I stand with the people who think things like what the radical right wing secular government of Israel is inflicting on innocents should never happen again. There’s another explanation of the phrase in that link, and it’s the same explanation used by anyone who is in support of human rights.
Do you know the original quote, in arab, and its literal translation? The original version states: palestine will be arab, not free. It’s a hate slogan, diluted so that dumb westerners will parrot it.
I made a good faith effort to research this claim you made but I couldn’t find anything other than a reddit post making the same claim. Where did you hear this? Also, how would it be relevant to anything I’ve linked or said?
I’m looking for a source and can’t find anything high quality enough for now. I thought this was common knowledge, since it’s being chanted during protests in arabic all around the world.
Then, I’m sorry for the harsh tone, not every one understands arabic.
I don’t understand any dialect of arabic. If you are a Palestinian arabic speaker, can you explain how Wikipedia’s direct translation of “from the water to the water” is misleading?
That’s such nonsense… Like Israel answers to Biden anyways.
This is exactly what Hamas wanted from what I’ve been reading. They set themselves up so that anyone who wanted to come after them would have to commit atrocious acts. Ugh.
Reviews of Dobbs revealed that principle is dead in SCOTUS, that the Federalist Society judges are more interested in autocratic despotism to please their plutocratic masters.
Every lost of life traced back to an ideological court ruling further delegitimizes the courts in the eyes of the public. This is not just a matter isolated to women denied medical care, though the loss of abortion rights raised a lot more awareness, than the civil rights that have been getting carved and stripped since the PATRIOT act in 2001. In the 2020s the forth- and fifth-amendment protections we once took for granted are conspicuously absent whenever we have to engage law enforcement.
The question is, what happens next? We’re not going to go quietly into Gilead. It’s never appropriate to consider violence until the hour it is. Is it a matter of deciding which incident is our Mahsa Amini? Do we organize sabotage teams and consider targets before that hour?
Peaceful protests are already treated by law enforcement as riots, and tend to be ineffective in moving policy forward. We, the public, are already regarded as terrorists, as enemies of state. While I don’t have answers, I am curious at what point to we acknowledge peaceful engagement with the establishment has been neutered and exhausted.
With the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 we already know they’re not waiting for the public to strike first.
I keep asking myself how long it will be before there just aren’t any doctors willing to work in women’s healthcare. Because they are potentially getting threats from two directions: do they save a woman’s life and bring down the wrath of the law, or do they let her die slowly and painfully, bringing down a potentially much more immediate and messy wrath from distraught husbands and other family members?
I doubt many people are “PrO LiFe” when someone important to them is dying.
Cross-posting this from /c/socialism because I think it’s a quality analysis.
This is also a reminder that you’re on Beehaw and our one rule is to bee nice. We’ve seen a lot of comment threads on this conflict turn into cursing matches, lets not do that again please 💜
This is a really good article, and I like that they made their data public and put a link to it right in the article.
Also, I knew it was bad, but looking at these numbers it’s even worse than I thought. I recommend reading this one.
Like, this part:
Asymmetry in how children are covered is qualitative as well as quantitative. On October 13, the Los Angeles Times ran an Associated Press report Opens in a new tabthat said, “The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 1,799 people have been killed in the territory, including more than 580 under the age of 18 and 351 women. Hamas’s assault last Saturday killed more than 1,300 people in Israel, including women, children and young music festivalgoers.” Notice that young Israelis are referred to as children while young Palestinians are described as people under 18.
During discussions around the prisoner exchanges, this frequent refusal to refer to Palestinians as children was even more stark, with the New York Times referring in one case to “Israeli women and children” being exchanged for “Palestinian women and minors.” (Palestinian children are referred to as “children” later in the report, when summarizing a human rights groups’ findings.)
A Washington Post report from November 21 announcing the truce deal erased Palestinian women and children altogether: “President Biden said in a statement Tuesday night that a deal to release 50 women and children held hostage by Hamas in Gaza, in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel.” The brief did not mention Palestinian women and children at all.
That is so fucked up. And there are a bunch of other examples like it re. the disparity in the language these newspapers use.
Tangentially, and though this is a whole can of worms and rather beside the point we should be focusing on at the moment: I am also disturbed that it’s apparently still common practice to bundle women together with children like this - if they just mean “noncombatants” or “caregivers” then they should say that, just saying “women and children” like this demeans female combatants and male caregivers alike. I can sort of understand an argument for it in certain contexts where women are subjugated and denied a lot of rights, but this language is used regardless of social contexts.
Yes, the US news media has a fairly long complete-since-the-founding-of-the-US history of dehumanizing people of color in their language. No surprise it’s kicked into overdrive with this “conflict” in particular.
theintercept.com
Oldest