upvote
That's a huge problem (immediate, unjustified escalation to violence becoming the norm) and:

> The main justification floated is that the car was "going fast" and thus made the undercover Israeli soldiers feel unsafe.

"I feel unsafe" has become the catch-all excuse for everything in the recent decade. It's used to justify everything from Karen complaining about someone's behavior in public to people calling the cops on someone for looking at them wrong, to making a scene on a public bus, to police officers jumping the gun and escalating to violence, all the way to war crimes. When did "I feel unsafe" become this ultimate i-can-do-anything-and-avoid-responsibility card? Like a magic spell that you can cast before doing something crazy. It's like that old "He's coming right for us" South Park joke, but instead of being a joke it has real life and death consequences.

reply
> I wouldn't be surprised if IDF forces deployed to the West Bank are trained much like American police officers are

IDF trains them.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/with-whom-are-many-u-s-polic...

reply
That checks out. Although the history of "Warrior Policing" in the US predates this (going back to the 60s) and extends far beyond IDF training programs:

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

reply
David Simon and others have written extensively for decades about the problems with the Baltimore Police Department, and other departments around the country. They trace these problems back to the war on drugs and other purely American factors.

The Amnesty article that you're citing is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The Baltimore Police Department did not need to learn about constitutional violations from the Israelis.

reply
Everybody thinks the War on Drugs is about "keeping people safe". It never was, it was always about manufacturing a tool to oppress "others".
reply
from that lens it was almost necessary to invent a pretense since people got all huffy about overt oppression at the end of Jim Crow.
reply
Pretty sure police brutality was invented way before Israel existed.
reply
Israel has learned from 1940-1945 and improved it, so it seems.
reply
The strong/dominant beating up in the weak is as old as time unfortunately. One doesn’t always have to make that particular comparison as it is a sensitive one. You can point to any major instance of colonization (by whomever) to see similar polices and in the past it was even more brutal because there were no reporters (eg Belgium Free Congo had an estimated population decline of 75% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_S... .)
reply
Oh, they did for sure. They learned at any opportunity Europeans or others will discard them, physically or otherwise. Your kind also learned from Goebbels, Palestinian movement's greatest teacher.
reply
In the 1200's British colonizers invaded Ireland, in 1920's the same colonial oppressors were moved to Palestine. Arthur Balfour was Chief Secretary for Ireland from 1887 till 1891 and it was his idea to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

Ship out the jews, radicalize the natives, have the two of them fight for hundreds of years. It couldn't be a more British idea.

reply
> I wouldn't be surprised if IDF forces deployed to the West Bank are trained much like American police officers are'

American police officers ARE trained much like IDF forces. By the IDF! https://jinsa.org/jinsa_program/homeland-security-program/

reply
The IDF is a foreign occupation army, not the police.

At least in the US, the police come from much the same communities as they patrol, and there's some sort of democratic accountability. Don't like the police? You can vote for local government candidates who will implement reforms.

In the West Bank, Palestinians are subject to arbitrary violence at the hands of foreign soldiers. The IDF is not there to protect Palestinians. It's there to protect the Israeli settlers who are taking Palestinian land. If Palestinians don't like how the IDF behaves, tough luck. Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections, so they have zero say in the government that exercises ultimate authority over their lives.

This is a fundamentally different situation from policing in the US.

reply
Their media is non stop hammering the citizen with scary Muslim stories since the beginning of the country, every day since birth, with a density as if nothing else ever happened in the world.

Deprogramming is possible. Just tell them it is impossible to argue it was their own idea. They know how hard it was rubbed in their face.

reply
> at the slightest "provocation"

Is that it though? When one has historical reasons to expect being attacked, one must be vigilant and one must be trigger-ready.

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

reply
Yes, American police use these kinds of justifications when innocent people are killed too. It's absurd (watch Surviving Edged Weapons [0] some time) either way.

The reality is, if you have soldiers mowing down children throwing rocks, mowing down families driving around, mowing down kids playing football, mowing down toddlers in their bedrooms, mowing down hundreds of people each year [1], you've over-indexed on vigilance and under-indexed on the value of human life. You're not trigger-ready, you're trigger-happy.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6jhru-EqDA

[1] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ohchr-press-release-17oc...

reply
A professional looks at and understands the situation as it exists now. A professional is trained to not get into situations where fear controls them. Your argument is a compelling one that either these are not professionals or that they are professionals and are doing this on purpose. The stats today clearly show the massive difference between danger to Israeli personnel and Palestinians. Israel at this point has either failed to train professional forces that seek to deescalate and avoid dangerous situations or is training forces to find situations they can claim fear as a justification for murder. So, pick. They are either amateurs at which point it is a deplorable to put amateurs with this much force near a vulnerable population or they are professionals trained to do exactly this, find ways to kill a vulnerable population and claim self defense.
reply
A professional is not obligated to risk death (or die) on the off chance that you are belligerent but not actually dangerous. Do not ever act belligerent around law enforcement, in any country, especially in a country where they LITERALLY EXPECT to be ambushed by people who act like that, because such people have been doing it for decades.

Be calm. Do not run. Talk clearly. Keep your hands visible. Did your parents not teach you?

reply
So what exactly did the 8 year old boy sat in the back of his parents car do wrong?
reply
Nothing, and that is very bad luck. My heart breaks for the kid.

But unless you are suggesting that laws should be not applied to those with kids, I am not sure why that matters? What do you suggest? I cannot wait for "kid" to be a number one accessory to bring to a heist then.

reply
I'll repeat the bit about professionals being trained to avoid and deescalate. That is the point. I think the details of this, and many similar incidents clearly show a lack of attempt to deescalate or avoid. That was the clear argument I made in my post and am re-emphasizing now. This clear trend shows either malicious intent by professionals or amateurs put in a situation they shouldn't have been allowed near and those above them should be held accountable for it.
reply