If the prisoners are blindfolded, they don't know they are being photographed and we don't know who they are, so there is no humiliation perceive by them then or now as suggested by some. She mugged for the camera, but not much, I see in her contempt for the photographer - the tilt of her head, pursed lips and narrowed eyes - not a triumphal smile as suggested by some.
The photo suggests the opposite of callus; read their crossed legs, Her talking to him leaning right next to him and facing him. No gun (nylon 'handcuff' strip in hand) and so close she feels she's not in real danger. He can't help but perceive she is there and is not threatened as his legs are not crossed defensively at the knee as are her's. He's the same prisoner on the far left as in the 2d photo. Compare the two shots.
The captions are subject to misinterpretation, but the photos of body language tell a positive story. She's doing her military duty with a positive attitude, the prisoner is being addressed as a person. She's not shouting into his ear. She's positioned forward to look into his face, hence her left arm in behind supporting her. This action on her part is indicative of genuine human communication and not object treatment. That her legs are crossed and she is leaning over suggests she is physically defensive but intellectually engaging him - thoughtful. He's neither cringing nor leaning away, so he's not in fear and leaning/resting back against the wall whereas in the other shot he's leaning forward, so I take it he's less tense or stressed in her presence than when alone. Did she put him as ease? Possibly.
Note the two on the right have hands in front - not a threat to the soldiers like the one with hands in back she sits next to in the other shot. The soldier's perceived him to be a danger relative to the others because they tied his hands in back, yet she addresses him in close proximity.
One must carefully read the body language and chronology of photos, not just the 'wiseguy' afterthought caption. I don't read contempt in her for the prisoners, but rather for the photographer. I don't read in the photos that she's doing anything other than her professional duty and doing it well and in a proper fashion. I don't see any indications that the prisoners are being mistreated.
If we wrongly over-criticize these photos and the Israelis prohibit the taking of photos, what evidence will there be if and when there is actual physical abuse and disagreement by soldiers about how to treat their prisoners? Then things will get worse for both sides.
deanmblakeLos Angeles, CAAugust 16th, 20107:36 pm
Right...
Recommended:
- google 'hasbara'
- visit any of these sites:
- http://www.hasbara.com/
- http://www.israelactivism.com/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
- download the hasbara manual here and familiarize yourself with their spin tactics and propaganda
I stand by my interpretation of the photos; Dean M. Blake, Los Angeles, Ca.
ReplyDelete