Spyke
aboringdystopia·A Boring DystopiabyIndustryStandard

Israel brands Palestinian detainees with numbers on their foreheads

When Israel re-arrested Palestinian men in the occupied West Bank town of Dura, the detainees faced familiar treatment.

They were blindfolded, handcuffed, insulted and kept in inhumane conditions. More unusual was that each man had a number written on his forehead.

Osama Shaheen, who was released in August after 10 months of administrative detention, told Middle East Eye that soldiers brutally stormed his house, smashing his furniture.

"The soldiers turned us from names into numbers, and every detainee had a number that they used to provoke him during his arrest and call him by number instead of name. To them, we are just numbers."

Israel brands Palestinian detainees with numbers on their foreheadshttps://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-brands-palestinian-detainees-numbers-their-foreheadsOpen linkView original on lemmy.world

You would think Israel, of all countries, ought to know how blatantly evil this kind of stuff looks.

216
lemmy.world

Israel of all countries is the one desperately trying to prove it's more like Nazis (strong white Europeans in their opinion) than like their victims. That's the lesson they got from it all.

They are a broken nation.

And I understand how they become one, what I don't understand is how Armenians haven't (having plenty of their own weaknesses, of course).

50

what I don't understand is how Armenians haven't

Because they don't have a regime supporting them them in that?

4
M137reply
lemmy.world

Have you not seen anything they've done previous to this? It's all completely conscious, they absolutely mean to treat Palestinians like the Nazis did Jews etc.

11

I have, that's why I said this kind of stuff to instead of this in particular, I was referring to all of it pretty much

1

They don’t care. No one is preventing them from becoming Nazis themselves.

2
lemm.ee

I know a Holocaust survivor who is horrified by everything going on in Israel and Palestine. I also am related to deceased Holocaust survivors and their children, grandchildren, cousins, etc. all seem to think this situation is pretty awesome. They call the Palestinians animals and other terrible things and talk like it's all political and say that people who disagree with them are brainwashed and unintelligent.

I can't be 100% certain, but I think I now understand what it was like to sit at a table with burgeoning Nazis and Nazi-supporters and I'm sad to say that I failed the test. Yes, I argued, I disagreed, and I walked away, but I'm starting to get why everyone didn't just attack the Nazis in Germany. What do you do when you recognize a Nazi but that Nazi helped raise you and didn't seem to be a Nazi until they suddenly doubled down on the wrong choice?

162

That sounds really tough man I'm sorry. Thank for you at least sharing your perspective. It's an important perspective to keep in mind. This stuff gets oversimplified, and often, ironically, by disregarding the element of human relationships.

27
lemm.ee

I know, but when you're in the actual situation then you start asking yourself "am I really gonna hit my 80-something year-old great-aunt?" And you start realizing that the cops are definitely gonna get called and then there's gonna be even more Nazis around you and that the new ones have a trigger-happy reputation.

55

I love my mother dearly and would not hesitate to slap her across the face if she called any human an animal. My grandmother I might not hit but I'd certainly cuss out.

9
Rekorsereply
sh.itjust.works

Institutionalized segregation always leads to conflict. Nations onlynrecover once they abandon that segregation. Israel and Palestine need to come together into one nation as unrealistic as that might seem.

7

Remember when they almost achieved peace nearly 30 years ago and then an ultra-Orthodox Jew murdered the Israeli prime minister? He was probably a member of Hamas.

\s

3

Personally, I’d tell them they’re the ones behaving like animals, and cut all future contact.

Maybe someday they’ll wake up and realize that they’re on the wrong side of history. Or they’ll pass on to the next life and figure it out when they’re not in heaven.

2
lemmy.world

How disappointed the generation before them would be, having survived that same treatment only to become the monsters that they struggled to escape.

85

Israel wasn't founded by holocaust survivors and treated them less than equal.

34

Harder to draw quickly, gotta have them pre printed and then there is the ink costs and where on earth could Israel get the money for that?

12
lemm.ee

They couldn't turn the world today into a movie because the writing would be called too lazy and ham-fisted to be realistic.

56

"The Nazi analogies were so over the top, like we get it, they're bad people... It's insulting to the audience."

