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.
How nice after it turns out they lied about executing 15 ambulamce personell they can “walk back their statement”.
These morons should have learned this lesson from Russia - cell phone cameras are really good at exposing your bullshit.
They targeted these medics. They targeted the world kitchen people. How much longer are those with the ability to do something gonna tolerate this?
Reminds me of a quote from Hogfather (1996):
Maybe someone said, hey, how’d you like to hunt this evil bastard of an eagle with his big sharp beak and great ripping talons, sort of thing, or how about instead you hunt this wren, which is basically about the size of a pea and goes “twit”? Go on, you choose.
How much longer are those with the ability to do something gonna tolerate this?
Until the costs to themselves outweigh the benefits. Otherwise why not tolerate it? Even the word tolerate implies that it bothers them beyond a minor PR issue. Normal people need to gain the ability to think like sociopaths if they want to understand them.
“seems to contradict it”
come on. Why cant we all just admit they flat out lied to get away with a war crime, same as always.
Fascists always lie. Zios are no exception.
Understanding that Zionists are fascists is probably the thing that let me understand why they do the things they do. The extent of their depravity, sometimes comical scheming, projection and of course all the damn lying make perfect sense when you realize that they’re just Nazis with a Jewish makeover.
Zionazis, if you will
Edit: I hadn’t heard this word before, but figured if I thought of it someone else beat me to it, and sure enough it’s been around for a while. Turns out it’s considered antisemitic, but I think if the jack boot fits…
Thing is even if they admitted it no-one would do anything about it. Why the wasted effort?
It’s not wasted at all, this is textbook Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein, 2007). This is Steve Bannons’s “flood the zone” strategy that Trump is currently following.
The lies will be believed by dedicated Zionists. Paid Hasbara trolls will be repeating these lies forever.
For most news consumers, the story will come across muddled, confused, and open to personal interpretation. From their low-information perspective, a conclusion of “both sides” seems reasonable.
And for those who are paying attention and have a strong sense of morality, this will be one more battle we will have to repeatedly fight. We will have to expend time and energy to fight this lie, and it is just one of many.
Every fucking time evidence comes out of some incident, it completely contradicts what they said before.
I’m starting to think they might have a problem telling the truth.
Just another day for Israel.
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:
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.’"
So you say
Interesting way to start, considering I linked three articles.
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.
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.
I’ll quote from each article, including the two you linked, as they all support the reality that it is an emancipatory slogan.
Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine-Israel program at the Arab Center Washington D.C., has written extensively about the meaning of the slogan before and since Hamas’s attacks on Oct. 7, which led to Israel’s current bombardment of the Gaza Strip.
“It’s an expression of Palestinian nationalism and it’s an expression of a demand for Palestinian freedom or self-determination,” said Waxman. “I think Palestinian self-determination need not come at the expense of Jewish self-determination. Nor do I think Palestinian freedom has to be considered a threat to Jewish rights.”
Simply put, the majority of Palestinians who use this phrase do so because they believe that, in 10 short words, it sums up their personal ties, their national rights and their vision for the land they call Palestine. And while attempts to police the slogan’s use may come from a place of genuine concern, there is a risk that tarring the slogan as antisemitic – and therefore beyond the pale – taps into a longer history of attempts to silence Palestinian voices.
The use of the phrase “from the river to the sea” has come under particular scrutiny in the last three months. When Palestinians, or anyone on the left, has used the phrase to demand a free Palestine—as in the popular chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—those on the right have disingenuously argued that it is calling for the death of all Jewish people in Israel.
In 2021, the Palestinian-American writer Yousef Munayyer argued that those who saw genocidal ambition in the phrase, or indeed an unambiguous desire for the destruction of Israel, did so due to their own Islamophobia.
It was instead, he argued, merely a way to express a desire for a state in which “Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them”.
Preventing any possibility of a Palestinian state has always been Israel’s policy, one that the settlement building in the Occupied Territories is meant to ensure. This policy has been intensified under Benjamin Netanyahu, who in January 2024 publicly vowed to resist any attempt to create a Palestinian state and to maintain Israeli control from the river to the sea.
