"What's wrong with that? I don't understand."

August 17, 2010 9:23 AM

"I did not humiliate those detainees. I didn't hit them, I didn't act toward them unpleasantly. It's completely different than the American soldier some are trying to compare me to," she told Israel Radio. The IDF has condemned her behavior. Meanwhile, this is not the first time Facebook has caused an issue for the IDF.
posted by griphus (49 comments total)

It's completely different than the American soldier some are trying to compare me to...

Oh great, America is the new Nazi Germany.
posted by DU at 9:25 AM on August 17, 2010 [4 favorites]

Whats the word we're not allowed to use on metafilter anymore?

Whatever it is...yeah...I feel like saying that.
posted by hal_c_on at 9:28 AM on August 17, 2010

I don't think people are going to get it until Muslims are required to sew little crescents and stars on their clothes.
posted by atypicalguy at 9:29 AM on August 17, 2010 [16 favorites]

Bad judgement. But at least she's not chopping off their heads with a machete and sending the video to Al-Jazeera.
posted by punkfloyd at 9:33 AM on August 17, 2010 [3 favorites]

Well she sure as hell didn't act humanely or sensitively.

But Aberjil herself was baffled by the controversy.
'I still don't understand what was wrong,' the former conscript said in an interview on Israeli Army Radio today.


Some therapy might help her develop compassion. She doesn't really belong in society if she's not ashamed of what she did.
posted by anniecat at 9:33 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hooray for the process of dehumanization.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:34 AM on August 17, 2010

'I still don't understand what was wrong,' the former conscript said in an interview on Israeli Army Radio today.

That kinda demonstrates that this type of behavior is OK within her terror cell...umm I mean "colleagues".

Fucking disgusting.
posted by hal_c_on at 9:36 AM on August 17, 2010

This is silly. She's obviously a bit socially awkward and shouldn't be screwing around like that. But, it's a distraction. The IDF is murdering people, taking their land, destroying their property, and being horribly callous about it all. Let the media get up in that business rather than this easily prey.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:40 AM on August 17, 2010 [3 favorites]

This is silly. She's obviously a bit socially awkward and shouldn't be screwing around like that. But, it's a distraction. The IDF is murdering people, taking their land, destroying their property, and being horribly callous about it all. Let the media get up in that business rather than this easily prey.

Why do I always find myself agreeing with all your points but not your conclusions?

Making small actions like this morally unacceptable is one, hopefully-ratcheting step towards sanity in the Middle East.
posted by DU at 9:42 AM on August 17, 2010 [3 favorites]

Yeah, I'm with Burhanistan. This is a silly bit of misdirection BY the IDF; "look, we punish our soldiers when they 'humiliate' prisoners by putting their pictures on Facebook."

But we promote them when they break the arms and legs of prisoners, defend them when they shoot children, eulogize them when they bomb villages, and of course don't allow them to be criticized when they massacre human rights activists.

I think this little Facebook thing is a conscious propaganda operation by the IDF or the civilian leadership.
posted by jackbrown at 9:45 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

> Making small actions like this morally unacceptable is one, hopefully-ratcheting step towards sanity in the Middle East.

I hope so, but I think that unfortunately it has a kind of false placebo effect. People vent some outrage and the focus is put on the lowest man (woman) on the chain. Blame stops there, and the story fades out into the shadows of the 24 hour news cycle while the real crimes continue unabated. That's kind of melodramatic, but it's probably exactly what will happen here.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:45 AM on August 17, 2010 [4 favorites]

What she did showed poor judgment (to the point of stupidity), and she treated the detainees like curiosities or trophies to be photographed with, which is certainly degrading and perhaps even humiliating. Certainly such actions should be punished. However, there is an enormous and significant difference between this and this or this (second two links are potentially NSFW).
posted by jedicus at 9:45 AM on August 17, 2010

Bad judgement. But at least she's not chopping off their heads with a machete and sending the video to Al-Jazeera.

True enough. Still, I wouldn't like to see video-beheadings as the new metric of 'went too far' by which we judge treatment of prisoners, really.

