routinely here, and we are now getting the 4th attempt at policing the internet under mask of saving US patents.

  8. genesto
    May 1, 2012, 5:04 pm

    Congratulations to Rana and her activist brothers and sisters. The more the world sees how Israel, through its IDF henchmen, behave, the sooner will Zionism die away and peace an justice prevail!

  9. Kathleen
    May 1, 2012, 5:47 pm

    Occupation 101

  10. Daniel Rich
    May 1, 2012, 6:03 pm

    I admire and love brave and courageous women.

  11. OlegR
    May 1, 2012, 6:32 pm

    I see Abir Kopty keeps playing cops and robbers.

  12. rws450
    May 1, 2012, 7:28 pm

    Rana posted a gritty report with photos from Land Day / Global March to Jerusalem here ……
    link to rabble.ca

  13. Denis
    May 1, 2012, 9:57 pm

    Of course, all of you who responded to my earlier post are absolutely right. Ms. Ramadeh and those with her are wonderful, inspirational young people, hence my despair that main-stream Americans couldn’t care less.

    I don’t think that it is a large leap to see those same Americans as the enemy of these young people even more than the IDF clowns with the point-blank pepper-spray and sewage spraying skunk-trucks. Were it not for $100 billion in Americans’ support over the last 6 years, there would be no Israeli apartheid. It should be called American-Israeli apartheid.

    One would think that in hard times Americans would at least care about their money being wasted, but they don’t because they only see what successive administrations in Israel, US, and msm want them to see. Thank you, Michel Oren and the US/Israeli spin-machine.

  14. Samuel T
    May 2, 2012, 12:09 am

    I am amazed. Truly amazed at how: personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs can create indoctrination, dispose of critical thinking and deny any premise of objectivity. What did you see when you watched the video? Qualities like bravery, courage, of the oppressed and the oppressor, who some of view have described as thugs, and by extension to some other event> (that most likely, realistically, did not involve anyone who is actually on the posted video) maim, beat, torture, etc

    Such classifications are myopic, promote fear and ignorance, which upon consummation create the offspring named PREJUDICE. This offspring is alike to it’s Parents and carries with it the genetic predisposition of fear and ignorance combined with further qualities like blindness, deafness and sensory deprivation and retardation of a diminishing intellect. The offspring feeds off the real and imagined wounds of itself and others in a symbiotic relationship like unto a maggot devouring a rotting carcass. The stench, is formidable and assaults any [one ] who has not filled their nostrils with the putrid, divisive, and intolerable scent of hatred and vengeance.

    Back to the Video… PLAY> Scene: A woman scales what is described by Adam Horowitz as an [Israeli] Military vehicle, raises a [Palestinian] Flag and….EDIT at 10 seconds. What? Didn’t notice that? EDIT again at 13 seconds. So, now we are unaware of the actual passing of time from one event to the next event. Why is that important? Shortening the time, the actual time before the [Israeli] militia arrive? THINK

    Lets continue PLAY> STOP! at 15 seconds we have the 3rd EDIT. That’s right 3 EDITS in 15 seconds. Scene: The soldiers arrive

    O.k. Lets Roll! PLAY> alright now STOP! EDIT at 18 seconds, new camera angle we are on the opposite side of the vehicle. 3 members of the military are at the truck and the remaining soldiers are now standing farther away. There is a red spray bomb that has been just recently released on the white truck. Take a look. It’s fresh. See the red paint, o.k., now, notice the slight pinkish trail running down the side of the truck? That is solvent. That is how I know, it’s a fresh red spray bomb. THINK

    PLAY> The soldiers or (Police) talk to the woman on the vehicle (there is no shouting) they talk to each other as they begin to walk to the front of the vehicle and…
    STOP! EDIT at 26 seconds. New camera angle. LOOK. What do you see?
    It appears to be four soldiers standing in a row…
    ENLARGE THE SCREEN. Now what do you see?

    Those 4 soldiers aren’t soldiers, they are wearing protective vests, 3 with helmets, two have cameras with huge telephoto lenses… (Of this, I am jealous, personally)
    There is one soldier in pursuit. ONE SOLDIER. and 8 protesters, (not including our 4 vested, helmeted guys there for the Photo Op.

    There are two sizeable men that are protestors. WHY didn’t they scale the Vehicle and raise the Flag? Are we to assume that Men are cowards and women are heroes? That would be a dangerous assumption, and gender bias. However, I ask you WHO appears to be more sympathetic to the camera? In your subjective opinion.

    At 28 seconds we hear a scream, collective screams from the other women and watch this next scene very carefully.

    How many protesters? 8 men. One Police Officer many more women and I’m not counting all of the people male or female in yellow vests, because I’m tired, o.k. being objective, critical thinking, really looking to SEE… it takes effort.

    Back on track> NOTE: I said Police Officer. That is because I am going to compare the scenario in the video, with what would happen in CANADA,(we all love Canada, don’t we) AND how a Canadian Police Officer would act in this situation, if it happened in Canada, O.k.?

    The ratio is 8 MEN to One Police Officer, The protesters surround the woman, lock arms, and scream. The camera guy moves in close to get the footage. AND at 33 seconds in we can observe that a man grabs the “Police Officer’s” rifle.
    There is also a noticeable “flash” apparently from a camera.

    AT 33 seconds, the time when a non-Police Officer reaches for and touches a Police Officer’s weapon, in Canada, a democratic and free Country, He would be shot, centre mass, killshot and after a lengthy investigation after the incident, it would be pronounced as reasonable and necessary force. A Police Officer in Canada is trained to respond and react to certain situations so that it doesn’t require any guess-work if and when it should happen. Somebody goes for your gun. The reaction is clear. Also, in Canada, One Police Officer would not be in such a ratio of 1 to 8, neither would he enter into such close proximity with a group of protestors.

    In Canada, where we are free to use the democratic process, entitled to due process and even, participate in CIVIL PROTESTS. As long as we abide by the law which gives us the freedom to Protest. The Occupy Canada Movement has students marching in the streets in Civil Protest of hikes in tuition fees.

    What happens in this video, is a stunt, it isn’t civil disobedience. It was antagonistic, pure and simple and yet hard to see for the uninitiated. The authorities were provoked by a spray bomb,, their instructions were disregarded and the incident, the catalyst that caused one soldier to pursue was, yes EDITED from the content. This is Propaganda, not journalism, it is NOT part of a “war of ideas” it is deliberate and misleading and for a desired affect.

    I encourage you to open your eyes, your minds and your hearts toward what is TRUE. Not what supports a particular, even twisted, contrived perspective.
    This was a stunt, self-promotion and wreaks with the same authenticity of “reality TV shows” featuring Kim Kardashian and Company.

    If anyone is interested in the dissemination of the entire video.
    Post a response to this Post. OR, take initiative, slow it down, anyone can edit footage to favour a desired result, it’s called Marketing, Advertising, Corporate Culture, all those things that a number of genuine activists despise.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 2, 2012, 12:30 am

      the time when a non-Police Officer reaches for and touches a Police Officer’s weapon, in Canada, a democratic and free Country, He would be shot

      lol, dude. you’ve got to be kidding me. #hasbarafail.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 12:33 am

        I’m tired, o.k. being objective, critical thinking, really looking to SEE… it takes effort.

        uh huh. actually all it takes is imagination.

        I encourage you to open your eyes, your minds and your hearts toward what is TRUE

        you mean the innocent soldiers and police vs the big bad palestinians clutching eachother on the ground while the boot pries them apart? maybe it’s your heart that needs some prying open.

      • Samuel T
        May 2, 2012, 2:18 am

        Annie, you are demonstrating my point. You choose to see from a certain perspective that aligns with your bias. That is called “emotional reasoning” OR “confirmatory bias” Any evidence that may contradict your bias is eliminated or ignored in favour of any evidence that may confirm your bias. In the Video, confirmatory bias is demonstrated by strategically editing the footage, removing the actual context, deleting the instigation, the antagonistic actions, etc You SAW what the EDITOR of the video wanted you to SEE. Check the footage, check my noted observations.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 2:54 am

        sammy, you’re like the gift that keep on giving. tell me more.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 3:00 am

        sammy, your comment is making waves

        link to twitter.com

      • Samuel T
        May 2, 2012, 3:18 am

        Annie. Please refer to me by my given name which is Samuel. If someone wants to address me as “Sammy” they have to be considerably, 15 to 20 years older than I am, carry a combination of loose change, lint, and peppermint candies in their pockets and smell like old people.

