Yesterday, Amira Hass reported in Haaretz the Israeli military are now pumping "nausea-inducing chemicals," into cars at a Bethlehem checkpoint, as a new search method. Hass describes the IDF first pulling over cars, then:
"once parked, the passengers are asked to roll up all windows, apart from that of the driver - and exit the vehicle. Two tubes are then connected to the vehicle - one is connected to an air pump, the other, which passes through a tiny filter, is attached to the vehicle. A policeman with a stopwatch flicks the air pump switch"Palestinians who regularly experienced the gas tubes told Hass that Israeli police refused to identify the substance, and the military also gave the Haaretz journalist conflicting accounts. One Israeli police official said the chemicals are sanctioned and another denied that chemicals are used in checkpoint searches.
Hass describes the unknown gas through the experience of an international who commutes regularly through the checkpoint:
The tube is left connected for approximately 10 minutes. Afterward, the filter is removed and taken to a nearby building. The worker says she was under the impression that some kind of chemical was disseminated into the vehicle, as she and another passenger began feeling nauseous and suffered from headaches several days afterwards. The worker has informed her country's embassy.The Israeli official response to the mystery gas is that "it must conduct arbitrary, rudimentary checks through use of sophisticated technological means, all the while alleviating the experience of those being checked." Haaretz indicates the new chemical has been used in checkpoint searches since December.
Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Reader Comments
propagandist, but lets dissect the following:
"it must conduct arbitrary, rudimentary checks through use of sophisticated technological means, all the while alleviating the experience of those being checked."
"It must conduct..." --- simplistic - as though self-evident - declarative phrase, committing the reader or listener to a relational stance in support or against (e.g. G.W. Bush's "either you're for us or against us" post September 11, 2001) that which follows.
"...arbitrary, rudimentary checks..." --- re-framing of the interventions which clearly exhibit a non-random, discriminatory and disingenuous quality with reference to formal policy as it affects a particular population.
"...checks through the use of sophisticated technological means..." --- provocation of deference to the equally propagandized immutability of technology as benign and detached (as though arbitrary), therefore unprejudiced in application and/or performance. This is clearly a red-herring of sorts, directing the reader away from the real issue (i.e. infusion of private automobiles belonging to a particular class of people with unknown gases v. modes of application - however described - within unprovoked examinations).
"...all the while..." --- redirection through linguistic cuing to regard preceding statement (i.e. "arbitrary, rudimentary checks) as unimportant to that which follows (i.e. "alleviating the experience of those being checked").
"...alleviating the experience..." --- expression/petition for recognition of humility, integrity and, perhaps, piety on the part of the speaker, as in the central concern of such procedures is to lessen, assuage, care for and/or support the positive experiencing of those forced into the engagement, as though it is merely unpleasant.
"...of those being checked..." --- the use of this phrase, given the preceding use of the declarative "it must conduct," reiterates the invective "us or them" mentality. It's a ploy appealing to authority (and the minds, hearts, etc. of authoritarian types) and promoting a conception of "us versus them" as a veritable framing of the issue.
Apart from appearing to be absolute word-salad, gobbledygook tripe on its surface, the above described sentence reeks of "propagenda," which is a term I coined - just now! - to mean an intentioned statement - irrespective its quality and capacity to overtly communicate a central idea - which tacitly serves a propagandist's agenda. This sentence serves this through a two-fold mechanism: 1) as specific response exhibiting the tactics of a larger propaganda program, linking this program and the responded to item as of the same "whole"; and, 2) as a specific response to a specific reporter within a specific context (i.e. media associated response). Whereas the later sanctions the particular item discussed as being reputable in consideration of itself apart from other issues, the former fits the particular into a larger equally sanctioned program of activities. One is a sort of proximate justification - or, more accurately, untruthful description of justification, whereas the other is an sort of ultimate justification. Propagenda.... I like the term.