Is there some technical definition of "humiliation" that the IDF uses in cases like this? Serious question, and not meant to justify what she did - I'm just wondering if she's really being totally clueless or rather trying to avoid a specific charge under whatever military rules apply to these cases.

Moral questions aside, I still can't figure out how people can be so stupid about putting stuff (whether pictures of bound prisoners or information about upcoming military operations or any of the other data mentioned in these links) on Facebook, of all things. All the military folks I've ever talked to, right down to my grandfather who last fought in World War II, emphasized the degree to which 'operational security' was beaten into them.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:48 AM on August 17, 2010 [2 favorites]

there is an enormous and significant difference between this and this or this

Maybe if she'd had another couple of months to get comfortable...
posted by klanawa at 10:02 AM on August 17, 2010

I still can't figure out how people can be so stupid about putting stuff ... on Facebook

It would be interesting to know 1) if those photos were only visible to her Facebook friends, and 2) if she thinks Facebook is a place where people can safely share information.

I think many folks in the younger generations who have grown up with internet access view online privacy differently than older generations. They seem to treat social networks as populated solely by their friends and people they know, not the critical world at large. Otherwise, they wouldn't be posting pictures of drinking from the generic red plastic "party" cups with high school friends, or smoking bongs, or a variety of other dangerous and/or illegal acts. This is not something for their parents or adults to see, but a way to brag to friends and relive their fun times. True, there are adults who get caught doing dumb things because they post the evidence online, but it seems more common with the youth.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:13 AM on August 17, 2010

Isn't there something in the Geneva Convention (yeah, I know, how "quaint") about not photographing POWs?
posted by NoMich at 10:28 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

The Israeli reaction to this is typical:

1. This is regretful.
2. There will be no punishment.

(Note that Ms Aberjil is no longer a soldier, so it is beyond the power of the IDF to punish her.)

One of the manifestations of the "Spirit of the IDF" in the linked official reply is curious. The IDF expecting praise for letting supply trucks through to Gaza is like Hamas proclaiming its humanity in feeding Gilad Shalit.
posted by iati at 10:30 AM on August 17, 2010 [2 favorites]

But at least she's not chopping off their heads with a machete and sending the video to Al-Jazeera.

Don't set the bar too high.
posted by chunking express at 10:37 AM on August 17, 2010 [7 favorites]

Now hear this:
dumb stuff takes place when you are in a war zone, have become a garrison state, or are trying to get by in a god awful situation. And it sometimes happens when your officers instill it; sometimes happens without them and you do it on your own. and it happens, too, if you are not Israeli and not American etc. It happens. I know this firsthand. Of course governments try to keep this shit from the home folks. How many Japanese skulls have you seen among the many taken by American troops in WWII? The ears cut off? The POW killed because it is a lot easier than getting them back to the rear of where your forces are? Sure. We should not humiliate, we should respect rules of engagement, respect our upbringing and so forth. It does not always happen. War and engagement changes people. I do not condone or excuse. But..
posted by Postroad at 10:38 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

NoMich:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

These are just photos, but I believe her true feelings were revealed by her comments on the photo:

I wonder if he’s got Facebook! I have to tag him in the picture!

I know it's official propaganda, but I do think this comment was illuminating:

Palestinian Authority spokesman Ghassan Khatib condemned the photos and said they pointed to a deeper malaise - how Israel’s 43-year-old occupation of Palestinians has affected the Israelis who enforce it. "This shows the mentality of the occupier. The occupation is unjust, immoral and, as these pictures show, corrupting."

posted by atypicalguy at 10:44 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

I do not condone or excuse. But..

Isn't that "But ..." you both condoning and excusing?
posted by chunking express at 10:47 AM on August 17, 2010 [8 favorites]

The Israeli reaction to this is typical:

1. This is regretful.
2. There will be no punishment.

Where did you read that there will be no punishment? Could you provide a source?
posted by Wordwoman at 10:52 AM on August 17, 2010

Burhanistan, jackbrown, et al:

Just because Israeli soldiers have perpetrated worse, doesn't mean this isn't worth discussing, and it certainly doesn't mean she shouldn't be punished. You see a propaganda-laden conspiracy. I see a transgression, which was brought to light through flippant use of technology that most of us also utilize, that has us discussing the implications of an Israeli soldier's treatment and dehumanization of a detainee.
posted by defenestration at 11:13 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

detainees*, rather.
posted by defenestration at 11:14 AM on August 17, 2010

War and engagement changes people. I do not condone or excuse. But..