—average review

"You're watching it wrong! Those are protagonists!"

—US government in the comments

25
Etterrareply
lemmy.world

I'm telling you, this Earth show jumped the shark last decade.

8
lemmy.ml

No, the humanity show did. We'll be cancelled long before the Earth will.

7
qarbonereply
lemmy.world

Sure, the Earth channel has other shows but Humanity has become the main pull of the channel such that it's pretty much the Earth show. I've tried watching some of the other stuff Earth puts out but it hasn't held my attention like Humanity has, even if the last few seasons have been absolute dogwater.

2
qarbonereply
lemmy.world

Is that an intentional bread pun? I'm not getting the relation.

1

Cheers! Half of the time I understand jokes every time.

This is what happens the other 50%.

2
lemmy.blahaj.zone

For fuck sake, how blatant does it need to get before people recognize this for what it is?

53

The people who are willing to recognize it for what it is have already done so.

14

Democracy now is one of the most credible news sources out there. Amy Goodman is meticulous about it.

2
lemmy.world

... branding detainees with numbers, check... now, what's next on Hitler's to do list?

—Bibi, apparently

37
reddthat.com

It's not a brand. It's a mark with a marker. And I think even Bibi and his legions of assholes might be sensitive about tattoos and actual brands.

1

wow what a distinction.

first of all Bibi is a Hitler apologist. the only thing he's sensitive about is the existence of brown people.

second of all it's the same exact shit. the point isn't the method, it's the dehumanization.

6

They have become that which they hated.

Treating Gaza like an open air extermination camp and even branding them the way prisoners were tattooed in German camps.

35

Yea but a number drawn with a sharpie would fade away. Have you thought of some more permanent way of inking those numbers in their skins? Not to mention that the forehead is a bit too much, it might make the guards uncomfortable. Have you considered someplace a bit more discreet, like maybe the wrist? /s

26

My grandfather had a number tattooed on his arm. Never again means never again for everyone.

Shame on Israel. Zionism is an evil racist ideology, distinct from Judaism

25
lemm.ee

I wonder why this seems to be the only news org posting this. It seems we know there are camps in the West Bank where people are being detained, and we know the conditions are brutal, but the numbers on the forehead is a very specific extra detail that I can't seem to find any other sources on numbers being written on foreheads. Did MEE just get the exclusive scoop or what?

23
Hamartiareply
lemmy.world

Well if all you are used to is your establishment talking heads in narrow lockstep then it might be off putting. It isn't at all damning for a single outlet to report on something. Especially when working somewhere so dangerous to be.

In reality this is, as others seem to be at pains to point out, a minor addition to the mountian of nightsoil. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to fabricate such a lightweight appendix if it is likely to undermine reporting on more serious events.

Calling it branding isn't entirely out of scope with the normal usage of the word either. It just is slightly problematic in that we are now conditioned to expect the very worst of humanity from some of the IDF soldiers so our minds expect hot irons.

2

Yeah that's what trips me up: it seems like such a "lightweight appendix" (good expression) to tag onto what we already know. I guess some stories just break with one reporter and one lead.

2
lemmy.world

Writing a number on someone with a marker is not branding. This is stupid. The IDF is committing actual atrocities, and this article is about writing a number on people with a marker and referring to them by that number. Relatively humane prison systems refer to people by their inmate number as well.

What is even going on? This is literally a distraction from the actual terrible things regularly occurring. Think about it this way: within the horrifyingly violent context of Palestine right now, here is an entire article that could be headlined: "IDF Uses New Weapon Against Palestinians: A Marker." See how absurd that is when there are much more important events occurring?

Who wrote this? The IDF?

20
lemmy.world

They did not hold a prison number sign. Or a piece of clothing with a number. They were marked with the number on their forehead.

No prison system kidnaps people and throws them in a "jail" without process, writes a number on their forehead, tortures them for months and then releases them because they were innocent.

And I do not mean a combination of those things.

I mean not one of those things is done in a prison.

29
lemmy.world

TBF it depends on the prison. In this comment I will be referring to jails and prisons within the U.S., and I am working with the same assumptions you made in your comment.