        EDITS happen in a blink of an eye. The feeling and context of a story can be manipulated through this process. The posted video when examined by an impartial viewer revealed elements of the story that were not reported.
        You don’t have to be Scorsese (Film Director) to know that.

      • Miss Costello
        May 2, 2012, 4:35 am

        “maybe it’s your heart that needs some prying open”

        or maybe he just needs to get out more.

      • Miss Costello
        May 2, 2012, 4:41 am

        “Please refer to me by my given name which is Samuel”

        No doubt you’ll have a few more before the days out; ‘Sammy Flannel’.
        You are well up your own arse, mister

      • Citizen
        May 2, 2012, 6:02 pm

        So, Samuel T, you go around smelling old people when you are not busy trying to make people not see the obvious in a video clip meant to be short and to the point, in this case, some Israelis curtailing peaceful native demonstrators with force as they usually do? How does an old person smell different than a young person? Share your expertise.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 2, 2012, 12:35 am

      not bad for a first comment sam, you entered with a #hasbarabang.

      • Terryscott
        May 2, 2012, 12:51 am

        Annie seems to have simplified her responses. Subject-Verb-”Hasbara.”

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 2, 2012, 7:33 am

        “Annie seems to have simplified her responses. Subject-Verb-”Hasbara.””

        When all one does is spew hasbara, often times just pointing it out is enough.

      • Samuel T
        May 2, 2012, 2:44 am

        Annie, I don’t know what a #hasbarabang is. Please enlighten me.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 3:07 am

        it’s an extended version of ‘entered with a bang’. meaning your very first comment on MW. only in this case it was a hasbara-bang.

      • Samuel T
        May 3, 2012, 5:19 pm

        Annie, If I refer to you as “Orphan Annie” or “Annie Oakley” as in “Annie get your gun” a song from the musical “Oklahoma.” Is that o.k. with you? Just by the use of words, attaching labels that reference your first name together with; other known (or possibly obscure) references, a picture is painted.

        Annie you labeled me immediately with the term “hasbara-bang” and when I asked what that meant… you didn’t tell me, right? Obviously, I knew, being a “hasbara-brat” I looked up those terms this morning.

        I was somewhat confused with the onslaught of comments that depicted me as Pro-Israeli but now I understand. You decided I was “undesirable” not worthy of respect, I was like that odd kid in school, the one who was a little too different and somehow that legitimized taking away his backpack and playing “keep away” Can you relate to that picture, Annie? Did you ever see that at school? I did. Was I taunting and bullying the different kid because everyone else was (group think, mob mentality) No. Even as a little kid I knew that would be wrong. So, I must have been the different kid, the odd one, c’mon, you know right? They stand out as prey for the early education of predators. That “kid” too fat, too skinny, too short, has a lisp, a limp, the wrong haircut, something worthy of a label, geek, freak, nerd, something.

        So, is that similar to what you did? Label me. Not explain. (inside joke) and then play “keep away”, isolate me, mock me personally, and attach further labels? It was justifiable to play me as “the fool”, after all, in your mind, I was a “hasbara-brat.” Members of your community followed your lead, joined in, (group think, mob mentality) you formed a basis for you prejudice, personal attacks were justified, diminishing an individual was o.k., there was no need to THINK independently, after all as “hasbara” when I wrote THINK, it meant something entirely different didn’t it? I was “pro-Israeli” and I was telling you what to think. Is that correct?

        I am against cruelty, bullying, diminishing others, abuse, oppression regardless of any label that others may place on them, regardless of race, creed, colour, disability, gender, etc

        Am I making myself absolutely clear? Is that statement exclusionary or inclusionary of all people(s).

        That school yard scenario that I recalled earlier? I wasn’t the odd kid and I wasn’t the bully, I was the kid who interceded on behalf of the odd kid.
        Wait a minute. I guess that does make me odd, different, weird, because I was the smallest kid in school and I did that alone.

        Of course feel free to “hasbara” my comments. This is a War of Ideas isn’t it? It’s o.k. to be disgusted by the “enemy” and their behaviour and then do the same thing, right? Because that is war, it’s justifiable.

        Since I referenced Orphan Annie, a cartoon and a musical AND Annie Oakley from the musical Oklahoma, that is two musicals, so I must be Gay, right?
        AND the song “Annie get your gun” so, I’m probably all about violence, weapons, brutality, feel free to [EDIT] add or subtract, spin, “hasbara” me.

        because maybe I’m just a fag that likes guns…right?

        So Post my Comment Or act like the Main Stream Media, if it doesn’t serve your agenda, if the idea isn’t yours. DELETE, EDIT, Hasbara! O happy day!

      • Annie Robbins
        May 3, 2012, 5:24 pm

        sammy, i hear you loud and clear. i think you are spamming the thread.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 3, 2012, 5:37 pm

        Wow, sammy, grow a pair, why don’t you.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 3, 2012, 5:40 pm

        oh, and you might try following the conversation. wrt you labeled me immediately with the term “hasbara-bang” and when I asked what that meant… you didn’t tell me, right?

        i absolutely answered you here: link to mondoweiss.net

      • Kathleen
        May 2, 2012, 9:21 am

        ding ding

    • Blake
      May 2, 2012, 12:48 am

      You cannot compare Canada to a 64 year occupation. You mentioned the word indoctrinated. Projecting much.

      • Samuel T
        May 2, 2012, 2:59 am

        Blake I am comparing the action(s) of activists and the corresponding action(s) of Soldiers, Police, Civil Authorities. The point of comparison was that Activists that engage in civil disobedience or civil protest, even in, a Country such as Canada may receive consequences that are similar to those portrayed in the EDITED Video.

        Even in the United States, going back to the protests in Seattle concerning the WTO, people who were peacefully demonstrating and exercising their civil rights to engage in public civil protest were subjected to arrest by law enforcement who also deployed pepper spray. Check out a documentary of the live footage then compare that with the posted video and decide which one is real and which one is not.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 3:22 am

        going back to the protests in Seattle concerning the WTO, people who were peacefully demonstrating and exercising their civil rights to engage in public civil protest were subjected to arrest by law

        yeah, and the difference between our country and israel is the protesters sued the seattle police department for false arrest and won.

        link to washingtonpost.com

        SEATTLE — A federal jury found the city of Seattle liable Tuesday for the unlawful arrests of a group of protesters during the World Trade Organization meeting in 1999, a ruling that could cost the city millions of dollars.

        The jury found the city liable for violating the rights of about 175 protesters against unreasonable search and seizure, but did not find a violation against their free speech rights.

        link to publicjustice.net

        The City agreed to pay $250,000 to settle the class action on behalf of those arrested outside the no-protest zone. The court approved the class action settlement, and the settlement amount has been distributed to class members and counsel.

      • Samuel T
        May 2, 2012, 5:59 am

        Annie, thanks for linking to that news-source regarding the WTO protest in Seattle. The news footage that I viewed displayed unrelenting and unnecessary use of force against people who were engaged in peaceful and lawful protest. There was a handful of anarchists, rioters, looters that created a significant disturbance but my recollection is that of average people, of all ages, experiencing a gross violation of their civil rights, subject to unlawful use of force in contradiction to their constitutional rights, subject to unlawful arrest (or detainment) and unlawful imprisonment. That the City agreed to pay out $250,000 to about 175 protesters and their lawyers, approximately $1400. per person, was far too low, (in my opinion) to compensate them for the violation of their personal rights and freedoms.

      • eljay
        May 2, 2012, 10:03 am

        >> The point of comparison was that Activists that engage in civil disobedience or civil protest, even in, a Country such as Canada may receive consequences that are similar to those portrayed in the EDITED Video.

        I agree with that point.

        On a different note, and since I don’t want to put any words in your mouth, I have a few simple questions for you. I hope you’ll take a moment to answer them. :-)

        1. Do you believe Israel should be occupying any land outside of the 1948 Partition borders?

        2. Do you believe Israel should be running prison facilities in the West Bank?

        3. Do you believe that Israel should be:
        a) An Israeli state, of and for all Israelis, equally?
        - or -
        b) A Jewish state, one in which Jewish Israelis have a different and/or greater set of rights than do non-Jewish Israelis, and to which non-Israeli Jews, but not non-Israeli non-Jews, are entitled to “return”?