But... but hey, it happens? But it's inevitable and we should therefor never engaged in armed conflict ever? But that's no reason not to come down on it with both feet and a ton of bricks too so that the repercussions of losing control for even a nanosecond is never far from the minds of combatants?

Which? When you leave off any conclusion it sure sounds like an "oh well." Personally I think pure pacifism approaches a full-blown psychosis but I still find it to be a more understandable reaction then a blase acceptance of treating other humans like vermin.
posted by phearlez at 11:15 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

Isn't there something in the Geneva Convention (yeah, I know, how "quaint") about not photographing POWs?

NoMich, I suspect you're thinking of Article 3 of the Third Convention:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:33 AM on August 17, 2010

I am not condoing and I am not exusing. My "but" meant onlyh: shit like this goes on in all theatres of war or areas close to being at war, where soldiers get dehumanized. It is a reality. For a reality check, read WARTIME by Paul Fussell, a terrific writer, a young guy who became a Lt in WWII and got badly wounded. He has written a number of books about war (check blibliography) and many other works on cultural topics and literature.
"But" therefore means bad stuff takes place. Always has. Always will. That you or I do not "accept" or "condone" it does not make it go away or ever will.
posted by Postroad at 11:46 AM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

I think many folks in the younger generations who have grown up with internet access view online privacy differently than older generations. They seem to treat social networks as populated solely by their friends and people they know, not the critical world at large.

Well, there is a big difference between posting something on facebook and posting on a blog or public forum. Before everyone got online and these social networks popped up, you really only had the option of posting to "the world".

But anyway, these sort of faux sociological comments about "the youth" are kind of ridiculous. Studies have shown that teens and younger people do understand privacy issues and more savvy users to change their privacy settings. It's users who don't understand computers very well who leave their privacy settings off or don't set them up properly.

The only real difference is that older people who aren't bright aren't online. Whereas younger people who aren't bright are online, and doing dumbass things on the internet.

--

Anyway, I don't think this person compares to Lindie England.
posted by delmoi at 11:49 AM on August 17, 2010

Well, Postroad, we already knew that bad shit happens during wartime. No one's under the delusion that war is a pillow-fight with tickles and giggles. So our attitude should just be "well, shit happens"? No, people need to be punished for what they do, and if they don't know better (like this soldier) then someone needs to train them better. You're right that these kinds of hijinks are inevitable, but she should have at least known that they were wrong. The fact that she was apparently oblivious means either that she's a rogue sociopath, or there's something in the military culture that condones this. I'm leaning towards the latter. Someone else had to take the pictures, after all.
posted by desjardins at 11:56 AM on August 17, 2010

iati: The Israeli reaction to this is typical:

1. This is regretful.
2. There will be no punishment.

From the Ha'aretz link:

Aberjil was discharged from the IDF a year ago, and the army has no legal means of prevent her from posting her photographs.

From the BBC link in the post:

Ms Aberjil had already been discharged from the army having completed her mandatory military service, and it was unclear whether she could face disciplinary action.

iati: (Note that Ms Aberjil is no longer a soldier, so it is beyond the power of the IDF to punish her.)

That may not be the case. CNN had a segment about it this morning. They reported that the IDF has already banned her from serving in the reserves. So she has been punished in a small way. They are now determining whether they can legally prosecute her. Even though the images were posted after her term of service was over, they were taken during that time period.

Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking who took the photos. She was part of a unit, which was presumably led by a commanding officer who should also be disciplined for this.
posted by zarq at 12:06 PM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

Being banned from the military is perhaps a reward rather than a punishmwent...but what do I know.I am all for punishing those who do stuff that should not be done, no matter whose military it is. She would get a slap on the wrist if still in the army. But we are told evenpicutes can not be taken of prisoners. How odd. Here is what I posted at my site just this morning!