People are put in jail without trial all the time, when awaiting trial. This is extremely common especially with poorer people who can't afford bail.

Most prisons and many jails give prisoners a number, and will sometimes even refer to them only by the number. It's not written on their head, but it is often attached to their uniform, and they can sometimes be punished for taking them off. It's weird to write it on their head, and really just kinda silly if you ask me. They probably don't have the resources for name tags because they've spent 200% of the budget on more bombs it seems.

Some jails and prisons have conditions that equate to actual torture according to the UN. Extreme heat without AC, cruel punishments, inadequate nutrition and safety. Most notable of these is solitary confinement, which is a very common prison punishment, and which is rightly classified as torture by the United Nations. Some people spend months or even years or decades in solitary confinement.

I think we all agree that the IDF is committing acts of genocide and inexcusable violence against civilians and captured combatants, but it's also important to not inflate the facts, and to focus our attention on greater issues. Does it really matter so much that the IDF writes a number on their forehead, when they're also bombing children? Is a marker really a greater evil than a bomb?

2
lemmy.world

People can be held in jail before they are charged but they require a charge and a trial.

Here the IDF is picking up people, throwing them in confinement, beating them up and then throwing them out.

Wiithout a trial ever happening. Nor do they plan it to happen. There is no legal system involved.

Comparisons can be made. Guantanamo bay, Uyghur camps, etc. But that is not what most people call a "jail". This is kangaroo court stuff.

I agree that the kids getting bombed is bigger news. But seeing "Israel bombed 50 kids today" every single day doesn not hit the same after a while. And it is not really "boring" in the way this is.

4

I'm not disagreeing that It is a terrible thing. What they're doing is wrong and they should be punished. However we are not so different, and that is the damn truth of the thing. To that end, my comment was merely pointing out that the previous comments argument was very flawed.

1
prolereply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

This comment conflates jail and prison as if they're the same thing, and they are not. It's an important distinction.

They probably don't have the resources for name tags...

I know you were making a joke, but it is foolish to believe for one second that this wasn't done intentionally as a form of dehumanization and public humiliation.

Does it really matter so much that the IDF writes a number on their forehead, when they’re also bombing children? Is a marker really a greater evil than a bomb?

Yes, it really matters. Both things matter. Do we have to make "Israel war crime" tier lists before determining if we should care about something? It's all awful. And it's all inter-related anyway. This is the type of dehumanization that allows IDF soldiers to murder so many women and children without remorse.

And I could see someone who does not have an understanding of history, and the historical context around this level of dehumanization, could not fully grasp the symbolism here.

But yes, this is something that we 100% should be talking and worrying about.

2

Jails and prisons are for the sake of the argument practically the same thing in that both meet all of these criteria. I am not saying that we shouldn't pay attention to this or catalog it and prosecute the perpetrators, I'm simply saying that the argument of the previous poster was extremely flawed.

0
Snowclonereply
lemmy.world

Well the police in Chicago have been accused of running dark site interrogation and torture facilities, it's cost the city millions in human rights abuse.

2

Right, but I wouldn't call those places "prisons," and even if they once were, they ceased being such when they started using them as fucking black sites to torture people

3
Snowclonereply
lemmy.world

Personally I'd be unwilling to write numbers on people and refer to them by that number, I just read a lot of accounts of the holocaust and that's too close for me to be around without feeling sick. Don't know how IDF can stomach this. But, you know, no end to the depth of human depravity and evil. I'm not a great person. Still couldn't do this.

15

Revelation 13:16-17 King James Version 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Behold The Beast

0
lemmy.world

The headline says "brands Palestinians". The article doesn't mention branding. They had numbers written on their foreheads. Most prisons identify prisoners by numbers. Probably not a great idea to just write it on their foreheads but if you have limited ways of marking prisoners it makes sense.

Israels soldiers are shit but how about we use accurate language to describe what they are doing. Lying helps no one.

11

I agree with your take. Shitty headline. When I think of “branding” , I think of hot iron burnt into flesh.

56
lemmy.world

i would strongly urge you to familiarise yourself with figures of speech lest you're -- you know -- branded as an ignorant person.