      • Blake
        May 2, 2012, 4:20 pm

        Again no comparison. What American (or Canadian) are losing their homes and being ethnically cleansed out all for the sake of an ideology with a sense of entitlement to the natives land? Of course I can go on for days but why give pearls to a swine.

      • Samuel T
        May 3, 2012, 12:50 am

        eljay, I appreciate the directness of your questions.

        However, I find them to be polarizing and at this time, I do not want to be classified as a PRO-This or an ANTI-That.

        I will say that I observe and believe to be true that
        All Germans aren’t Nazis. All Arabs aren’t terrorists.
        When an earthquake hits, the rich and the poor shake alike.

      • eljay
        May 3, 2012, 5:27 pm

        >> eljay, I appreciate the directness of your questions.

        Apparently you don’t appreciate it enough to answer them.

        >> However, I find them to be polarizing and at this time, I do not want to be classified as a PRO-This or an ANTI-That.

        Hevven forbid you should be for or against anything! Too funny…

        >> I will say that I observe and believe to be true that
        >> All Germans aren’t Nazis. All Arabs aren’t terrorists.

        Interesting. Some Germans are Nazis, some Arabs are terrorists…but not a peep about Israelis or Zionists or Jews. Looks like you’ve just classified yourself as a PRO-This and an ANTI-That. Nicely done.

      • Daniel Rich
        May 3, 2012, 5:53 pm

        @ Samuel T.,

        Wrongs are being done all over the place, but this site happens to focus on Israel and Palestine and every time individuals like your good self want to drag the rest of the world into this particular niche it gets very crowded and the I/P conflict sidetracked. If you’re an honest person [this is not a fallacy trap] I hope you have the guts to agree to/with the fact that most of Israel’s atrocities, rampaging, destruction, pillaging, murder and killing are somehow kinda OKisch. Personally I’m allergic to apologists and men and women without a spine. If I wasn’t married, I’d propose to this woman in a heartbeat. If you fail to see the courage this woman oozes out of every single pore of her body, you’re indeed blinded by everything that’s wrong in this world.

      • Daniel Rich
        May 3, 2012, 5:58 pm

        @ eljay,

        Having any opinion at all automatically lands you on either side of neutral. Individuals who pretend to be neutral when it comes to Israel are lying to themselves and hope I/you/we believe them @ face value #tweetgag.

    • ToivoS
      May 2, 2012, 1:02 am

      SammyT pleads: I encourage you to open your eyes, your minds and your hearts toward what is TRUE.

      OK, I did. I see more Israel thugs oppressing Palestinians. That seems clear enough. And what is your point?

      • Samuel T
        May 2, 2012, 2:42 am

        ToivoS I see calling me Sammy as an attempt to belittle me personally and I find that disrespectful. It was my understanding that this was a forum to exchange ideas, enter into intelligent discourse, etc.

        The Video is EDITED. Fact. If you want to refute any of the noted observations then do so.

        Further, I don’t see your point, exactly what do you take exception to? Open eyes, open minds or an open heart?

      • ToivoS
        May 2, 2012, 3:22 am

        Oh Sammy don’t get bent out of shape. Sammy is an endearing form of Samuel where I come from. Just trying to engage on a personal level.

        The video shows Israelis thugs beating up on Palestinians that are resisting Israeli oppression. Your complaints about the editing really does not change that obvious fact.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 3:38 am

        i suggest if you want to be taken seriously to start acting serious, not just in manner but in word.

      • Miss Costello
        May 2, 2012, 4:48 am

        “The video shows Israelis thugs beating up on Palestinians that are resisting Israeli oppression. Your complaints about the editing really does not change that obvious fact”.

        Come, come, Toivos. Two minutes fancy editing against sixty four years oppression/dispossession/ ethnic cleansing, etc ad nauseum? Get a grip, lad!

      • SimoHurtta
        May 5, 2012, 5:57 am

        Every video in tv news (for example) is always edited and “describes” the view of the person who took it. Edited in this case only means that sections of no action are cut out or were originally not taken on the video. IDF and border police have in their vehicles cameras and they surely video all events. They could easily prove using their own video evidence, that it did not happen like shown. But they never do. Not in the Eisner’s case and certainly not in this case.

    • tree
      May 2, 2012, 3:25 am

      Samuel,

      You seem to be projecting and making unsupported assumptions about edits that are not that significant. 3 edits in 15 seconds is not some grand conspiracy. Trust me, editing is my field, and 3 edits in 15 seconds is not a large number. Most likely the edits were made because the original video shots panned off of the woman to other areas, or the shots themselves were simply so short that there was no footage in between, and the edits were made to give a better understanding of the fact that time had passed, rather than disguise the fact. Jump cuts clearly indicate that time has passed between cuts. Its a given.

      You mention the red mark on the left side of the vehicle, which is not shown in any previous shot. You posit that a “red spray bomb” was directed at the vehicle and yet there is really no support for that idea. Why “spray bomb” a vehicle with one of your compatriots on the roof of it? Why spray bomb a vehicle at all when such an action is most likely to get you killed if someone thinks you are firing a lethal weapon and not paint? If you look at it, it appears more reddish orange than simply red . Its just as possible that the red splotch is a pepper spray mark and streaking of the resin below that. The pattern is actually quite similar in color and spray area to what you see on the pepper-sprayed demonstrators. And even if it were in fact a paint spray mark, there is no indication that it was made immediately prior to the camera shot, or even that day. If you are immediately making assumptions like you did, and not at least acknowledging to yourself that you are doing so, then you aren’t watching objectively.

      As for the people you thought were soldiers, they were clearly photojournalists, who regularly wear vest and helmets to set themselves apart from any demonstrators when covering events such as these. The fact that you think this is something nefarious is an obvious indication that you approached the video with a prejudged viewpoint of what you were seeing, rather than an objective look. Then you really start imagining things. First off, its obvious it isn’t 8 MEN surrounding the woman but an equal number of men and women. The two that grab at the back of the soldier are clearly women and they are not grabbing his rifle but the strap on his rifle so as to help pull him away from the woman he is attempting to grab. None of the men are grabbing at him. They are all grabbing at the woman, in order to shield her. You aren’t seeing. You are imagining. And then you claim that a flash goes off from a camera. But if you were really looking instead of making up things in you head, you would see that it is not a flash from a camera but some kind of small smoke or concussive grenade fired from the army jeep. You can see the flash there, as well as hear it, and then there is very obvious smoke. Its vividly clear that the smoke device was fired in order to break up the group surrounding the soldier and the woman, which it clearly did quite immediately. At this point its clear that despite your insistence that one needs to look at the video objectively, you have completely failed to do so.

      And then of course you fail to comment at all on the repeated pepper spray attacks, when clearly those are the ones that are most disturbing to watch for people here, more so than the rest of the video you felt compelled to erroneously dissect. You should perhaps take your own advice and question why you felt a need to prejudge what you were seeing rather than simply see it for what it was.

      Also, in Canada, One Police Officer would not be in such a ratio of 1 to 8, neither would he enter into such close proximity with a group of protestors.

      So are you claiming that the soldier/policeman was a fake? Or just incredibly poorly trained? What’s clear is that the soldier had no real fear for his life, regardless of his apparent recklessness. Its also clear that he immediately had a large number of fellow soldier/policemen surrounding him (I counted at least 8 to 10), none of whom appeared to fear for their lives either.

      • Samuel T
        May 2, 2012, 5:30 am

        Tree. May I call you tree? Editing is also in my background. I narrated what I saw on the video. I did not characterize what I saw or who I saw on the video. I did not label protestor or military as being bad or good.
        I asked questions. I described what appeared to be red spray paint with solvent dripping from it. I did not say>THE protestors threw a spray bomb at the military vehicle< I observed something and asked questions, I did not form conclusions I encouraged the viewer to look closer and put aside preconceived ideas that may influence the message.

        Tree, you speculate that the spray bomb may actually be pepper spray. Did you take into account the height of the spray area in relation to a person, or ask yourself; Why would a pattern from pepper spray be so high up on a vehicle? I'm calling for deductive reasoning. If someone deploys pepper spray high above their head, drift will occur and the spray will possibly come down upon the person who deployed it. That would be a theory based on probabilities.

        I didn't say that there was anything nefarious going on. I reported my observations. Initially I thought the vested, helmeted, protestors or journalists were soldiers. Then, I enlarged the screen and found something different.

