By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Jad was loaded into an Israeli military vehicle, but he died either before or after this occurred. The exact circumstances of his death, including the location and number of gunshot wounds, remain unknown. This is due to the Israeli military’s refusal to return Jad’s body to his family and their subsequent silence regarding his injuries.
Read the original article here
The harrowing images emerging from a recent incident, showing Israeli soldiers standing by as a Palestinian boy bled to death after being shot, have ignited a firestorm of grief, outrage, and despair. The video, which has circulated widely, depicts a scene of profound tragedy where a young life is extinguished, seemingly with indifference. It raises deeply unsettling questions about accountability, the rules of engagement, and the very humanity of those involved.
The official narrative from the IDF suggests the boy, Jad, was accused of throwing a rock, a justification that, under their rules of engagement, can permit the use of lethal force. However, the video presents a more complicated, and far more disturbing, picture. It shows an Israeli soldier dropping an object next to the boy after he was shot and then taking a photograph of it. This act, observed by Jad’s family and human rights advocates, is interpreted as a potential attempt to fabricate evidence and frame the young victim, adding a layer of premeditation and malice to an already horrific event.
For many, this incident is not an isolated tragedy but a continuation of a deeply disturbing pattern. The sentiment is palpable that such events, while shocking, are becoming distressingly common, making headlines that announce Israel *not* killing innocent Palestinians a rarity. The feeling of helplessness and the frustration with the perceived international silence or complicity are overwhelming. The BBC, in this context, is even accused of being complicit by presenting the news in a manner that seems to normalize these occurrences. The pain of the boy’s parents, visible in their eyes, serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of this ongoing conflict.
The characterization of Israel as a “terrorist state” and a “pox on this planet” reflects an intense level of anger and disillusionment. This anger extends to the United States, perceived as being deeply entangled with and controlled by Israel, hindering its ability to act independently and ethically. The notion that any criticism of these actions could be labeled “anti-Semitic” is seen as a tactic to silence legitimate condemnation and deflect from the atrocities themselves.
The disconnect between the alleged actions and the justification is stark. The idea that a single stone could warrant lethal force is met with disbelief, particularly when juxtaposed with the heavily armed state of the soldiers. While acknowledging that throwing stones is not condoned, the disproportionate reaction is seen as extreme, especially when the video itself doesn’t clearly show a stone being thrown, or the immediate context that might have led to such a violent response. The suggestions range from verbal altercations to intelligence gathering, none of which, in the eyes of many observers, justify the shooting of a child.
The description of the IDF’s actions as “business as usual” speaks volumes about the perceived normalization of violence against Palestinians. The irony of this phrase, coupled with the anticipation of what are described as “Zionist bootlickers” downvoting and defending the actions, highlights a deep division and a sense of futility in engaging in rational debate. The wish for the soldiers to “get what they deserve” underscores the profound sense of injustice and the desire for some form of retribution or accountability.
The phrase “World’s Most Moral Army^^^tm” is used with biting sarcasm, pointing to a stark contradiction between self-proclaimed morality and the documented actions. The observation that “the horrors a person will do when they think God is on their side” suggests a belief that religious or nationalistic fervor can override ethical considerations. The characterization of the IDF as “scum of the fucking earth” is a raw expression of disgust and moral condemnation. The assertion that the IDF has “done this thousands of times and bragged about it” but that video evidence is typically absent points to a systemic issue that is deliberately obscured.
The longing for the United States to return to a perceived state of independence, free from Israeli influence, is a recurring theme. The questioning of how leaders can claim to be patriotic while enabling such actions reflects a deep sense of betrayal. The fear of suppression and deletion of such narratives is palpable, along with a plea for allies to stand with those who are fighting for justice. The concern that the US is losing its global standing and that “everyone hates us now” reflects a broader anxiety about the consequences of perceived complicity.
The expectation that these allegations will be dismissed as “lies” or “anti-Semitic” is a reflection of past experiences and a cynical view of how such incidents are handled. The poignant question, “At what age do they stop seeing Palestinian kids as kids? Or do they ever see them as kids?” cuts to the heart of the dehumanization that allows such violence to occur. The comparison to the My Lai massacre underscores the gravity of the situation and the potential for widespread war crimes.
The search for alternative sources to view the full story, and the frustration with paywalls, further indicates a desire for transparency and accountability. The condemnation of Israel as “disgusting” and “sick and unwell,” alongside similar descriptions for the United States, suggests a belief that both nations are deeply flawed and in need of fundamental change. The call for Israelis themselves to stand up to the IDF highlights a hope for internal reform, while also acknowledging the potential for collective blame. The parallel drawn with internal struggles for democracy in the US serves as a reminder that progress often requires active resistance.
The observation that one can criticize both the Israeli government and individual actions without it being anti-Semitic is a crucial point, emphasizing that standing for justice does not preclude critical examination of any entity. The difficulty in viewing the video clearly and the request for higher quality footage highlight the importance of verifiable evidence. The comparison to the conduct of ICE in the US after shooting innocent people, and the assertion that ICE is trained by the IDF, suggests a perceived mirroring of brutal tactics and a shared disregard for human rights across different security forces. The plea to avoid adding comments that are “super cringe and super disrespectful to the victims” serves as a call for empathy and a focus on the human tragedy at the core of these events.