10
teftreply
lemmy.world

Maybe the website should learn not to use language that is ambiguous in order to push an agenda. Looking at these comments there are already a bunch of people who are assuming brand to mean scarification by burning since they evidently only read the headline.

39
sh.itjust.works

I think they're almost certainly deliberately using ambiguous language to push an agenda. (Either that or both the author and the editor are incompetent.) And I would add that the language isn't even actually ambiguous. It's simply deceptive. "Brand" in this context would be interpreted literally by a normal reader and claiming it's a metaphor is disingenuous.

7
Dasusreply
lemmy.world

Hmm

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/04/yellow-star-houses-budapest-hungarian-jews-nazis-holocaust

Branded with a yellow star: the Jewish houses marked for death by the Nazis

Just as an aside, even the Nazis had the decency to not tattoo the numbers on people's foreheads.

Pretending there's no dehumanisation or othering going on here is disingenuous.

https://museeholocauste.ca/en/resources-training/the-process-of-othering/

What is Othering?

Othering is a process whereby a group of people is made to seem fundamentally different, even to the point of making that group seem less than human. This process can trigger instinctive emotional reactions towards members of that group. In many instances, othering has been used to degrade, isolate, and render possible the discrimination, abuse, or persecution of a group.

11
sh.itjust.works

A house can't literally be branded, so the use of "brand" in that context must be metaphorical. People, however, can and historically often have been branded quite literally.

As for othering: it is irrelevant to the point I was making, so your reference to it here is a good example of how people make a false and inflammatory statement, and then when challenged about it, those people retreat to a much weaker, uncontroversial claim. Meanwhile the public has seen the original, false, and inflammatory statement but not the challenge or the retreat.

No one would care if the headline said "Israelis see Palestinians as fundamentally different from themselves" or even "Israelis sometimes don't treat Palestinian prisoners with respect." However, what the headline does say is that Israelis physically mutilate Palestinian prisoners. Here in the comments you make a pitiful argument that the claim of physical mutilation is in fact just a metaphor, although even then you try to sneak in a comparison between Jews and Nazis. Jews aren't tattooing anything on anyone, but apparently they still have less decency than Nazis according to you.

0
Dasusreply
lemmy.world

Jews aren't tattooing anything on anyone, but apparently they still have less decency than Nazis according to you.

You're equating Israelis to all Jews. Not all Jews are Israeli. Zionist much?

You're making a pitiful argument yourself. You're genuinely, literally, explicitly claiming that the headline is "claiming Palestinians are being physically mutilated". I could give you a long lecture on why that sort of asinine prescriptive interpretation is literally linguistically incorrect, but you'd just ignore it, just like you're ignoring the genocide Israel is committing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription

But since you bring up the mutilation of Palestinians: https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6477/West-Bank:-Mutilation-of-Palestinian-dead-bodies-by-Israeli-soldiers-requires-international-investigation-and-accountability

But I guess mutilating dead bodies is just fine. Just like it's fine to massively dehumanise people by drawing a massive number on their forehead. Any pitiful reasoning as to why the number can't be on someone's arm, for instance? Nothing to do with constantly reminding the people who are being dehumanised that they're being dehumanised, surely. It's not like Israel dehumanises Palestinians on a systematic level, right?

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1145132

Huh, that's more than a year old.

UN rights chief warns of ‘dehumanization’ of Palestinians amid West Bank violence as Gaza crisis deepens

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/17/the-normalisation-of-dehumanisation-in-the-israel-palestine-conflict

"Othering is completely irrelevant here" sure man. I've been through military service in my country btw, and we actually got taught what things would be warcrimes.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state

Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant

On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:

Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;

Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);

Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);

Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);

Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;

Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);

Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.

8

Why don't you stay on topic and instead retreat to ten different other points no one is discussing or disagreeing with?

Deceptive language is being used by both sides. What is 'from the river to the sea' as an example. It doesn't help the cause if you can't concede the most simple facts (ie yeah this article is using ambiguous language to create an inflammatory headline). There is plenty of factual horrible stuff being perpetuated by the IDF - we don't need to make stuff up.