        Tree, you also actually assist in proving my point. You are arguing against things I did not write. In your mind you have placed me as an anti-protester and you draw the conclusions that support your point of view and characterize my observations or my questions as being a product of my imagination. Is there a need to minimize my voice because it (appears to be) in opposition to your personal views?

        Tree, you claimed to be in Editing. Did you look at the video frame by frame? If you did you would have seen that a man grabbed the shoulder strap that was attached to the rifle. Also I mentioned a flash, apparently from a camera because I could not see a canister.

        I did not pre-judge what I was seeing. I simply made observations, reported them without characterizations to either protestors or military.
        Tree, you draw conclusions on what I did not say. I did not comment on the pepper spray attacks and you cast that as a "fail" on my part.

        Next, Tree once again you draw a broad inference from a factual statement. No, I'm not claiming the soldier/police officer was a fake, nor did I say the soldier was poorly trained. Please consider that you may be "reading into" some of what I wrote to draw inferences or implications (which are not mine) and then vigorously defend against them. Also, the burden (of writing) within this forum is that clarification on a point is not instantaneous, we are not chatting or having a dialogue in person. One person expresses themselves in written communication and misunderstandings within that communication between two parties that do not really know each other are common and perhaps, inevitable.

        Take Shmuel's comment for example. It appears to me to reflect sarcasm in the opening lines…however, I don't know Shmuel do I?

      • dahoit
        May 2, 2012, 1:05 pm

        Sir,there is an old song (written by two nice Jewish boys in fact)which states that some see what they want to see,and disregard the rest.
        Now of course that is not just for right wingers,it also involves the left and all those people stuck in the middle of their nowhere,but not to see courage in action here is a bit much to deny.

      • tree
        May 2, 2012, 3:13 pm

        Samuel, you are being extremely dishonest here.

        I described what appeared to be red spray paint with solvent dripping from it. I did not say>THE protestors threw a spray bomb at the military vehicle< I observed something and asked questions, I did not form conclusions

        Complete denial on your part. This is what you said in your earlier comment.

        ” There is a red spray bomb that has been just recently released on the white truck. Take a look. It’s fresh. See the red paint, o.k., now, notice the slight pinkish trail running down the side of the truck? That is solvent. That is how I know, it’s a fresh red spray bomb. THINK”

        Not only did you assert that you KNEW it was was a “red spray bomb”, you also asserted that you knew it was freshly made. You weren’t asking questions. You were drawing conclusions that fit your preconceived notions. And now you insist that you weren’t forming conclusions. Sorry, Samuel, but that is exactly what you did.

        Tree, you speculate that the spray bomb may actually be pepper spray. Did you take into account the height of the spray area in relation to a person, or ask yourself; Why would a pattern from pepper spray be so high up on a vehicle? I’m calling for deductive reasoning. If someone deploys pepper spray high above their head, drift will occur and the spray will possibly come down upon the person who deployed it. That would be a theory based on probabilities.

        I offered up the possibility of pepper spray to make clear to you that your conclusion -yes, conclusion-that it was a “fresh red spray bomb” was not the only possibility as to the origin of the red mark. The fact that you even consider the red mark important indicates your bias. Its just as probable that its red pepper spray that was deployed at some time that we did not see towards the woman on top of the truck but could not reach high enough. It is way above head height at and a location in line with where the woman was. Pepper spray does not usually drift in a wide pattern as you insist, otherwise anyone deploying it would easily risk getting it on themselves no matter what the scenario and you can see from later in the video that none of the soldiers deploying it get it on themselves. I’m not insisting on the pepper spray theory, its merely an alternative I brought up to point out that one can not objectively conclude anything about the red mark. You were the one that claimed you KNEW it was a red spray bomb, with no evidence to back it up, complete with faulty deductive reasoning on your part.

        I didn’t say that there was anything nefarious going on.

        Of course you did. Again, complete obliviousness, or blatant dishonesty, on your part about what you truly did and said in your first comment. This is from your first comment:

        “What happens in this video, is a stunt, it isn’t civil disobedience. It was antagonistic, pure and simple and yet hard to see for the uninitiated. The authorities were provoked by a spray bomb,, their instructions were disregarded and the incident, the catalyst that caused one soldier to pursue was, yes EDITED from the content. This is Propaganda, not journalism, it is NOT part of a “war of ideas” it is deliberate and misleading and for a desired affect.”

        And continued with this comment: “This was a stunt, self-promotion and wreaks with the same authenticity of “reality TV shows” featuring Kim Kardashian and Company.”

        Again, you assume a spray bomb was fired to “provoke”, although now you claim you didn’t say that, and claim that “the catalyst” was edited out when you have no way of knowing that. The catalyst could have been the woman getting down from the top of the truck, or anything else that occurred while the camera was running but on the opposite side of the truck from the camera operator. Not only did you claim that something nefarious was going on, you insisted on the basis of non-existent “facts” that it must have been pure “antagonistic” and “deliberate and misleading” propaganda and we are all just too ignorant to notice.

        Tree, you also actually assist in proving my point. You are arguing against things I did not write. In your mind you have placed me as an anti-protester and you draw the conclusions that support your point of view and characterize my observations or my questions as being a product of my imagination.

        As I have pointed out repeatedly, you did write things from your imagination-the “provocation” of a spray bomb, the “importance” of an edit, unheard instructions being disregarded, a camera flash that wasn’t, a man grabbing a rifle-and now you have the cluelessness to claim you never said those things. You aren’t doing your case any good. Stop digging. I drew no conclusions about what your bias was, except when you clearly stated it, as in your paragraph above but notedthe instances when what you claimed to know or see was not on the video.

        Tree, you claimed to be in Editing. Did you look at the video frame by frame? If you did you would have seen that a man grabbed the shoulder strap that was attached to the rifle. Also I mentioned a flash, apparently from a camera because I could not see a canister.

        Yes.I was the one that mentioned to you that it was not in fact a man but two women that grabbed the shoulder strap. You originally insisted that “at 33 seconds in we can observe that a man grabs the “Police Officer’s” rifle.” I corrected you on both points. I see that at least you have admitted that no one grabbed the rifle now, just the strap. I pointed that discrepancy out to you because you claimed you were merely watching objectively and truly seeing all that was there, but in fact you missed quite a few things. As for the “camera flash” , you assumed a camera flash merely by the light but ignored both the sound (camera flashes haven’t made that kind of sound since the 1930′s!) and the smoke visible immediately after the deployment of the small concussive grenade. These were some of he obvious things you missed.

        Tree, you draw conclusions on what I did not say. I did not comment on the pepper spray attacks and you cast that as a “fail” on my part.

        Samuel, you insisted that we needed to look at the whole video objectively and then proceeded to do a play by play of your own, complete with your imaginings about things that clearly weren’t on the video, and then abruptly stopped your play by play well in advance on any of the pepper spray attacks, and diverged off into your opinion of what a Canadian police officer would have done at that exact point. The fact that you stopped your play by play ahead of the pepper spray reeks of non-objectivity on your part.

        I don’t talk about a “fail”. I pointed out that your stopping the play by play at exactly that moment showed a total lack of the objectivity that you claimed you had. I was also pointing out that most of the posters here were upset most specifically about the pepper spraying, which seemed punitive rather than necessary. You didn’t address their concerns in your post at all.

        I find it very hard to “converse” with someone who says one thing and then immediately denies that he said that. I suggest you look objectively at your own two posts here and question why you either felt it necessary to lie about what you said previously, or, alternatively, why you are so unaware of what you actually said so as to mischaracterize your very own statements in your next breath.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 3:25 pm

        I encouraged the viewer to look closer and put aside preconceived ideas that may influence the message.

        encourage? impressive effort:

        The offspring feeds off the real and imagined wounds of itself and others in a symbiotic relationship like unto a maggot devouring a rotting carcass. The stench, is formidable and assaults any [one ] who has not filled their nostrils with the putrid, divisive, and intolerable scent of hatred and vengeance.

      • Miss Costello
        May 2, 2012, 5:38 pm

        tree) Supreme effort! Thanks.

      • Samuel T
        May 3, 2012, 1:14 am

        dahoit, may I call you dahoit?

        I agree. Whether someone finds themselves aligned liberally on the right or conservatively to the left…

        When a cowboy gets on a Bull to ride it and gets thrown headlong into the dust. Some would call that courage, an act of bravery and others would call that foolishness.

        As for me dahoit, In my younger days I was (actually) a Rodeo Clown.
        My job was to protect the rider, distract the Bull and entertain the crowd
        that watched from the safety of the stands.

