The military initially said it opened fire because the vehicles were “advancing suspiciously” on nearby troops without headlights or emergency signals. An Israeli military official, speaking late Saturday on condition of anonymity in line with regulations, said that account was “mistaken.”
The footage shows the Red Crescent and Civil Defense teams driving slowly with their emergency vehicles’ lights flashing, logos visible, as they pulled up to help an ambulance that had come under fire earlier. The teams do not appear to be acting unusually or in a threatening manner as three medics emerge and head toward the stricken ambulance.
Howdy y’all, just a reminder this particular user has in the past banned pro palastinian users from communities he moderates. Good to see he has presumably changed his mind on the ongoing genocide.
No, I have banned people advocating for genocide against ANY people.
It doesn’t matter to me if you want to wipe out all the Palestinians, Jews, Ukrainians, Russians, Uighur, or Rohingya.
Advocating genocide is a removable offense, repeatedly doing so is bannable.
Most recent example:
https://lemmy.world/comment/16101271
This reads like “I won’t accept racism towards black people or towards white people, because they’re totally the same”. You’re taking completely incomparable historical events and putting them all together under the broad category of “genocide” to further your narrative. There IS an ongoing genocide of Palestinians, there ISN’T an ongoing genocide of Russians, Ukrainians or Uyghur. Denying false claims of genocide doesn’t amount to advocating genocide. I’m against the genocide of Russians, Ukrainians and Uyghurs, but those things aren’t happening so why even talk about that?
Bro are you calling self defence “wanting to genocide Jews”? Is that the misconception your operating on that has led you to banning pro palastinian commenters?
No, but the repeated calls of “from the river to the sea” is a genocidal statement, and it doesn’t matter if the person making the claim is Palestinian or Jewish.
It’s a statement that the opposing side has no right to exist.
I think you’ll agree Netanyahu meant it in terms of genocide when he said it, it’s equally genocidal going the other direction.
See:
https://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea
It’s not, nor are it’s origins. It’s a call for an end to the apartheid and creation of a democratic secular state in its stead, not the genocide of Israelis/Jewish people. Netanyahu’s use, calling for only Israeli sovereignty over historic Palestine, is completely different and a false equivalence.
So you say, the people on the opposite side of that statement hear it very, very differently.
The history of the phrase has no bearing on the current use of the phrase. Kind of like when Biden said “I am a zionist.” It meant something totally different when he was coming up than it does today.
Good article on how it’s seen currently vs. the history here:
https://revdem.ceu.edu/2024/03/27/from-the-river-to-the-sea-one-slogan-many-meanings/
"In the UK, the Labour Party suspended MP Andy McDonald for using the phrase at a demonstration, and the Football Association banned players from using it on their personal Facebook accounts. In Germany the situation is even more drastic. In Berlin, for example, the use of the slogan at demonstrations is prohibited and demonstrators who shout it are arrested. The right-wing newspaper Die Welt went as far as running a podcast headline ‘Free Palestine is the new Heil Hitler’. No less!
In Israel, Haaretz journalist Ravit Hecht wrote that the slogan is a call ‘for ethnic cleansing, similar to the one that took place in the Gaza ‘envelope’ [on October 7]… It’s not about a return to the 1967 borders or a cessation of the occupation, but the annihilation of the Jewish national home and the expulsion of Jews from this place.’"
Interesting way to start, considering I linked three articles.
The articles covered both historical and modern usage. Zionism is the same ideology as when it started, in fact that has become only more obvious since this genocide started.
https://www.rahs-open-lid.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Masalha-Nur-Expulsion-of-the-Palestinians_-The-Concept-of-_Transfer_-in-Zionist-Political-Thought-1882-1948-Institute-for-Palestine-Studies-2012.pdf
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/14/israeli-historian-ilan-pappe-this-is-the-last-phase-of-zionism
https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/
I’ll quote from each article, including the two you linked, as they all support the reality that it is an emancipatory slogan.
Ravit Hecht is a zionist. Having a liberal leaning on a fascist ideology doesn’t make it any less fascist. It’s to the surprise of no one that zionist propaganda is deliberately used to de-legitimize the emancipatory slogan, used by the ones they oppress and ethnically cleanse, and project the mentality of genocide which Zionists are doing as we speak.
From Revit Hecht, among many other racist remarks such as Palestinians being a ‘murderous and barbaric culture’:
The other side being Zionists, who purposely de-legitimize and project the zionist ideology of ethnic cleansing onto the emancipatory slogan of the people they oppress and ethnically cleanse. You’re only proving the point myself, SmilingSolaris, and everyone down voting your responses.
Behold. My point proven.
That genocidal statements are genocidal statements no matter who says them? Then yes, we agree!