0
lemmy.world

... there are already a bunch of people who are assuming brand to mean scarification by burning since they evidently only read the headline.

anyone who actually thinks that that headline means literal branding is an illiterate dumbass who needs to read more.

anyone who's trying to sidestep the dehumanisation of prisoners mentioned in the article by throwing focus solely on the literal meaning of the word brand is an amoral dumbass who needs to understand humanity and history more.

-4

I will admit that my first thought was literal branding. This is the IDF we're talking about.

5

This is still a heinous act of dehumanization,... When I hear of a human being marked as a "brand" I think of a hot iron. I opened the article fearing the worst. Thankfully this is not that.

7

If we're comparing with established prison practice let's also mention how prisoners also get human rights, habeas corpus, due process, equal treatment and stuff like that. Israel has none of that for Palestinians.

4
lemmy.world

According to the article this is not standard practice at all. The number practice continued during their arrest while they were beaten and tortured

More unusual was that each man had a number written on his forehead.

"The soldiers turned us from names into numbers, and every detainee had a number that they used to provoke him during his arrest and call him by number instead of name. To them, we are just numbers."

According to the PCHR, most detainees are beaten during these campaigns, and the Israeli army is trying new steps to intimidate them.

"Usually, a Palestinian is arrested and transferred to a known interrogation centre where he is interrogated. But the Israeli soldiers have replaced that with these humiliating measures, and they say that they have the right to detain any person for six hours without reporting him as a detainee to the Israeli army," Abu Hawash said.

1
teftreply
lemmy.world

Here is an article about numbering of prisoners in the California penitentiary system. It's been a system to identify prisoners for more than 100 years. Numbers are used to dehumanize all prisoners. It isn't an israeli/palestinian thing.

I only have an issue with the use of "branding" in the headline. If you can't link to a source that doesn't use deceptive headlines then don't post anything. You can't really convert people in good faith to your cause if you're lying to them with ambiguous language.

0
lemmy.world

They do not write the numbers on their forehead from the pictures I see in that article

7
teftreply
lemmy.world

They wore clothing with numbers on it. The prisoners were numbered and only referred to by that number while they were in the system. Just because they had a number written on their forehead instead of on their clothing doesn't really change the fact that they were numbered.

The only reason your article is getting upvotes is because people assume the palestinians are being branded with numbers (since that's what the headline says). They aren't being branded. Numbers written on someone are not the same as numbers branded on someone.

Again I think the israelis are a bunch of cunts and are dehumanizing the palestinians but you shouldn't lie in a headline. That is unless you're trying to be deceptive...

2
lemmy.world

This user made a great analogy https://lemmy.world/comment/13210775

But besides that, there is a different level of dehumanization when writing directly on people. Especially when combined with beatings and torture.

The parallels are eerily similar, which was likely what the author was trying to evoke as well.

0
teftreply
lemmy.world

So once again you just ignore the "branding" issue. I'm blocking you since you obviously have some sort of agenda and don't engage in good faith. Good day.

0

Once again you focus on irrelevant minutae to avoid acknowledging that it is a comparable dehumanization tactic.

5
Krauerkingreply
lemy.lol

Brand

1): a mark made by burning with a hot iron to attest manufacture or quality or to designate ownership

(2): a printed mark made for similar purposes : 

It mentions a printed mark. Read a dictionary next time you are board bored and want to defend the IDF.

Edit: God I hate modern autocorrect and IDF bought people being wrong while pedantic

-1
lemmy.world

It's not a trademark and it's not a mark made with a hot iron, so atleast according to the definition that you tried to use as a gotcha, it's not a brand.

Edit: After I had commented, the person edited out part of the 2nd definition so that the definition would fit their narrative. What was edited out: " (2) : a printed mark made for similar purposes : trademark".

From Miriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

They're basically using the (edited) definition of trademark branding to claim that these written numbers are a branding.

4
Krauerkingreply
lemy.lol

Its an example of. It was tagged as see also. And it's literally says "printed" what the hell.

I'm sorry I left in the direct dictionary text so it can be nitpicked as to how writing numbers on people isn't "branding"

How is there this many people that can argue against a dictionary?

1
Krauerkingreply
lemy.lol

A printed mark to designate ownership.