        Perhaps, some people thought me courageous (because of the Bull)
        Perhaps others thought me a fool (well, there was all that clown make-up)

        However, If the Protester knew of the danger, the consequences
        and faced that fear and experienced the consequences.

        I would not call that foolishness.

      • Daniel Rich
        May 3, 2012, 6:04 pm

        @ Samuel T.,

        Q: In my younger days I was (actually) a Rodeo Clown.

        R: I’m sorry to have to inform you, sir/madam, but today you still act like one and in all honesty, it’s very painful to watch. Israel = Good | the rest = bad. I get it.

      • Samuel T
        May 3, 2012, 11:27 pm

        Tree

        I had written earlier:

        It was antagonistic, pure and simple and yet hard to see for the uninitiated.
        The authorities were provoked >by a spray bombthe spray bombby a Spray Bomb<

        I wasn’t intending to deny what I had written. I wasn’t aware of my error.
        Thank you for pointing that out to me. I should have proofread, and edited, like any competent writer, before I Posted.

        Further, just to clarify (we) myself included, are prone to lacking objectivity or at times favouring emotionality over rationality, especially on subjects that are as passionate, vital and divisive as the Middle East conflict

        Encouraging investigation, taking a closer look and putting aside preconceived ideas applies to both sides of the issue. I was under the impression that both Palestine and Israeli viewpoints were expressed
        on this site. My comments on hatred, prejudice, apply to humanity.

      • Samuel T
        May 4, 2012, 12:42 am

        Daniel Rich,

        Thanks for the compliment, Daniel!
        But, I’m not quite physically agile enough (anymore) to deal with a Bull.
        However, I am still mentally agile enough recognize Bull.
        You don’t get “it.”
        Not even close.

      • Citizen
        May 4, 2012, 10:31 am

        Samuel T, over the last half century, do you agree that the US mainstream media has lacked objectivity, lacked a fair and balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Yes or No? If No, please explain. Thanks!

        And do you agree that the US mainstream media’s #1 priority should be to provide information to the public so that they can be citizens exercising fully informed consent or objection to their government’s policies and conduct? If No, why not?

      • Samuel T
        May 8, 2012, 6:38 pm

        Citizen,

        News used to be a trusted institution. You want to know what’s going on in the World; watch the News. Walter Cronkite, now there is a guy you can trust.

        Investigative journalism in the form of 60 minutes came along. Now, the viewing public was being exposed to the story behind the story, things were not always as they appeared. This was good journalism and it built an audience. The US Media has held on to only one of those attributes; building an audience. Over the last 25 years I have observed the trend of the “news” disintegrating into a form of “entertainment.”

        Stories are reported based on appeal to a given demographic. More viewers = higher ratings=increased Advertising revenue=happy shareholders. So, what drives the NEWS MEDIA today? Money. News isn’t an institution it’s a business and a successful News business operates to make money.

        With increasing revenue as the #1 priority, yes, the media has, at times lacked objectivity, lacked a fair and balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

        Although, I agree with your assertion that the US mainstream media’s #1 priority should be to provide information to the public so that they can be citizens exercising fully informed consent or objection to their, the US government’s policies and conduct I also have to say, that personally, I also believe that each citizen has to actively do their own research to achieve a balanced view or even to be aware of what the Government is doing or not doing; and specifically, yes, as it relates to the Middle East.

        Will the Media re-align their priorities to be of public service instead of a privately owned Corporation even if it means earning less revenue for their shareholders? Not very likely, unfortunately. (in my opinion.)

      • Citizen
        May 10, 2012, 10:48 am

        Samuel T, I agree with your assessment of the decline of the US MSM over the period indicated because I have watch that decline over the years indicated by you; as far as I know, US public school textbooks still praised the press as “The Fourth Estate” and “Fourth Branch Of Government” in the sense it is said to secure informed consent, the bedrock of democracy and US institutions. Time to drop that view, and merely refer to US press as the propaganda arm of government and an entertainment industry. Also, thanks to our campaign finance system and the reality of K Street business and the SCOTUS ruling extending the legal fiction of corporations as “persons” for purposes of political election campaigns, I think the description of the nature of US should be, not “a democracy,” but a “plutocracy.” (Federal Republic style)

    • Shmuel
      May 2, 2012, 3:40 am

      Welcome to the planet Palestine, Samuel, of which we have no prior knowledge, no context and no history. All we have is 1 minute and 41 seconds of edited video, which we can only compare to situations with which we may be familiar from our own worlds, but not our experiences in Palestine itself – of which we have none. The clip is edited; therefore it must be propaganda. There is no other plausible explanation. And all who accept it at face value must be biased, because they could not possibly have the necessary information and cognitive tools to process these images taken in such a distant galaxy.

      Live long and prosper, Samuel T.

    • OlegR
      May 2, 2012, 6:49 am

      Thank you .
      I doubt that your effort will bare any fruit with most of the crowd around here
      but again thank you for trying.

      • dahoit
        May 2, 2012, 1:07 pm

        If we bear fruit around here,be assured it aint poison fruit,like hasbarites and neolibcons produce.

      • Daniel Rich
        May 3, 2012, 6:05 pm

        @ OlegR.,

        I agree. I appreciate the effort, but am less happy about being sidetracked [again].

    • libra
      May 2, 2012, 8:20 am

      In other news today, Canadian video expert proves moon landings were faked.

    • talknic
      May 2, 2012, 9:27 am

      Samuel T May 2, 2012 at 12:09 am

      Hilarious. Simply hilarious

    • Talkback
      May 2, 2012, 11:32 am

      Samuel T is right!

      First I saw a women climbing a white elephant. But when I had a closer look it was a foul-smelling-liquid-thrower. Have a closer look! Just have a closer look, if you don’t believe me!

      Notice that she was on it right from the beginning. Where was she before? How did she get on it? The video was clearly edited at the beginning and to be honest with you also at the end of it! This is not a coincidence.

      So what did she do between sitting on the vehicle and trying to get away from it? My best guess is, she was getting off the vehicle, because either the two approaching antiriot-police men on the right side were trying to get her off or she saw the approaching military (jeep) which arrived to take her in.

      The propagandists clearly tried to hide this antisemitic provocation by editing the video. But Samuel T – your are far to clever for this naughty people.

    • dimadok
      May 2, 2012, 11:54 am

      Very good comment. Thank you Samuel.

    • Rania
      May 2, 2012, 7:20 pm

      Samuel T. Jackass takes a quick break from his job as an editor at the Ministry of Truth to write:

      “I encourage you to open your eyes, your minds and your hearts toward what is TRUE. Not what supports a particular, even twisted, contrived perspective.
      This was a stunt, self-promotion and wreaks with the same authenticity of “reality TV shows” featuring Kim Kardashian and Company.”

      Oh, you are so right and ever so convincing. Since your post wreaks of actual authenticity (or something), I went back and watched the video again and, Samuel T. (for truth?), you are absolutely correct. A truth-seeking person can’t decipher anything concrete from that video. I mean, do we even know where this was filmed? Or when? It doesn’t look like Palestine or Israel to me. It kind of looks like Rock Springs, Wyoming. And that military truck thing….it doesn’t have a Star of David on it or anything as far as I can tell. Doesn’t Israel usually plaster all of its weapons and machinery with religious symbols? I think that truck thing must be owned by the Palestinians. Or maybe the Italians. Yep, definitely Italians; it even looks like the Italians sprayed tomato sauce in the faces of the “protesters” at one point in this indecipherable video. I put “protesters” in quotes not because I don’t know how to use quotes like someone who shall remain unnamed (let’s just call him “Samuel T. Jackass”), but because, well, do we really know if these people are protesting something? Do we even know if they are people? If they are Palestinian, they probably don’t even exist. For all we know, they might be Jewish. Maybe they are atheists, and if they are atheists, then can they be Jewish? What does it mean to be Jewish? Oh, Samuel T, this is giving me such a headache! I thought this video was so clear and so simple, and now I am so confused!

      Before I even attempt to comprehend the events “documented” in this video, I would like to see the uncut footage, examine the recording device, interview all of the people filmed (unless they are Palestinian, Christian, Muslim, non-Jewish, non-Zionist, non-military, European, American, African, Asian, or some other inherently untrustworthy source), and then run it by His Excellency Michael Oren, the ADL, Netanyahu, the Knesset, AIPAC, the U.S. Congress, and the New York Times for their opinions as to what actually occurred. After that, I’ll try to figure out if the Holocaust had anything to do with it. If it still looks like some Israeli police sprayed some Palestinian non-violent protesters at point-blank range in the face with pepper spray after they exhibited courage and humanity, I will send it to you post haste so you can send it down the Memory Hole as quickly as possible. I think all truth-seeking people can agree on this course of action.

