When Israel re-arrested Palestinian men in the occupied West Bank town of Dura, the detainees faced familiar treatment.

They were blindfolded, handcuffed, insulted and kept in inhumane conditions. More unusual was that each man had a number written on his forehead.

Osama Shaheen, who was released in August after 10 months of administrative detention, told Middle East Eye that soldiers brutally stormed his house, smashing his furniture.

“The soldiers turned us from names into numbers, and every detainee had a number that they used to provoke him during his arrest and call him by number instead of name. To them, we are just numbers.”

  • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s not a trademark and it’s not a mark made with a hot iron, so atleast according to the definition that you tried to use as a gotcha, it’s not a brand.

    Edit: After I had commented, the person edited out part of the 2nd definition so that the definition would fit their narrative. What was edited out: " (2) : a printed mark made for similar purposes : trademark".

    From Miriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

    They’re basically using the (edited) definition of trademark branding to claim that these written numbers are a branding.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Its an example of. It was tagged as see also. And it’s literally says “printed” what the hell.

      I’m sorry I left in the direct dictionary text so it can be nitpicked as to how writing numbers on people isn’t “branding”

      How is there this many people that can argue against a dictionary?

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          A printed mark to designate ownership.

          Wrote numbers on their forehead to dehumanize them.

          Nope. Not even touching the comparison to concentration camps cause it doesn’t matter. They were branded. You not liking the word cause of your own connotations does not make it incorrect.

          • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            “A printed mark to designate ownership.” is about trademarks, intellectual property. You’re basically saying that Israel trademarked the skin of those prisoners.

            Opening a dictionary and looking up a word is one thing, you still need some basic amount of reading comprehension to interpret what you are reading in that dictionary, which you’re clearly lacking.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              A representative example is not the whole beginning and end of a definition my dude/ette.

              They did mark ownership. Their prisoners. They marked them to show they are in ownership of the IDF and used numbers to easier organize. It’s a thing that’s pretty basic just not usually done on skin which is why people are upset and trying to cover for this.

              My grandmother was an ilenglush teacher and would be really upset if you were in her class.

              You get a C- for definitions and reading comprehension. Class dismissed.