Wrote numbers on their forehead to dehumanize them.

Nope. Not even touching the comparison to concentration camps cause it doesn't matter. They were branded. You not liking the word cause of your own connotations does not make it incorrect.

1
lemmy.world

"A printed mark to designate ownership." is about trademarks, intellectual property. You're basically saying that Israel trademarked the skin of those prisoners.

Opening a dictionary and looking up a word is one thing, you still need some basic amount of reading comprehension to interpret what you are reading in that dictionary, which you're clearly lacking.

-1

A representative example is not the whole beginning and end of a definition my dude/ette.

They did mark ownership. Their prisoners. They marked them to show they are in ownership of the IDF and used numbers to easier organize. It's a thing that's pretty basic just not usually done on skin which is why people are upset and trying to cover for this.

My grandmother was an ilenglush teacher and would be really upset if you were in her class.

You get a C- for definitions and reading comprehension. Class dismissed.

1
teftreply
lemmy.world

Read a dictionary next time you are board

So ironic.

0

Yeah that one is a bit funny. Autocorrect can be a bitch. Doesn't explain you demanding a different word because it has a definition you don't like and ignoring it.

0

ITT: a bunch of non-native English speakers lecturing native English speakers on the meaning and usage of English words in colloquial English :-/

3
lemmy.world

I have a theory that people that willingly post links from this site are doing it on purpose to cause more harm to Palestinians. Hear me out.

  • No other news source has confirmed this act.

  • Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.

  • People that actually read the article are pointing out that the headline is misleading but they are getting drowned out by pedantic discussions of semantics when it's clear the implication is physical mutilation.

  • There is so much heinous actions committed by the IDF but here we are talking about made up news. See where this is going?

There is something fucky going on.

2
lemmy.world

No other news source has confirmed this act.

  1. the domiannace of the big news outlets by zionists is well documented.

  2. notice how Israel has killed all the journalists and the sites that do report carefully use passive lagnuage for israeli actions and active and adverserial language for anything lebanese or gazan people do. Its obvious bias and controlled jouranlism. So why would you think them not covering something is meaningful?

Maybe you are just lookinbg for confirmation of your own bias?

6
TheFonzreply
lemmy.world

Every single day heinous actions by the IDF are being reported in mainstream news. You're straight lying or stuck in online echo chambers. The fact that this comment has any up votes is really frightening.

-5

Every single day heinous actions by the IDF are being reported in mainstream news. You’re straight lying or stuck in online echo chambers.

You're arguing that this headline is biased against Israel, yet your implication here is "Israel's heinous actions are being reported so there can't be a bias against Israel."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/2/over-100-staff-accuse-bbc-of-bias-in-its-coverage-of-israels-war-in-gaza

The BBC has been accused by more than 100 of its staff of giving Israel favourable coverage in its reporting of the war on Gaza and criticised for its lack of “accurate evidence-based journalism”.

A letter sent to the broadcaster’s director general, Tim Davie, and CEO Deborah Turness on Friday said: “Basic journalistic tenets have been lacking when it comes to holding Israel to account for its actions.”

“The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians,” the letter said.

Someone is reporting according to journalistic standards what is literally and actually happening, which is the everyday dehumanisation of Palestinians through acts like drawing a huge number on their foreheads and calling them only using it instead of their name. And you're making a huge deal about the reporting being biased and deceptive, when it's neither of those things. And definitely not everyone on this comment thread is taking the "branding" to mean "burning with a hot iron".

We need to robustly challenge Israel's dehumanisation of Palestinians. I think to do that requires us not to whinge about a headline when it doesn't fill some weird linguistic purity standard in your head where "branding" can only mean 'burning with a hot iron'."

2
Dasusreply
lemmy.world

Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.

Why do you keep insisting this childish bullshit that no-one has argued for?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

a(1)

: a mark made by burning with a hot iron to attest manufacture or quality or to designate ownership

(2)

: a PRINTED mark made for similar purposes

b(1)

: a mark put on criminals

5
TheFonzreply
lemmy.world

I'm curious, are you a native English speaker? In colloquial English the term "branded" is almost never referred to the second point in the Webster dictionary. The term originates from a particular context and the etymology derives from germanic "to burn". I'm not doing the semantic bullshit game that already happened in this thread. No one uses "brand" colloquially for printed form. I suspect you know this.