    • Daniel Rich
      May 3, 2012, 3:43 am

      @ Samuel T.

      Some people mistakenly belief that a woman will not be treated as harsh as a man possibly would be. The IDF couldn’t care less, as is obvious. Too bad those Hasbara coffee breaks are so short, eh?

  15. Samuel T
    May 2, 2012, 4:14 am

    Annie, just taking a look around and I am again amazed at the immediate characterization of being pro-this or anti-that or applying spin to the video.

    I can’t spin the video. If I wanted to “spin” it, I would require the entire footage that was shot, the raw footage, then I could “spin” the story in a chosen direction. Someone, please tell me why a portion of the video loses audio? There is no sound? Why? Are you curious or are you dealing in confirmatory bias? You have already presupposed your affiliation or allegiance to a specific people under the roles of Oppressor and the Oppressed. Any information that upsets that bias is disregarded and only information that confirms your bias is regarded.

    This is the basis for developing a strong false belief, or [a delusion] which is a Psychiatric term. I will state now the witty reply of the reader: It is Samuel T who is deluded! Yeah! You need Psychiatric help! Thank you for those constructive and intelligent responses.

    The construct of a [delusion] is so powerful that layers upon layers of false beliefs are stacked on top of one and then the other in a manner that the person who is constructing, creating a delusion believes that they are gathering empirical evidence.
    When an outsider, challenges the empirical evidence or removes a few layers the individual(s) who have participated in forming and living, as if; these strong, false beliefs were true are threatened and respond or react, in kind through hostility and denial.

    Read the comments, check the reactions. Hostility and denial. Why?

    People can hold so steadfastly onto beliefs that are fuelled by hatred, become so entrenched in bitterness, that they convince themselves that the construct of delusion is vital to their survival, to their very existence. It is not tradition but an innate evil to pass this practice on to children. To teach them in their innocence and naiveté, that certain people are to be feared, to be hated , to be despised. They are the enemy.

    A truly sad picture in my view, when a misguided purpose is pursued by an individual or a group at all costs and without regard or acknowledgement to truth or error.
    So, comment, speak your mind or from the abundance of your heart. Is it a reflection of my words, of my beliefs or am I just simply holding up a mirror and the reflection is (you), the reader?

    Am I an Arab or Am I a Jew? Am I a Christian or Am I of Islam?
    Is Abraham my Father or the Father of us all?
    How much, or rather, how little, do people need to know to release hatred?

    • tree
      May 2, 2012, 4:30 am

      I’m not sure whether you are simply so caught up in your own bias that you can’t see how self=delusional you are, or if you are simply trying to pretend an objectivity you simply don’t have here. You’ve made numerous assumptions about the video that have gone well beyond what you actually saw into the realm of mind reading and have in fact seen things in the video (a man reaching for the soldiers gun, and a camera flash) that are not there. You really need to stop lecturing others and question your own bias, Samuel. It may not be apparent to you, but it certainly is to everyone else.

      • Miss Costello
        May 2, 2012, 4:55 am

        Maybe he’s the new Messiah. The Brian one.

    • justicewillprevail
      May 2, 2012, 9:40 am

      “People can hold so steadfastly onto beliefs that are fuelled by hatred, become so entrenched in bitterness, that they convince themselves that the construct of delusion is vital to their survival, to their very existence. It is not tradition but an innate evil to pass this practice on to children. To teach them in their innocence and naiveté, that certain people are to be feared, to be hated , to be despised. They are the enemy.”

      Yes, those Israelis are appalling, I agree. And this is an excellent example of their delusional self-belief and hatred of others, particularly the indigenous people of the region they have emigrated to.

      • eljay
        May 2, 2012, 9:50 am

        >> People can hold so steadfastly onto beliefs that are fuelled by hatred, become so entrenched in bitterness, that they convince themselves that the construct of delusion is vital to their survival, to their very existence. It is not tradition but an innate evil to pass this practice on to children. To teach them in their innocence and naiveté, that certain people are to be feared, to be hated , to be despised. They are the enemy.

        You have described the Zio-supremacist condition perfectly. Thank you.

  16. justicewillprevail
    May 2, 2012, 4:50 am

    If only Sammy would apply his nerdy obsessive amateur sleuthing (and cringe-making cod psychology) to the reams of Zionist propaganda and laughable video efforts….oh and take a course in editing before holding forth. tree has given a good response, but as with all hasbabrats you are not really interested in such responses, only in stirring things up with false assertions and questionable motives.

  17. Refaat
    May 2, 2012, 6:33 am

    israel doing what it does best!
    now that the nonviolent option is also met by ruthless violence by israel, what does the world expect from Palestinians?

  18. Miss Costello
    May 2, 2012, 7:48 am

  19. Denis
    May 2, 2012, 11:40 am

    Samuel, please . . .abide.

    On this blog, the term “objectivity” means, and only means, hatred of Israeli apartheid. The regulars here have a common viewpoint and, as you can see, they will not tolerate any comments that challenge that viewpoint or that are contrary to it.

    As you have seen, Annie is the queen-bee and she will be quick to insult you, fire off pithy ad hominems, and non-sensical, cryptic slurs of 5 words or less. Just ignore her sniping. It has no substance and is not worth responding to.

    But, by and large, the motives are honest even if the techniques are not, and the collective effort has helped balance in some small way the constant, droning, Israeli propaganda machine. We come not to praise Israel, but to bury apartheid.

    Of course you are right. The video was edited. We do not know what was left out. But these people would never, ever admit that obvious fact because it denigrates their overall message.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 2, 2012, 12:21 pm

      they will not tolerate any comments that challenge that viewpoint

      au contraire, the comments were all tolerated, they were just laughed at. i’m hardly the queen bee, i just got to it first. as max’s tweet demonstrates sammy’s comment has lots of value..as comedy. it demonstrates the hysterical extent to which hasbara will stretch any given circumstance to thwart reality. if one opens the ‘#hasbarafail’ link i provided above you can see how people are laughing at the comment. didi remez “Pathetic attempt to spin this scene” followed by:

      Tikun Olam ‏ @richards1052

      @DidiRemez @MaxBlumenthal This guy is obsessive-compulsive w way 2 much time on his hands.
      Details

      Reply
      Retweet
      Favorite

      9h Max Blumenthal Max Blumenthal ‏ @MaxBlumenthal

      @DidiRemez pathetic but incredibly creative pasting of random consecutive words and phrases
      Details

      Reply
      Retweet
      Favorite

      so i am hardly the queen bee of this crowd, i just got to it first. all in all i am glad the comment was made, it has provided much more fodder to expose the event on twitter and drive traffic which is exactly what we want here at the site. had it not been tolerated that never would have happened.

      thanks for adding to the attention denis. i find your ad hominems extremely amusing.

      • Denis
        May 2, 2012, 4:07 pm

        @Annie: thanks for adding to the attention denis. i find your ad hominems extremely amusing.

        Pleasure’s all mine, Annie. Always delighted to return a favor.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 4:16 pm

        as i mentioned before :

        i’m glad you’ve shown your stripes denis.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        The IDF guys in this flick are behaving politely by any measure of comparison.

        your overall consistency is appreciated.

        Of course you are right. The video was edited. We do not know what was left out. But these people would never, ever admit that obvious fact because it denigrates their overall message.

        once again, denigrating our overall message appears to be your aim.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 2, 2012, 4:32 pm

        btw, contrary to your assertions, i am absolutely tolerating you. and it seems others tolerate you too.

      • Daniel Rich
        May 3, 2012, 7:06 pm

        Hi Annie,

        side note: You’ll always be a queen in my eyes. Your track record proves you’re one.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 3, 2012, 7:21 pm

        ;) blushing. you’re so sweet daniel. i particularly liked it when you said you would marry rana if you weren’t already, that was thrilling.

    • Samuel T
      May 3, 2012, 4:01 am

      Denis,

      War of Ideas. Attack the idea not the person. I enjoy being the subject of ridicule, name calling, and discrimination as much as the next guy. So, why wouldn’t I abide?