It is often maintained that the slogan ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ expresses a genocidal and antisemitic intention. But this is generally not the case. On the contrary, the slogan has historically been used to articulate a wide variety of political strategies for Palestinian liberation
Denying such demands seems as self-evident to most Israeli Jews as the air they breathe. It is this denial that has led to the dehumanization of Palestinians and has culminated in the genocidal mood that is prevailing in Israeli Jewish society today and in the assault taking place now in Gaza. This should be viewed as the real problem and not the legitimate chant of ‘from the river to the sea: Palestine will be free’.
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.’"
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’:
Hamas did what it did in the most horrific manner one could imagine. The organization’s defenders preach this, covering it with pseudo-intellectual blather and a specious discourse about human rights. If human rights interested them, they would enthusiastically support Israel’s war against Hamas, an organization that primarily oppresses its own people.
Anyone denying the right of a nation to defend itself after an attack, the cruelty of which can not be expressed in words, with the people who perpetrated it vowing to repeat it at the first opportunity; anyone who fails to distinguish between the way the IDF conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and the way Hamas treated its victims, is collaborating with an antisemitic attack. Sometimes it’s because such a person is himself or herself antisemitic, even if they are Jewish.
the people on the opposite side of that statement hear it very, very differently.
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!
Thank you for voting. You can vote again in 24 hours. leaderboard
The reason they give for shooting ambulances is that Hamas has used ambulances to move soldiers.
“On December 19, 2024, soldiers from the ‘Duvdevan’ unit (Israeli military) took part in an operational mission to detain terrorists in Nablus. During the operation, an ambulance-like vehicle was used for operational purposes, without authorisation and without the relevant commanders’ approval.”
Sounds like the Israeli moved soldiers in ambulances, if you read your own quote.
I think your trying to show that Israeli military committed a war crime but you look like your accusing Hamas of doing the war crime. You got a edit that comment bruv, it’s a mess.
Reading comprehension ain’t for everyone
Edit just in case you think you read it right here sky news on the war crime https://news.sky.com/story/idf-admits-serious-offence-after-using-vehicle-marked-ambulance-in-raid-in-which-a-grandmother-was-killed-13288120
Reading comprehension.
Reading fucking comprehension.
I bring up the time IDF used an ambulance during a raid, that time they killed a grandma, in response to the IDF saying they shot these people because terrorists use ambulances… and people think I’m defending Israel.
Reading comprehension. Come on guys, say it with me. Reading comprehension!
The reason they give for shooting ambulances is that Hamas has used ambulances to move soldiers.
If you were calling Israel hypocrites you should have added something to the end of this sentence because it reads like you’re saying Hamas did it and then attempted to provide an example. Text based sarcasm requires a bit more effort if you don’t want to be misunderstood.
Lol what happened to people championing reading things carefully before commenting? At worst my wording was vague. Could’ve searched what I was talking about and easily realized was I thought. I assume people can search my comments and see I’m not defending Israel.
Come on bruv, they even literally say it’s Israeli military
Half your thought is still in your head. When you read this to yourself, it sounds like what you intended to say. When everyone else reads it, we are still missing context.
The missing context is in the article. If people read it and remembered current events they too would find it utter bullshit that their excuse was “Enemy soldiers use ambulances.” And then my comment would naturally follow.
If your post said what you wanted it to say, without missing a sentance explaining the part you kept in your head, people wouldn’t have to “figure out” that you are saying the opposite of what it sounds like you are saying, because “you know” you would never say what it looks like you are saying.
You just need a second sentence about how it’s hypocracy that they said that or something. The part that you know in your head, but didn’t put “on paper”.
It’s like, in speaking, you could just emphasise the right syllables the right way and that string of text would read exactly how you intend it to. But in text, that doesn’t work.
It’s like putting down the lyrics to a song without the melody and expecting everyone to sing it the same way you hear it in your head. Only works if they already know the melody. There is no way for us to know your melody, so you instead can’t write ambiguously. If you want other people to follow along.
I don’t know if I should report this for obvious misinformation or leave it because it’s hilarious.
Are you fucking stupid? I’m saying Israel kills people for using ambulances, and then bringing up the time Israel used an ambulance and killed a grandma.
Both your example and the one that mentions the grandmother are the same fucking incident.
Jfc.
Oh I get you now. I (and most of the rest of the thread) thought your comment was a weird hasbara thing with the quoted part as an example of evil khamas using ambulances.