-3
Dasusreply
lemmy.world

In colloquial English the term "branded" is almost never referred to the second point in the Webster dictionary

Oh fuck right off. It has a way stronger connotation in colloquial English to be any other definition except an actual burning hot iron.

IF we were having this conversation 150 years ago, it would be different.

We're not.

https://www.playphrase.me/#/search?q=Branded

What sort of a percentage of those is referring to an actual brand and isn't from a piece of media depicting something before 1900's?

How about here?

https://edition.cnn.com/search?q=Branded&from=0&size=10&page=1&sort=relevance&types=article&section=

Here?

https://apnews.com/article/wawa-tumbler-recall-metal-straw-injuries-0225d1ec580c880d3f1aef199e6580ca

https://apnews.com/search?q=%22branded%22&s=0

https://apnews.com/search?q=%22branded+people%22&s=0

Searching for "branded people" and the first story to come up is

No one uses "brand" colloquially for printed form. I suspect you know this.

Not a native speaker, are ya?

Not to mention which, you still haven't addressed the fact that demanding such linguistic prescription is wrong in general, not to mention in journalistic practice where standards are different.

See you're trying to challenge linguistics when you have an understanding that's probably from your lessons at whatever public school, because the teachers at those tend to be extremely prescriptive. Something which modern linguistics definitely wouldn't agree with to that extent at least, and definitely not in the context of headlines, and definitely not in the context of this specific word, which actually has this definition as well.

(Also, you're avoiding admitting Israel is committing crimes against humanity. Probably because you're a filtht little genocide denier.)

-2
TheFonzreply
lemmy.world

You keep bringing up the branding of objects or products as a counter to the branding implied when humans are the subject. In the AAP article you linked it is referring to product branding.

I know for sure English is not your language now.

Almost everyone in this thread that did not read the article took the physical scarification implication of the headline.

This in such a weird hill to die on. Unless you are the author of the article it's odd how much effort you are putting into discussing the semantics of branding when it comes to humans. Right now the IDF is committing genocide and there are so many more horrendous acts being neported in actual news sources to refer to but here we are super concerned with explaining how the word "branded" akshuallly really means printed text haha no really gotcha (in every colloquial context - not news articles discussing products! - in the English language when the physical branding of humans is mentioned it is universally taken as physical scarification; Not drawing with a sharpie).

Like, why?

Edit: just reread your comment and just caught the labels. Holy shit,

"filthy little genocide denier"

How sad that even after people mention they agree that Israel is committing heinous acts (I've stated as much numerous times) you can't help yourself. We are all in agreement here that Israel is committing genocide but I want nothing to do with you. You are incapable of discussing anything that disagrees on the slightest fact because your feelings are unable to handle any criticism. I recommend you stick to some safe bubble or echo chamber from now on.

-2
Dasusreply
lemmy.world

You keep deferring whenever your childish garbage is shown to be moronic.

This in such a weird hill to die on.

Isn't it just? Had you actually read the article I linked in the first place, your asinine ego wouldn't be in your way to admit how wrong you are. But you're not interested in actual linguistics. You don't care about it and you're not versed in it, which is apparent from you pushing views that high-schoolers might have, because you've just never read anything about linguistics beyond your lessons on that level. I've said it several times. Applying such a prescriptive criteria to journalistic headlines is beyond inane. Literally a 12-year old in my country would be expected to understand what I've been repeating to you several times now. So you've definitely not stepped a foot anywhere near a university anytime in your life.

You're stomping your foot, crying "NO, 'BRAND' ONLY HAS ONE SINGLE MEANING. ONE SINGLE ONE. THAT'S HOW LANGUAGE WORKS. WAA-WAA!"*.