100809-A-6225G-087. U.S. Army Soldiers with 2nd Platoon, Attack Company, 1st Regiment, 503rd Infantry Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, guide a group of captured enemy fighters in Shekhabad Valley, Wardak province, Afghanistan, Aug. 9, 2010. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Russell Gilchrest/Released)
posted by Postroad at 12:28 PM on August 17, 2010

The IDF is upset because the images are unsavory. Pictures of people - Arabs - in blindfolds is contrary to the impression they want everyone to have. This soldier's naivete isn't about what's appropriate, or humiliation of prisoners - her naivete is thinking the IDF would not care about controlling its message.
posted by Xoebe at 12:59 PM on August 17, 2010

"But" therefore means bad stuff takes place. Always has. Always will. That you or I do not "accept" or "condone" it does not make it go away or ever will.

what desjardins said... i don't understand what point you're trying to make here

sometimes, people are dicks to other people. in the past, people have also been dicks to other people. and, in the foreseeable future, there will be some people who are going to be dicks to other people.

and what? we don't get to say "stop be a dick, you dick!"?
posted by jammy at 2:52 PM on August 17, 2010

Ha'aretz:

Facebook photos depicting Israel Defense Forces soldiers pictured alongside handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinian detainees represent the norm, not the exception, in IDF conduct, an Israeli human rights group said on Tuesday, thus refuting an official army statement claiming the opposite.

posted by zarq at 3:27 PM on August 17, 2010 [2 favorites]

christ, what an asshole.
posted by geekhorde at 3:28 PM on August 17, 2010

The US isn't nazi germany, no. But you know, I turned on my TV for entertainment last night and was able to enjoy -from the comfort of my sofa- the cheery spectacle of a drunk woman, shamed and weeping, being booked into the Las Vegas jail. Not as part of some larger story; just so we all could sit back and enjoy the heavy rhythmic stroking of the Long arm of the Law. Or I could change channels and watch beefy armored guards extract a malcontent from his cell using mace and shields and clubs. That's entertainment. That's the way things are headed. If you're one of the bad guys, start performing. We'll pose you in big prisoner piles or whatever. You get apprehended, start dancing, clownie, you're part of the show.

Our lust for justice seems a thinly-veiled schadenfreuderection. I find it amazing that people come in here and are shocked -SHOCKED- that people are so casually unthinking and cruel. We live in a time where we bait perverts with the crotches of nubile teenage girls so we can humiliate them before ruining their lives on television. For entertainment purposes. What kind of people do you think we're growing out there? Caring people with a deep concern for the rights of the accused?
posted by umberto at 3:30 PM on August 17, 2010 [4 favorites]

I'm with Umberto. Have you guys never seen COPS? Or a news clip that shows police arresting a suspect? Lynndie England's photos were egregious not just because they were tasteless and insensitive, but because they showed the USA was using torture and humiliation to handle the prisoners in its gulags. What do these ones show - blindfolds and handcuffs? Big deal. These photos are not one iota as threatening to human dignity as Girls Gone Wild or Big Brother and the other Faux-reality shows.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:00 PM on August 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

Bad judgement. But at least she's not chopping off their heads with a machete and sending the video to Al-Jazeera.

Powerful point, and well made sir.
posted by the noob at 5:14 PM on August 17, 2010

Max Blumenthal: Eden Abergil, The Product Of A Blindfolded Society
posted by homunculus at 9:04 PM on August 17, 2010

These photos are not one iota as threatening to human dignity as Girls Gone Wild or Big Brother and the other Faux-reality shows.

What.

I was under the impression that the participants on Big Brother and other such shows were there because they wanted to be, and not prisoners held against their will by an occupying force that has systematically humiliated their people for decades, with these photos just another sad reminder of how their race is considered inferior, inconvenient, and nearly inhuman.

Seems to me this is a little more damaging to human dignity than a Big Brother contestant talking about her latest pap smear.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:52 PM on August 17, 2010 [3 favorites]

Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking who took the photos. She was part of a unit, which was presumably led by a commanding officer who should also be disciplined for this.
posted by merelyglib at 2:34 PM on August 18, 2010

I'm with Umberto. Have you guys never seen COPS? Or a news clip that shows police arresting a suspect? Lynndie England's photos were egregious not just because they were tasteless and insensitive, but because they showed the USA was using torture and humiliation to handle the prisoners in its gulags. What do these ones show - blindfolds and handcuffs? Big deal. These photos are not one iota as threatening to human dignity as Girls Gone Wild or Big Brother and the other Faux-reality shows.

