🚨 The IOF continue their invasion of #Jenin. Local sources report that the forces are still present in several areas, opening fire towards Jenin camp.
🚨 Palestinians are pictured being held by the Israeli occupation forces whilst they raided Burqin village, near Jenin.
🚨 Occupation bulldozers are once again destroying streets and infrastructure in #Jenin camp. The IOF destroyed the memorial to the martyr Dr. Abdullah Abu Al-Tin.
🚨 Occupation forces have detained ambulance crews in the city of #Jenin and are preventing them from operating. In all parts of the city, medics report being stopped and searched.
🚨 A 45-year-old man with special needs, Issam Al-Fayed, ascended to martyrdom after he was shot by the IOF in #Jenin. He is the uncle of the martyrs Mohammed Fayed and Amjad Fayed. Glory to our martyrs.
spoilers for farha, which you all should watch but is very, very brutal even if it is not terribly graphic.
tw: infant murder, settler colonial violence. read with caution.
the scene where the one israeli genocider doesn't end up killing the infant is such a powerful scene for a number of reasons. but one aspect of it that sticks out to me is that when his commanding genocider tells him not to "waste a bullet" and he can't go through with curb stomping the fucking newborn to death, he ultimately condemns the baby to a crueler death - to starve to death, alone in the night, beside his family's bodies.
it is of course a crueler death, and I am sure the soldier is aware of what will become of that baby when he places the kerchief over his face and walks away. but this moment is not about the soldier being decent or kind at all, of course - if he was halfway decent he would die rather than kill that baby.
he doesn't care what will happen to that baby as long as he doesn't have to bear witness to it. to cover the baby's face is to cover his eyes to the cruelty of his and by extension israel's actions. it makes him uncomfortable to think of curb stomping a baby to death, but not of starving him. of leaving him alone and screaming.
he doesn't even consider for a second disobeying the order and shooting the baby, putting him out of his misery - as horrific as that would be.
because it isn't about the baby for him - it is about HIS comfort. he's comfortable with ethnic cleansing, he's comfortable with terrorizing a woman who has just given birth and her family, it is not at all about shame or horror or a tiny spot of decency in him. he's just not comfortable with having to step on a baby and kill him.
he is more comfortable with letting that baby starve out of sight than he is taking direct action against him.
this is the liberal zionist or frankly the liberal colonizer even beyond zionism - because it's all connected. as long as they do not have to be the ones to crush the infant to death under their boot, as long as they can shield their eyes from the brutality of their country, they'll take that option.
I think about israelis living so close to the gaza strip, living in relative security and having food and shelter and yes bomb shelters because THEY are citizens of a settler colonial state and people who are being colonized are going to resist the violence of occupation.
I think about how generally they are so removed and detached from the brutality of what israel does to palestinians, and how after oct 7th, many people who considered themselves liberal zionists went completely apeshit racist and genocidal, and this is according to actual peace activists in israel, actual anti-zionists in israel, actual leftists in israel. the ones who have refused to cover their eyes to the realities of the occupation and the genocide.
you see it on social media - people who consider themselves non-zionists or liberal zionists have been laughing at hateful genocidal zionist memes, and centering their own pain, and it reminds me of how liberals in the united states will do ANYTHING not to witness the horrors of us imperialism when it threatens their comfort.
this is not unique to zionists, this is a symptom of settler colonialism. I do believe that sometimes liberals can do better than that, but they often end up useless as allies to resistance, actual resistance, when it fucking matters the most.
so many liberal americans will continue to watch their favorite racist shows or buy disposable vapes or support joe biden, and they'll make all kinds of excuses about why they have to but the truth is this: they value their comfort more than they care about genocide.
I mean frankly even I do to some extent. I pay my taxes. I'm not gonna go to prison on tax evasion because I want to make a point about genocide. I wish I had the courage of my convictions to that level but I don't. I know that I would never go serve in the military even if it was conscription, I'd go to jail for that but that's never been a real concern for me here.
meanwhile, there are people who do not have the comfort to lose. in the film, farha does not have the privilege to choose comfort. she can close her eyes, she can look away, but she hears the baby cry and cry and cry until the baby passes away. she has no choice.
in choosing his own comfort, the soldier unknowingly condemns a child to witness trauma he can choose to ignore. now farha, a 14 year old girl, has to live with not being able to free herself from her sanctuary/prison to save the baby.
a 14 year old girl injures herself to save a baby, but a grown man covers a baby's face and lets it starve so he can live with himself. he still murdered that baby, but he'll tell himself that he didn't.
people often say they know what they'd have done if they'd lived during the holocaust or other atrocities. but honestly these same people don't do shit now. they cover their eyes.
if you're going to accept the deaths of innocent people, at least say that your comfort, your security, matters more to you than their lives.