      I encourage an open mind, open ears and an open heart AND the level of defensiveness is so high that people react to that statement AS IF: I stated they had a closed mind, were deaf and blind.

      Abide. Denis, is it a secret among the members of this group that demonstrators, activists and the like frequently, strategically employ a staged confrontation, film the encounter and Edit it to align with their perspective?

      Not only were a number of people offended at the suggestion, they appear to be naive that this is an established methodology. Propaganda machines exist on both sides of a conflict.

      Personal attacks are an example of overriding and diminishing a minority for being different. As much as this behaviour is deplored when directed towards Palestinians apparently, it is o.k. to treat another person, who may or may not be Palestinian in a discriminatory, prejudicial manner.

      I will abide. Whether it is within this forum or not remains to be seen.
      I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

      • Daniel Rich
        May 3, 2012, 7:10 pm

        @ Samuel T.,

        How about this:

        Israel’s wrong, all intelligent people agree upon that.

        How’d you spin that, because if you say ‘Israel’s right’ you’re supposedly not that intelligent, right?

        Learn from the Chinese and see how they deal with ‘soft detention’ and other hasbara V. 2.0 linguistic tongue twisters.

    • talknic
      May 3, 2012, 8:08 am

      Israel edits in a manner even Goebbels would likely have been proud of. Once anything has gone through the Ziofier, it’s un-recognizable.

      The IDF video of the Mavi Marmara was heavily edited
      The IDF radio transmissions were heavily edited
      Israel edits and cherry picks everything
      Puts in words that simply do not exist
      Thinks a regime illegally in Jerusalem is Israel… (note the UNSC agrees with Iran)
      Israel lies about its borders
      It lies about what certain ‘judges’ are alleged to have said, when they were in fact only professors when they made the statements Israel has carefully pruned

      I could do this all day.

      Today Israeli politicians, propagandists and pundits rarely say the “State of Israel”. States all have borders. It too has been edited to “the Land of Israel”. (Which of course is drivel. The ‘land of Israel’ today is only the territory belonging to the State of Israel)

      A lone woman waved a flag against what she sees as an injustice. Israel employs an army, airforce, navy, special ops and a barrage of lobbyists around the world, to perpetuate an injustice, slaughtering and dispossessing people who get in the way of a Greater Israel.

      • Citizen
        May 3, 2012, 1:51 pm

        “A lone woman waved a flag against what she sees as an injustice. Israel employs an army, airforce, navy, special ops and a barrage of lobbyists around the world, to perpetuate an injustice, slaughtering and dispossessing people who get in the way of a Greater Israel.”

        Not to mention, Israel is funded and supported in a military way by the sole SuperPower around these days. Maybe, for the hasbarabots here, they would gripe about the pic of the single Chinese person standing against China at T Square, back in the day.

      • Daniel Rich
        May 3, 2012, 7:12 pm

        @ Citizen,

        side note:

        Q: the sole SuperPower

        R: China is outpacing and outclassing unca Sam left, right and center. It’s like watching your senile uncle punch a bag, only there isn’t one.

      • Citizen
        May 3, 2012, 8:03 pm

        Yep, Daniel Rich, that’s why Israel is sucking up to China (& India) all it can, looking for the day our Banking system, monetary, system, and Wall St, combined with our jobless rate and lack of home industry exports drives the world to drop the dollar as reserve currency.

        But China has some big problems of its own, gathering steam fast.

      • Samuel T
        May 3, 2012, 9:51 pm

        talknic,

        Can we agree that both side(s) communicate a Political Agenda
        AND if something supports their position, it’s used.
        AND if something doesn’t… it’s ignored?

        Thanks for your link to a Palestinian Source that looks at Israeli actions frame by frame. I understand that you questioned the content and context frame by frame. Isn’t that what I was doing?

      • Annie Robbins
        May 3, 2012, 11:15 pm

        Isn’t that what I was doing?

        lol, in your dreams perhaps, sans all supporting docs.

      • talknic
        May 4, 2012, 4:48 am

        Odd Samuel T, I’ve not used any ‘Palestinian ‘ sources. Not unexpected that you’d resort to a false accusation. So cute and predictable and so far away from the basic tenets of Judaism one might be forgiven for wondering why anyone bothers calling it the Jewish State.

        The instances I gave SHOW the relevant information Israel has omitted or changed or simply never mentions because it shows Israel to be lying, not only to the world, but to Israeli citizens.

        You on the other hand, bring only your own speculation and the usual holey justifications

        Both sides do not communicate a ‘political’ agenda. Israel does. Pumping out propaganda with its cherry picking, omitting or changing completely relevant information in order to justify the illegal acquisition of the Palestinians rightful territories. Rightful according to the Laws and Charter Israel AGREED to uphold. Which is BTW why there are so many UNSC resolutions condemning Israel.

        The activists stand against injustice. A moral stance. Morality is not political. They record Israel’s tactics in order to show people the brutal face of the occupation and; the UNSC agrees with them

        The UNSC also agrees with Iran in respect to the regime illegally in Jerusalem. Read UNSC Res 476, it’s written based on International Law , the UN Charter and GC IV. It says the regime in Jerusalem must end and Israel’s actions constitute “a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East ” It does not say the same of the Palestinians or Arab States. Furthermore, the UNSC actually threatens action if Israel doesn’t abide by the law. Iran only made a prediction. It has never threatened any action except to retaliate if it is attacked first.

        Although the precious US veto vote stops the law from being given full effect, Israel is still in breech and; with all Israel’s eggs in one basket case (sic), little wonder Israel and those who support its illegal actions spend so much time and money Ziofying the US senate

      • Citizen
        May 4, 2012, 11:01 am

        Good you are an independent thinker, Samuel T. Check out these photos; note how the text beneath many of them is adapted to disguise the photos are mostly simply reflecting some joggers who are resting from a long jog at the end of the jogging path–some are so exhausted they didn’t make it to the rest area buildings–next time, I’m sure, they took hydration bottles on their exercise jaunt: link to ohrdruf.simmins.org

      • Denis
        May 4, 2012, 11:32 pm

        talk
        Add this one to your list. link to something-stinks.com

        It shows how the IDF photoshopped the Mavi Marmara incident to put a long knife in the hand of one of the “terrorists.” Harretz then perpetuated this propaganda shot. Disgusting.

        I was taught: Never believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see. (But, of course, everything on the web.)

      • talknic
        May 8, 2012, 11:34 pm

        Thanks for the heads up on that one Denis.

        I’ve done a little expansion on it link to wp.me

  20. Denis
    May 4, 2012, 11:03 pm

    Samuel, you’ve done well. You’ve made a century post out of this. And while I am supportive of your faux righteous position in the name of objectivity, and while, like you, the emotional knee-jerkers on both sides of the I/P line get up my nose, I have to conclude nevertheless that your position is specious. That is because your running commentary on the vid is really goofed up. I mean, it stinks like that skunk-truck. I am amazed that in 109 responses no one here has challenged your assertions of what is in the video. Forgive me if I do.

    Your suggestion that enormous amounts of time could have passed between what you call “edits” is absurd. First, you can tell by the flow of the action that this was not a 30 minute event regardless how many breaks in the vid there were.

    Second, one can tell by how slowly the vehicle is moving and by referencing it’s position against the background that these “edits” as you call them are most likely the videographer taking his/her finger off the button momentarily while changing position and/or to conserve memory and/or to conserve battery. We all do that. To interpret something nefarious in that is to suggest that you may be an IDF plant working the blogs to do damage control. My speculation is about as supported by any facts as yours. IOW, you are bullsh*tt*ing.

    You make a big deal of the paint splatter. You say you know the “pinkish trail” is solvent. You don’t. What? You have an HPLC that can analyze an online video for solvent? You say you know the splatter is fresh. You don’t. You are bullsh*tt*ing. The paint bomb could have been thrown by Judah in 164 BC for all you know. Later you conclude that “the authorities were provoked by a spray bomb.” You could not possibly conclude that from the paint splatter . . . or the video. Your certainty that a spray bomb provoked anyone suggests that you were there, and we are back to the IDF plant hypothesis. And you are running out of cred.

    You ask why the male protestors didn’t climb the skunk-truck. What does that have to do with the authenticity or validity of the vid?