"Other people/countries do worse things" is not an excuse to dismiss crimes committed against the helpless. Who, unlike people on reality shows, did not volunteer to be demeaned, mocked, disparaged or dehumanized in any way.
posted by zarq at 3:02 PM on August 18, 2010

Zarq wrote: "Other people/countries do worse things" is not an excuse to dismiss crimes committed against the helpless.

What crime do you think has been committed against the prisoners? I see a woman having her photo taken. She isn't tormenting them - it's not even clear that they know she's there. She's not making bunny-ears behind their head or anything. Really, what do you see that's wrong, other than the fact that she's goofing off when she should be working?

Who, unlike people on reality shows, did not volunteer to be demeaned, mocked, disparaged or dehumanized in any way.

I don't think people volunteer "to be demeaned, mocked, disparaged or dehumanized", although I suppose by now they ought to know what they're getting into. But we recently had a FPP about a woman filmed by Girls Gone Wild whose complaint was that she hadn't volunteer to be filmed while someone ripped her blouse off. And there's COPS, that I linked to above. Have you ever complained about COPS?

Since this soldier is with the Israeli border patrol I presume that these are illegal immigrants. Here's the result of a Google image search for that. You can see some detainees there - does it trouble you? Have you ever complained about that? Honestly, I don't believe that you or any of the other complainants are genuinely outraged by this. It's just "OMG! It's Israel! Quick, someone complain!"
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:15 PM on August 18, 2010

Still trying to figure out why you compare this, favorably, to Big Brother.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:51 PM on August 18, 2010

Really? Because Big Brother is incredibly embarrassing and crass. I couldn't bear to watch it. I felt sorry for the people involved - not for what they were presently experiencing, but for the whole course of their lives. The participants were being degraded and I felt sad and angry on their behalf - even if they were complicit in their degradation. But these prisoners - we don't know their names, they quite possibly weren't even aware that they were being photographed. It's just not comparable. They're not even doing that walk-of-shame thing that I see on USA TV.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:56 AM on August 19, 2010

> She's not making bunny-ears behind their head or anything.

No, but close enough. She's mocking them. On Facebook, too. Whether the prisoners knew she was there is irrelevant.

As long as you're not the one imprisoning them, it is generally okay to take photographs of prisoners - most notably if you're a journalist or a human-rights worker. It is sometimes okay even if you are the person in charge, as long as you have a good reason. But it is not okay to use a position of authority over the prisoners to mock them.

(And unless you have a very good reason, regardless of who you are, it is not okay to ask for your picture to be taken with prisoners-on-display.)

Meanwhile, a screenshot of a Facebook thread with contributions from the lovely Ms Aberjil has surfaced (Google translation; Hebrew original). My own rough translation (some punctuation added):

I am for a Zionist Jewish state!! I defend what has always been mine!! I will not go into religious saying and so forth[.] I am a proclaimed and defined proud Jew and as a proud Jew it is my duty to fight for what is mine[.] There is a picture that has been published about me that says it all[:] "Without her they would have long ago murdered your mother" and I am not talking only of myself but of all the soldiers who guard and defend us!!! In war there are no laws!! I hate Arabs and wish them ill and I would gladly kill them even slaughter[.] You cannot forget what they do no matter the reason I am just on the Jewish people's side!!! And so it will be forever
posted by iati at 1:25 PM on August 22, 2010

Iati, I totally agree that her actions were inappropriate. I hope the bit you translated reflects the transient anger of a twenty-something rather than her general views, but yeah, she sucks. But did her actions warrant an international outcry and official apologies from the IDF? I don't think so. It's the sort of thing that would probably be a firing offense if she had done it in the private sector, but it wouldn't have led to criminal charges or even an action for civil compensation. It's was wrong and it was tasteless, but no more than that.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:12 PM on August 22, 2010

Honestly, I don't believe that you or any of the other complainants are genuinely outraged by this. It's just "OMG! It's Israel! Quick, someone complain!"