You desperately need your exaggerated bullshit to be right, but since you've exaggerated and generalised, it's obviously not, which makes you ashamed, which makes you even more convicted to die on this hill on that you don't understand the first thing about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description

https://spcollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=254319&p=1695321

https://newslit.org/educators/resources/seven-standards-quality-journalism/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216608002798

Cry all you want, but the journalist has done nothing wrong, and unlike you claim, people in this thread definitely aren't assuming "physical mutilation" when they read "brand". You can cry and cry and cry all day, it won't make your sixth grade approach to philology any better, kiddo. :D

I recommend you stick to some safe bubble or echo chamber from now on.

2
TheFonzreply
lemmy.world

All right Noam Chomsky. I think you shit your diaper again. Maybe you should call your caretaker to come change it. Your expertise on linguistics is on par with Joe Rogan. No one here is talking about linguistic purity dumbass. As native English speakers were just pointing out how the expression is used colloquially, which I know is a difficult concept for you to grasp.

I have no interest in moronic strawmen about linguistic purity since you are unable to hold more than one thought in your head at the same time without having to call someone a filthy little genocide denier

Go back to Tumblr or something.

-1

No one here is talking about linguistic purity dumbass.

Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.

You're saying everyone in the comments is interpreting this headline as prescriptively as you pretend it is meant. Us using the same bar of prescriptiveness for your statement means you mean literally every single person is interpreting it as literal physical branding using a hot iron.

That's a ridiculous statement, and just me disagreeing with you would make it incorrect, and several other people have tried explaining this to you. You refuse to admit that there's such a thing as descriptive language or that "branding" can be used descriptively even if it lacked a meaning of a printed mark, which it does not.

"Moronic strawmen about linguistic purity"

You're the one making that moronic strawman though. You're denying the existence of descriptive language. This is what I meant earlier. You don't even understand what that word means, so you don't understand you're doing it, which makes this rather hilarious, as your linguistic understanding is on the level of a 16-year old.

You're trying to say the article is essentially propaganda against Israel. It's not. To say Israel is branding people in this context is well within linguistic and journalistic standards, despite you not understanding what those standards are, even when half a dozen people are trying to explain them to you.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=branded%2C+branding&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

See the usage going down steadily throughout the 1900's, until there's a marked uptick in the 80's, when the word resurfaced with a new context, that is currently the most colloquially used (brand as in trademark). That usage has lead to a semantic shift of the word, making it lose it's connotation of "physical mutilation with a hot iron" as you can see from for example the playphrase.me link despite you pretending that all of the examples I used referred to objects instead of people. Is Candyman an object or a person, hmm? What about "I"? "They"? Hell, even the clip from a show that's depicting a scene in the wild west, where there was actual branding, the quote isn't referring to "branding" via a hot iron, but in the sense that it is most commonly used. Here in the headline of our article it just happens to overlap with making a physical mark on the people, which also fits the definition of "brand".

You don't understand linguistic or journalistic standards. You're wrong in your childish assertions, but you'll never be able to accept that.

0
shastaxcreply
lemm.ee

No, because the mark of the beast is voluntarily added and does not differ per person because it is more of a logo that represents who they follow. A MAGA hat is closer to the mark of the beast

7

Christians will be excited about this and make them want to support Israel even harder. The whole point in supporting Israel is to manifest the end times prophecy from the book of revelations.

2

It's not a brand. It's marker. like they do to runners in some race. With all the other horrid shit Israel does to folks in Gaza, this is pretty small beer and hardly worth the electrons to post it.

-4
Hamartiareply
lemmy.world

If your local police force rounded up all the males in a minority group and wrote the processing numbers on their foreheads do you think it might make the news?

9
reddthat.com

If my local police were bombing schools and hospitals, their writing numbers on people with sharpies might just get (rightfully) overlooked.

4

At the time maybe, but a lot of smaller details such as this will become much more important later on when the dust settles. So, why not write it up now so that ot can be revisited later on. It's not as if there's a limit to the number of acticles they can publish.

4
4lanreply
lemmy.world

Yeah no one is saying that markers are inhumane, this is clearly a post drawing parallels between Nazi Germany and Nazi Israel

7

Writing the number on their foreheads is flat out dehumanising. How is that in any way contentious?

6

If you can't understand the difference between having your hand stamped at a concert and a fucking military writing "your" number on your forehead in permanent marker then I literally have nothing else to say to you.

36