"Israel has the right to exist, but—" I don't care what mealy-mouthed crap spews forth from your mouth next. How can you look at the atrocities being perpetuated by the state of Israel and think it should be a priority—your priority—to affirm that this state has some sort of unique right to exist. Did Rhodesia have the right to exist? Did Apartheid South Africa have the right to exist? No. No, they didn't, and they were right to be abolished. May Israel join them.
[id:
The poster is titled, "Hair Salons and Sweet Tea: Opportunism of the Oppressor" in a green box to the right-hand side of the paper. To the left, transparent orange and green circles decorate the page, with a depiction of a woman done in Arabic calligraphy art. Light gray text above her shoulder reads, "@Palirev.web". A gray bar separates the title from the first block of text, which reads:
"While the rebellion of October 7th brought much attention to Palestine, a long history of oppression, surveillance, restriction, and harm stretching the last 75 years of Zionist occupation in Palestine preceded it. One such assault began unassumingly: Complimentary sweet tea for women getting a haircut."
A second gray bar separates the next section, reading, "While David Graeber's writings about his visit to Nablus in the 80s described Palestine as the most liberal society in the Arab world, he found something strange: Where were the women's hair salons? Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't a lack of demand due to religious head coverings, which did not become widely popular until the 90's. More sinisterly, hair salons were taken advantage of by Zionist occupation intelligence agents to threaten Palestinian women."
Below, three gray boxes hold images. The first one is of a spilt cup of tea, with a block of text below. The second is a security camera, with text below, and the third is a barbed wire, with a third text block below it. The teacup's block reads, "How, you wonder? Spiking cups of sweet tea with knock-out drugs. Soldiers then took polaroids of the women nude and began making threats."
Below the security camera, text reads: "As brought to TV by the move Huda's Salon, some women were blackmailed by threats to show their families [the photos] and lose the support of loved ones."
Below the barbed wire, text reads: "Otherwise, their husbands were threatened to become informants or collaborators with occupation intelligence at the risk of such photos being released to the public."
A gray bar separates between the final line of text. Two more green and orange circles adorn the bottom of the page. The final text reads, "END ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE. END THE APARTHEID. FREE PALESTINE." /end id]
just found out the lead singer of taiwans biggest death metal band is also an active parliament member since like 2015.... and is still active as a death metal singer. he's a pretty standard taiwanese center left anti communist from what i could gather. which like as a leftist i dont really agree with but i also dont know enough abt taiwanese politics to like make a full judgement. though he seems to be a standard liberal nothing remarkable, radical, or new, not overtly horrible but just bland. but that was something i definitely did Not expect. apparently he's very pro indigenous rights and self determination for indigenous people but being in a centre left mega party like the DPP does not seem like the best way to achieve that. But yea, just thought I'd share
I cannot express how important it is to actually read the words of Theodr Herzl to truly understand how deeply colonial zionism is
In America the occupation of newly opened territory is set about in naive fashion. The settlers assemble on the frontier, and at the appointed time make a simultaneous and violent rush for their portions.
He also says that
If I wish to substitute a new building for an old one, I must demolish before I construct.
This is disgusting. This is so blatantly settler colonialism, a call for the genocide of the native populations who are already there to create your own state
Jewish people deserve to be safe, but they do not need an ethnostate to do so. You do not get to "feel safe" by destroying the lives of others
23 years ago today, 13-year-old Gazan- Fares Odeh stood alone in front of an Israeli tank in a now- famous image from the Second Intifada. The photo, was taken by a photojournalist from the Associated Press on 29 October 2000, shows Odeh confronting the tank with a stone in his right hand and his arm bent back and ready to sling.
Ten days after the photo was taken, Odeh was again throwing stones at the Karni Crossing in Gaza when he was fatally shot in the neck by Occupation Forces. The photograph of the young martyr subsequently assumed iconic status in Palestine and across the world, becoming a symbol of resistance to Zionism and the settler colonial project.
Israel didn't start killing children after Oct. 7. Israel has been killing Palestinian children for the last 75 years, since 1948, when they ethnically-cleansed +750,000 Palestinians in the Nakba.
just read an article from euronews of a holocaust survivor hoping for a united middle east, like the eu, while also denying the accusation of genocide against israel and demanding a two-state solution. it's so fucking sad that a genocide survivor is weaponizing the crimes that were perpetrated against her in order to excuse and deny crimes against palestinians.
like I'm sorry you believe that the un "gave" land away that wasn't its land to give, and I do think everyone who wants to live in a secular, pluralistic democracy should be able to live there - but ma'am. you literally said you are not going to let genocide happen again and then denied a genocide that is happening right now. and in fact you justify genocide.
here's the thing - this is the wishful thinking of someone who does not want to acknowledge the reality of occupation and displacement. it is historical revisionism.