This is the second time you've accused me of having a double standard with regard to Israel, and my answer remains the same as it was back in May:

I have spoken about this on Metafilter before. This particular conflict means something to me personally. Members of my family fought for Israel's independence. I have an uncle who died in the Six Day War. Another uncle who died in the King David Hotel bombing. I have relatives now living in Tel Aviv. My wife has relatives who live on a kibbutz and in Jerusalem. I have friends who made Aliyah. I have family who fought for America against the Germans in WWII in the US Army and US Army Air Corps. Family members who were at Auschwitz. I'm an observant Conservative Jew. Israel's continued existence is important to me both as a Jew and as someone whose relatives fought to free our people from oppression.

So yes, not only do I feel I have the right to speak about Israel and the Palestinians, but it's an issue that's more important to me personally than say, Liberia. And yes, I do contribute to threads about human rights violations in other countries.

The argument that I should somehow be paying greater or equal attention to more meaningful problems elsewhere in the world other than Israel's is ridiculous to me.

If you want to question my motives in contributing to a conversation that's fine. But you'd really be better off asking why I'm doing so rather than defensively accusing me of hypocrisy.

I don't know anything about COPS. Have never watched the show, although I do know it used "Bad Boys" as a theme song. If I can't speak knowledgeably about a topic, why should I be expected to weigh in on it?

I didn't notice the Girls Gone Wild FPP at the time it was posted. Wish I had. I would have weighed in earlier. I post/comment a lot on women's issues here.

Yes, illegal immigration and the way illegal workers are treated in the US bothers me. That's why I made this post about domestic workers finally getting employment rights in NYS after a lengthy political fight back in June. I'll probably continue to weigh in on the topic when I can add constructively to a conversation about it.

But did her actions warrant an international outcry and official apologies from the IDF?

Israel has a serious international image problem with regard to the Palestinians, and a great deal of that is not due to anti-Israel bias but rather Israel's own actions. Israel has been accused repeatedly by a variety of news outlets, human rights groups and their own Supreme Court of oppressive acts. These are very serious charges, usually presented with evidence, and simply can't be hand-wavingly dismissed as "oh, they hate Israel/Jews" bias.

So yes, every act will now be scrutinized. And yes, Israel can't really risk any more incidents in which Palestinians are shown to be helpless victims of Israeli oppressors.

An apology for the incident and a reprimand of some sort to the soldier and her CO seems appropriate.
posted by zarq at 2:32 PM on August 23, 2010

Zarq wrote: This is the second time you've accused me of having a double standard with regard to Israel, and my answer remains the same as it was back in May ...

Yeah, I didn't say anything at the time because it seemed obvious, but saying that you're justified in having a double standard does not refute the allegation that you have a double standard.

I don't know anything about COPS. Have never watched the show ...

Then go watch an episode. You'll see that showing arrestees' faces on camera is standard operating practice in the USA.

Yes, illegal immigration and the way illegal workers are treated in the US bothers me.

Then you'll want to demand apologies on behalf of those arrestees.

Israel has a serious international image problem with regard to the Palestinians ...

I'm not surprised, given that a photo on a 22 year-old girl's Facebook page amounts to an international incident.

Israel has been accused repeatedly by a variety of news outlets, human rights groups and their own Supreme Court of oppressive acts. These are very serious charges, usually presented with evidence, and simply can't be hand-wavingly dismissed as "oh, they hate Israel/Jews" bias.

My goodness, Zarq. Surely you're not using the "what about" argument. "Yeah, I acknowledge that this might be a trivial incident, but what about all these other ones that you're not talking about."

An apology for the incident and a reprimand of some sort to the soldier and her CO seems appropriate.

Then I'm sure you'll express your gratitude and thanks that that seems to have been what happened. Of course, the apology was made to people like you, not to the original arrestees - because as I said before, the arrestees likely didn't know and probably still don't know. Or care, really: having your photo taken by a cop is probably way down in the list of things to hate about being arrested.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:42 PM on August 23, 2010