    You claim that “a man” grabs one of the IDF guy’s rifle. You are bullsh*tt*ng here on 2 counts. 1) It is clearly the woman in the grey dress and blue scarf that reaches in and tugs the strap of the rifle with her left hand while videoing with her right. There is no man grabbing a rifle. And, 2), the rifle is not grabbed. Not even touched. But I agree with you – the lady grabbing the strap could have been a dangerous move.

    Your running commentary totally ignores the percussion device that goes off at 35, clearly indicating other IDF guys out of view. It also totally ignores the pepper-spray in the face from 4 inches away, which would get you good and sued in Canada.

    There is one very essential part of the video missing, which you don’t explicitly comment on. That is from the time the brave young woman is on top of the skunk-truck to the time she is shown running away. We don’t see how the IDF got her off the truck. It would be interesting to know why that essential part is missing. But from the mere fact that it is missing, we can’t conclude anything about the woman or about the IDF. So that point is moot.

    Your conclusion that this was not an example of civil disobedience beggars rebuttal. Only the IDF would not see this as civil disobedience. Durn, we’re back to the IDF plant AGAIN. I’m beginning to think it might be true.

    All up, I would say your cred is busted, dude; your anti-propaganda propaganda smells like a skunk-truck. I still side with you on how the more uncivil regulars on this site are apt to show their baser side toward anyone they disagree with. Instead of blowing ad hominem stink-bombs at you, they ought to analyze the plethora of errors in your argument and respond to those. But we’ve all got our own way of expressing ourselves, and the stink-bombs are usually easier to spell.

    And as an aside to Daniel Rich who says “If I wasn’t married, I’d propose to this woman in a heartbeat” I’d suggest that you are in serious need of a marriage counselor, a therapist, and a cold shower, but not in that order. I’m speaking from experience. Last time I proposed to a woman on an Israeli skunk-truck, it turned out to be a complete disaster. She said “yes” and we both got pepper-sprayed.

    • tree
      May 7, 2012, 12:07 am

      I am amazed that in 109 responses no one here has challenged your assertions of what is in the video.

      You obviously missed my remark made two and a half days before yours, where I made many of the same criticisms you did, although in a slightly different manner. But repetition of valid criticism is not a bad thing. Samuel responded to my criticism by falsely insisting he did not say what he said, and then when I pointed that out he claimed it was a “proofreading ” error on his part. At that point, conversation with him seemed pointless when he couldn’t even acknowledge that he clearly exhibited a bias that couldn’t have been negated merely by better “proofreading”.

      • Samuel T
        May 8, 2012, 8:24 pm

        tree,

        Apparently, our “conversation” was pointless.
        Why don’t you POST exactly what I wrote AND let the reader decide?

        I didn’t insist it was a proofreading error. I said I MADE AN ERROR, I went back to my original post and re-read it, I took a second look and I FOUND AN ERROR.
        I didn’t deny it. I owned it. Even said thanks for pointing that out to me.

        Then I wrote that; as a writer I should have known to proof read, of course, instead of posting that conclusion, I could have CORRECTED IT.

        AND THEN I CORRECTED my statement.
        That’s called taking responsibility, ownership and demonstrating integrity.
        I teach my children that its o.k. to make mistakes, that making mistakes is one of the ways we learn.

        Now, if you are of the belief, that regardless of what I write, it really means “something else” and given your heightened perception that I am [APPLY LABEL HERE] then you have once again provided clear, concise evidence
        to support my initial Concept or IDEA as follows.

        “I am amazed. Truly amazed at how: personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs can create indoctrination, dispose of critical thinking and deny any premise of objectivity. ”

        Thank you, tree

        “He couldn’t even acknowledge that he clearly exhibited a bias…”
        (WE) all have [bias] that is influenced by our belief systems.
        That was my original point. Did you miss that?

      • tree
        May 17, 2012, 5:52 am

        Why don’t you POST exactly what I wrote AND let the reader decide?

        I did post exactly what you said, but it really wasn’t necessary for the reader to decide anything from my comments because everyone can read exactly what you said from your own comments here. The only person here who seemed unaware of what you wrote was yourself.

        In your second post you insisted that you didn’t say exactly what you did in fact say in your first post. You went on to insist that the problem was my own bias, in that I was putting words in your mouth. Then when I quoted back to you exactly what you had said, you insisted it was merely a proofreading problem. It wasn’t. A proofreading problem would be an error in grammar or spelling. What you exhibited was a very blatant bias problem on your part in your first post that you tried to project upon me in your second post. You claimed in your first post, the one in which you were “amazed” at how beliefs could create indoctrination, that

        What happens in this video, is a stunt, it isn’t civil disobedience. It was antagonistic, pure and simple and yet hard to see for the uninitiated. The authorities were provoked by a spray bomb,, their instructions were disregarded and the incident, the catalyst that caused one soldier to pursue was, yes EDITED from the content. This is Propaganda, not journalism, it is NOT part of a “war of ideas” it is deliberate and misleading and for a desired affect.

        I encourage you to open your eyes, your minds and your hearts toward what is TRUE. Not what supports a particular, even twisted, contrived perspective.

        You set yourself up in this instance as an unbiased observer. That was the whole gist of your “play-by-play”, while at the same time you insisted that you could detect that it was all a “stunt” and you knew what was “TRUE”. So to insist that this was simply a proofreading error on your part is a weak and false excuse.

        That’s called taking responsibility, ownership and demonstrating integrity.

        No, that’s called making lame excuses for your bias, rather than admitting it. If you want to insist that your original point was that you too have biases and here’s a play by play example of your own bias, that’s your prerogative, but its simply another example of you NOT owning up to what you were doing.

        “I am amazed. Truly amazed at how: personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs can create indoctrination, dispose of critical thinking and deny any premise of objectivity. ”

        Thank you, tree

        “He couldn’t even acknowledge that he clearly exhibited a bias…”
        (WE) all have [bias] that is influenced by our belief systems.
        That was my original point. Did you miss that?

        The first sentence in quotes is your own. If you were trying to make the point that you too have a bias in this instance then you wouldn’t have claimed that you are “truly amazed”…. You’d take it as a given, for yourself and for everyone else. You didn’t acknowledge a bias. You excused it as a “proofreading error.” You spun the video according to your bias and then insisted to Annie that “I can’t spin the video.”

        Now, if you are of the belief, that regardless of what I write, it really means “something else” and given your heightened perception that I am [APPLY LABEL HERE] then you have once again provided clear, concise evidence to support my initial Concept or IDEA as follows.

        Samuel, you are still making excuses and in denial about your own bias. I reported back exactly what you wrote. I didn’t claim it meant “something else”, and I have no perception, heightened or otherwise, that you are “[APPLY LABEL HERE]“. You are in fact the one who is claiming I said or thought things I never said or thought. (“Heightened” perception on your part???) I’m simply someone who could read your comment and recognize the bias in it, and in your evaluation of what was actually seen in the video. And then I pointed that bias out to you, using your own words.

  21. Samuel T
    May 8, 2012, 8:39 pm

    Dear Reader,

    1.] I am amazed. Truly amazed at how: personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs can create indoctrination, dispose of critical thinking and deny any premise of objectivity.
    A] I am still amazed. Truly amazed at this concept. The (beliefs: personal, political, religious or otherwise) act as filters (we) use consciously or sub-consciously to interpret and understand messages, information.
    B] This statement was misinterpreted (by some) AS IF: I was placing myself as the all seeing, all knowing sole owner of objectivity. AS IF: by introducing this concept, (somehow) the concept did not apply to me, I was immune to this affect.
    Dear Reader, is it reasonable to assume; that I, Samuel T, being human would also have, (at least to some degree) personal, or political, or religious, (or otherwise) beliefs? AND IF: It is reasonable to assume I would have beliefs, THEN How could I, Samuel T, possibly, reasonably hold to a position that my beliefs have absolutely no affect on my ability to think critically, or objectively or even that my beliefs can create indoctrination?
    My answer is NO, absolutely not, I cannot and I do not hold to that position.
    It is apparent that (some) believed that somehow, I held to this unreasonable position and reacted with tags that inferred; self-deluded, pseudo messianic tendencies.
    The point I was attempting to make is that; (Our) belief systems can affect how (We) Think, and form both objective and subjective conclusions.
    Both Palestinian and Israeli people(s) will not achieve reconciliation or any lasting peace, until both parties begin to recognize the influences of their belief systems.
    Even, a two state solution will not provide any resolution between the two parties. It will create nothing more than drawing a line in the sand between two brothers who know that they are in the same sandbox, and have not changed their attitudes.

Leave a Reply