- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
“IT WAS AS if a storm had targeted us.” On the afternoon of December 15, an Israeli airstrike slammed into the Farhana school in Khan Younis where Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief Wael al-Dahdouh and his cameraman, Samer Abu Daqqa, had just wrapped up filming the aftermath of an earlier bombardment in the area.
Dahdouh was thrown to the ground. “I lost balance to the point of faintly losing consciousness until I regained my strength,” he told The Intercept. “I tried to get up in any way because I was sure that another missile would target us — from our experience that’s what usually happens.” Dahdouh realized he was bleeding profusely from the arm and that if he didn’t get medical attention, he would die. He had also temporarily lost much of his hearing from the blast. He looked over and saw the three Civil Defense workers who had been accompanying the two journalists had been killed.
“In those milliseconds I thought I couldn’t offer him anything. I couldn’t. And he couldn’t move, he couldn’t get up.” Then, he saw Abu Daqqa lying on the ground some distance away. “He was trying to get up and it seemed like he was screaming,” Dahdouh said. “In those milliseconds I thought I couldn’t offer him anything. I couldn’t. And he couldn’t move, he couldn’t get up. I decided to take advantage of the remaining glimmer of hope, which was to try to go towards the ambulance.”
Dahdouh somehow managed to make his way across the rubble to an ambulance hundreds of meters away and was evacuated to a nearby hospital. But Abu Daqqa, wounded in the lower part of his body, could not walk to the ambulance and was left lying on the ground. Hours went by, but emergency workers were unable to reach him without approval from the Israeli military. As his life slipped away, Al Jazeera posted a live counter on its broadcast showing the number of hours and minutes since Abu Daqqa had been wounded. When emergency crews were finally able to reach Abu Daqqa over five hours later, he was dead.
You must log in or register to comment.
Calculated, strategic, opportunistic genocide.
They know in a divided world, where news is delivered through social media, they can control enough of the messaging to get away with it.
Israelis, know that those of us with enough knowledge and emotional intelligence to make reasonable assessments, will forever hold Israel responsible for these atrocities.
Israel is hell-bent on sealing their own fate; then they will continue to play the antisemitic card.
It annoys me to no end when people believe, without question, that anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are the same gd thing.
What does anti Zionism mean?
It means opposing israel’s policy of making the land of Palestine a Jewish ethno state. It’s basically like opposing the modern day Nazis.
For example on Lemmy, on /news the mods will ban any website that is denoted as “anti-Zionistic” because they deem any website that opposes israel as untrustworthy.
Lemmy? Are you sure? I’ve seen zero pro-Zionists (in the most used sense of the term, regarding Israel’s current actions and etc.) on Lemmy who aren’t trolls.
I posted a few articles on Lemmy debunking the made up rape allegations by the New York Times which subsequently got removed because MBFC describe them as an “anti-zionist outlet”.
When asking what in the article was false (because it was full of links to sources) they refused to respond. They forgot however that /news does not even have any rules about MBFC in the sidebar. /worldnews also has some Zionist mods but it’s not nearly as bad.
As for MBFC, MBFC in itself seems to promote only outlets which have now been proven to be ran by Zionists which all reported the 40 beheaded babies lie as fact, and continue to post about lies such as the raped women (which has now been completely debunked)
Example of these pro-Zionist outlets are:
New York Times (and this )
The Times of israel (lol)
Which c/news is this?
Also interesting is that /worldnews (this one) is removing the mod I spoke to about the MBFC requirement
MightBe has been removed as mod from both World News and Politics.
I also unpinned and removed their rule change posts.
I discussed that articles with sufficient sourcing and evidence should be allowed no matter their MBFC rating, since MBFC has clear bias to sites such as The Grayzone for example. The irony of MBFC Analysis is deep:
Analysis / Bias:
The Grayzone produces in-depth journalism from a far-left perspective such as this The US is turning oil-rich Nigeria into a proxy for its Africa wars. All stories reviewed were properly sourced from mostly credible media and information sources.
