By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Soldiers who detained a CNN crew reporting on a settler attack in Tayasir were captured on camera stating that the entire West Bank belongs to Jews and that they were enacting revenge for the death of a settler days earlier. During the confrontation, one soldier placed the cameraman in a chokehold as troops attempted to prevent filming at an illegal West West Bank outpost. The soldiers expressed their belief that the land was theirs and that they were acting in the absence of state intervention against those who killed the settler. The IDF stated the soldiers’ actions were incompatible with expectations and would be thoroughly reviewed.
Read the original article here
A disturbing report has emerged detailing an alleged assault and detention of a CNN crew by Israeli troops, followed by the soldiers espousing far-right ideology. Adding to the gravity of the situation, a soldier guarding an illegal outpost reportedly told a reporter he was executing “revenge” for a settler’s death because the state was failing to do so. While the army has condemned the incident and vowed to investigate, the incident has sparked a torrent of commentary, revealing deep-seated concerns and diverse perspectives.
The narrative presented by the CNN crew paints a harrowing picture of their encounter. They claim to have been physically assaulted and detained by soldiers who then proceeded to express extremist viewpoints. This account raises immediate questions about the conduct of the troops involved and the potential for ideological indoctrination within certain segments of the military. The soldiers’ alleged pronouncements are seen by some as a troubling indication of how far-right sentiments are being voiced, even within the ranks of the armed forces.
Compounding these concerns is the chilling confession of a soldier guarding an illegal outpost. His statement, that he was carrying out personal “revenge” for the death of a settler due to perceived state inaction, highlights a dangerous breakdown in the rule of law and a willingness to take matters into one’s own hands. This soldier’s justification suggests a profound distrust in the state’s ability or willingness to deliver justice, leading him to believe extrajudicial actions are necessary. The very concept of an illegal outpost and a soldier operating with such a personal vendetta fuels anxieties about the erosion of order and the proliferation of vigilantism.
The army’s swift condemnation and promise of an investigation are noted, but many express skepticism. Historical precedent, as suggested by some, indicates that such investigations can often result in findings of no wrongdoing or the exoneration of the soldiers involved. There’s a cynical sentiment that the army will investigate itself, perhaps finding that the soldier shouldn’t have vocalized his “quiet part out loud,” implying a tacit acceptance of the underlying ideology. The phrase “We investigated and found no wrong doing” is frequently invoked as a predictable outcome, reflecting a lack of faith in the impartiality of the process.
The term “settler” itself has become a point of contention, with some arguing it’s a euphemism for what they deem Israeli right-wing terrorists. This linguistic debate underscores the polarized views surrounding the settlement movement and its implications for regional stability. The idea that these individuals are actively involved in actions that lead to violence and then seek “revenge” from soldiers guarding their illegal encampments paints a grim picture of a cycle of conflict.
The assertion that this soldier is acting out of a sense of “revenge for settler’s death” also prompts questions about the circumstances leading to that death. Was the settler a victim of violence, and if so, what were the preceding events? Some commentators wonder if this settler forcibly evicted a Palestinian family and took over their home, suggesting a potential trigger for retaliatory actions that then fuels the soldier’s desire for revenge. This perspective highlights the complex and often violent reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where narratives of victimhood and aggression are deeply intertwined.
The notion that this incident is indicative of a broader societal issue is also prevalent. The comment that “the Israeli populace is fine with this” and “wants this” suggests that such actions and ideologies are not isolated but rather reflect a significant segment of public opinion. The argument is made that by consistently voting for certain political platforms, the Israeli populace implicitly endorses these outcomes. This perspective casts a shadow of responsibility not just on the soldiers but on the wider electorate.
Comparisons to historical periods, specifically the 1940s and the rise of fascism, have been made, indicating a deep-seated concern that current events echo disturbing patterns of the past. The fear that “Fascism running amok” is a present reality, not just a historical footnote, is palpable. This hyperbolic, yet deeply felt, comparison underscores the severity with which some perceive the situation.
There’s also a discernible pattern of commentary suggesting a coordinated effort to highlight negative aspects of Israel. Some posters note an increase in anti-Israeli content across multiple platforms, questioning whether this is a genuine outpouring of concern or a manufactured narrative. However, this is often countered by the assertion that the sheer volume of negative news is a direct consequence of Israel’s actions, and that reporting on war crimes or controversial policies is simply a reflection of reality.
The sentiment that “IDF attacking journalists is a long-established tradition” and “part of their military doctrine” is a stark accusation, suggesting that such encounters are not accidental but rather a deliberate tactic. The condemnation from the army is thus viewed with a degree of skepticism, as it contrasts with this perceived ingrained behavior. The argument that “Most Israelis are ok with this” and that there is “top-rot” within leadership, extending to other nations like Russia and the US, paints a picture of widespread systemic corruption and moral decay at the highest levels of power.
The idea that “sociopaths/psychopaths at the helm encourage all the lesser ones” provides a psychological framework for understanding how such incidents might occur. This viewpoint suggests that leaders with these traits foster an environment where unethical and harmful behavior is not only tolerated but implicitly encouraged, creating a “metastatic cancer” within society. The alleged actions of the soldiers are thus seen as a symptom of this larger societal illness.
The discussion also touches upon the role of American evangelicals and their perceived blindness to the consequences of their support for certain policies, with a grim prediction that they too could be marginalized when no longer useful. The question of deportation, specifically for those in illegal outposts, is raised, highlighting the complexities of citizenship and residency in disputed territories.
The notion that the soldiers involved are merely “the only troops there” and that “that’s what the term settler means in this area” suggests a complex geopolitical reality where the lines between military, civilian, and illegal occupation are blurred. The comparison to other historical contexts where the term “settler” has been used underscores the enduring and often fraught nature of settlement policies across the globe. The focus on the fight against Iran as a rationale for military action, as opposed to internal dissent or criticism of the press, further contextualizes the current geopolitical tensions.
The argument that supporting a war does not equate to supporting every action taken by troops on the ground is a nuanced point, attempting to differentiate between broad political support and specific acts of misconduct. However, the counter-argument persists that the sheer volume of negative reporting is not a smear campaign but rather accurate reporting of “sketchy shit” and “war crimes.” The overwhelming sentiment among critics is that the continuous commission of alleged “war crimes” leads to legitimate criticism, and it’s not a “coordinated effort to read the fuckin’ room” but rather a response to observable reality.
The weekend providing an opportunity for people to catch up on news sources like The Times of Israel is presented as a counterpoint to the idea of a coordinated smear, suggesting a more organic process of information consumption. The core message for many is that they are “pissed off and tired of them continuing to get away with this bullshit.” The extreme statement, “All IDF are scum,” while inflammatory, reflects a deep-seated anger and disillusionment that some feel is warranted by the alleged actions. The mention of ongoing protests suggests that heightened military activity might be a contributing factor to increased scrutiny.
The insinuation that Iran has an “effective propaganda operation” is a counter-argument offered by some, suggesting that the current wave of criticism might be strategically amplified. However, the debate over poll numbers and their interpretation, particularly regarding support for war and potentially more extreme ideologies like ethnic cleansing, remains a contentious point. The questioning of whether “Most Israelis hate settlers” and the reference to Rabin’s assassination suggest a historical context of internal division within Israeli society regarding settlement policies.
Ultimately, the article grapples with a multifaceted issue, encompassing alleged military misconduct, the spread of extremist ideologies, the complexities of occupation, and the deeply polarized nature of public opinion. The condemnation and investigation by the army are acknowledged, but a prevailing sense of skepticism and a call for genuine accountability underscore the profound concerns raised by these disturbing reports.