let's not forget for a second that this land was not "given" to israel by the un but rather that it was stolen from the indigenous population of palestine/falasteen by yishuv/israeli soldiers after the uk terminated the mandate in 1948.
basically, the uk wanted to terminate the mandate of palestine* (issued by the league of nations in 1922 after WWI when britain occupied palestine) because dealing with the growing tensions between jews and arabs living there (due to the growing zionist movement to establish a jewish state in palestine, which the british commission aided and abetted ofc) was becoming a bit of a headache. so they took it to the un general assembly for the un to deal with.
and that these soldiers carried out the nakba after the un general assembly made a partition plan in a resolution that the palestinians were under no obligation to accept because unga resolutions are NON-BINDING, and when the security council tried to come to a consensus it could not.
from the actual general assembly resolution, in which you can see that these are recommendations to the uk and to the mandate of palestine and makes REQUESTS to the security council. none of this is an order, which if course is not something that the general assembly has the power to do.
you can even see that on this first page, the general assembly points out that this plan will likely "impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations."
frankly the resolution was extremely unfair to the palestinians, as the partition would have given them about 44-45% of the land and the jewish population about 55-56%. and bear in mind that not only was there a much larger arab population, but that due to the 4th and 5th aliyah (jewish immigration to palestine) most of the jewish population had not been there for more than 20 years.
now I'm not bothered about people making aliyah, I believe in freedom of movement. what I am bothered about is the settler colonial project that used the expulsion of jews in europe to promote the expulsion of palestinians in palestine.
but the thing is, the israelis didn't even follow the un plan - nor was the un ready for such a plan to be implemented. and funny enough the us** delegate warren austin said at the time that the uk planned to terminate the mandate (may 15th) that "the Security Council is not prepared to go ahead with efforts to implement this plan in the existing situation."
instead what happened was this. the yishuv***, lead by ben gurion, rejected us requests to postpone the declaration of statehood and to cease military operations, which had already resulted in the expulsion of 300,000 palestinians even before the war. this is because ben gurion and many others wanted the entirety of palestine (as well as parts of syria and lebanon) to be a jewish state and did not want the partition - you can see this today in "greater israel" which would be a state of israel from the river to the sea, so would require the annexation of palestine as well as some parts of syria, lebanon and sometimes jordan. it would require mass displacement of non-jewish palestinians and possibly genocide. this is largely a belief of far right people like smotrich and netanyahu, but my concern is that the further right israeli society goes, the more people will become either indifferent to people around them believing in a greater israel or will actually believe in it themselves for the sake of their safety.
I've seen israelis say things like "no one wants gaza, leave us alone" and I have to laugh because that's just not true at all, there are frankly far too many people who are fine with the occupation as long as they don't have to see the harm their state is doing. I understand this because I see it in every settler colony. it's not unique to israel.
you cannot demand to live alone in peace when your country is built on ethnic cleansing, occupation, apartheid and yes, even though im sure it hurts to acknowledge, genocide. and you cannot expect to be allowed to peacefully occupy millions of people.
because what - is an independent palestine allowed to have a military? is it allowed to be fully autonomous? no of course not to zionists because that would threaten their security I guess. and I mean it probably would to some extent since there is no justice in partition.
would there be reparations? no because israelis generally do not know the history of how israel was founded, and if they do they largely don't care. or at the very least don't want it to be relevant to what we're seeing now. I mean the us still hadn't made reparations to descendants of slaves and frankly if we've done a little bit of reparations to native americans it isn't near enough.
would there be right to return for those in the diaspora? of course not, because israel would never allow palestinians the right to return to land in israel.
and those israelis who understand the situation are calling for a single secular state of palestine, or acknowledging that this is a genocide, or reckoning with the nakba. they are not demanding palestinians tolerate oppression. they do not value their lives above palestinian lives.
the colonizers do not get to make demands of the colonized. I feel great sorrow for what the woman in the article has gone through - I cannot fathom what she experienced in the holocaust and I totally agree with her that it is so important for future generations to hear testimonies from survivors of genocide. this is why I find it appalling that she denies the genocide of the palestinians.
*this essay goes into much more of the minutia surrounding resolution 181 and the myth of israel's founding.
**and this was a country that WANTED to establish a jewish state in palestine (he even wanted to have the us take on a trusteeship until the jews and arabs could come to an agreement lmao).
***yishuv refers to the jewish community in palestine prior to 1948. there is a further distinction between old yishuv - those who lived in palestine before the first zionist immigration wave in 1882 and their descendants until 1948. they tended to be more religiously observant, while new yishuv were those who emigrated to palestine in the zionist immigration waves until 1948 and tended to be more nationalist, secular and socialist. old yishuv had been there for centuries and has a fascinating history of how their communities developed btw.