But their rating score is:
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Furthermore they use foreignpolicy .com to debunk them which doesn’t even try to hide their Zionism:
And of course blaming Egypt for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza instead of israel.
Guess what FP’s rating is? MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I’ve been banned from political memes and world news for antisemitism, just for declaring Gaza a genocide.
Well, Zionism seems mean that Israel is allowed to commit genocide and war crimes without repercussions, so the anti-zionism would be the opposite of that.
Accrding to Merriam-Webster it means “opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel : opposition to Zionism”.
Problems develop when people either don’t know, or forget, the history of it … because anti-Zionism was “created by Jews, not their enemies”.
I recommend reading that NYT article to understand why many Jews, prior to WW2, weren’t enamoured with the idea of a Jewish state. Wikipedia also has some relevant info on the history of anti-Zionism.
I can understand this idea of anti Zionism from before the state of Israel existed. There were options at that time about how to do things. But now we’re here some 70 years later and we have millions of Jews that have been born and grown up in a Jewish state for generations. So in the context of today’s reality, I’m trying to understand what does anti Zionism mean?
Like does it mean that Israel should continue to exist, but not explicitly be a Jewish state? Or maybe some other change to how it’s administered? Or it should not exist at all? If it shouldn’t exist, then what about the millions of Jews that live there? It’s not clear to me what anti Zionism means today.
You will find regularly on Lemmy the call for the destruction of Israel. They literally mean Jews shouldn’t have a homeland. Many radicals are this way, including among the “Palestinians”, that’s why they have rejected a 2-state solution with Israel five times.
Zionism is the idea that the Jewish people should have their home in Israel. Almost kind of like manifest destiny thing.
*edit, anti Zionism is the belief that they should not have their home in Israel.
Because it’s not. The Palestinians are Semites; why aren’t people calling out Zionists as antisemitic?
You can check meaning of antisemitism in the Oxford’s dictionary. It’s been adapted to the Jewish population despite the fact Palestinians are also semites.
Basically it sometimes happens that the meaning of a word is adjusted based on how people use it. This can lead to some etymological inaccuracies.
Yup. I personally find it annoying as hell, but it is what it is.
I get it, it is.
Basically we change the meaning of words to suit us. Sometimes it’s still wrong, ethically.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“It was as if a storm had targeted us.” On the afternoon of December 15, an Israeli airstrike slammed into the Farhana school in Khan Younis where Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief Wael al-Dahdouh and his cameraman, Samer Abu Daqqa, had just wrapped up filming the aftermath of an earlier bombardment in the area.
Wearing helmets and flak jackets with the word “press” emblazoned on them, they made their way toward the school in an ambulance with a crew of uniformed Palestinian Civil Defense workers — a government branch responsible for emergency services and rescue — who had coordinated with and received approval from the Israeli military through the Red Cross to be in the area, according to Dahdouh.
At 5:27 p.m., a full three hours after Abu Daqqa was wounded in the airstrike, Krosney wrote that Israeli authorities had still not granted permission for emergency teams to reach him: “Ambulances still not cleared, but I am in touch with IDF, who know about this.
Halpern continued to urge journalists in the group to individually message Daniel Hagari or Richard Hecht — both Israeli military spokespeople whose contact information she had just shared — to pressure them to facilitate a rescue effort.
The FPA released a statement shortly afterward, saying it was “alarmed by the [Israeli] military’s silence and [called] for an immediate inquiry and explanation as to why it apparently attacked the area and why Samer could not be evacuated in time to be treated and potentially saved.”
The next day, Al Jazeera announced it was preparing a legal file to submit to the International Criminal Court, or the ICC, over what it called the “assassination” of Abu Daqqa by Israeli forces in Gaza.
The original article contains 2,505 words, the summary contains 285 words. Saved 89%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
