> 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...

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

▲

apical_dendrite 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

pstuart 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Everybody thinks the War on Drugs is about "keeping people safe". It never was, it was always about manufacturing a tool to oppress "others".

▲

nielsbot 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can add The War On Terror to that list.

Where do think US police get all their fun toys to play with?

"How 9/11 helped to militarize American law enforcement": https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-9-11-helped-to-milita...

	▲	pstuart 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yep. But the War on Drugs has been around much longer and is more relevant to people's day to day lives. And people buy into it. I hear this all the time "Sure, weed should be legal, and cocaine too because I like to party now and then, but the 'hard stuff' should definitely be illegal because its dangerous". To make matters worse -- people think that those who advocate against it are doing so because they want to do drugs (and some may) but it's a civil liberties issue and is the foundation for the militarization of the police.

▲

convolvatron 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

mupuff1234 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Pretty sure police brutality was invented way before Israel existed.

▲

juliusceasar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

bhouston 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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... .)

▲

myth_drannon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

6510 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	wk_end 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It was absolutely not Balfour's idea to create a Jewish state in Palestine. The Balfour declaration was from 1917. But the Zionists first started to move to the region in the hopes of establishing a homeland in the early 1880s, based on their belief that a Jewish state (anywhere; Argentina was another candidate) was necessary for their long-term survival due to the long history of antisemitism in Europe - getting worse by the day - and their (correct, it turned out!) fear that it could reach cataclysmic levels. It was very much their idea. Balfour's declaration, which wasn't official law, didn't single-handedly dictate British policy for the next 30 years and 14 governments; people vastly overstate the importance of it. Britain did not "ship out" the Jews - most Jewish migrants to Mandatory Palestine were from Eastern Europe and came to Mandatory Palestine very much of their own volition, without British help. And in 1939 - just in time for the Holocaust - Britain cracked down hard on Jewish migration to Mandatory Palestine to try to quell Arab unrest; Jews continued to migrate illegally anyway, despite what the British wanted. Of course Britain had its role in contributing to the violence in the region, but to characterize Israel as a British colony is to deny Jews agency. It is curiously antisemitic, even as it (implicitly) absolves them of some of the blame for how things have gone.