Israel's military says the incident is under thorough investigation. The initial account of the vehicles not having emergency lights on was mistaken, an Israeli military official told journalists.

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.

    • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.worldEnglish
      20·
      1 day ago

      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.

      Edit: he hasn’t

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        418·
        3 days ago

        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

        • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.comEnglish
          52·
          1 day ago

          It doesn’t matter to me if you want to wipe out all the Palestinians, Jews, Ukrainians, Russians, Uighur, or Rohingya

          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?

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldMEnglish
            11·
            20 hours ago

            There IS very much an ongoing genocide against the Uyghur and the Russian statements of Ukraine not existing as a separate country, people, or identity is very much genocide-adjacent.

            There have been multiple posts I’ve removed going the other way speaking of the Russians “well, just kill them all” etc. Yeah, not a valid statement in any direction.

            • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.comEnglish
              31·
              19 hours ago

              Russian statements of Ukraine not existing as a separate country, people, or identity

              A statement isn’t a genocide, and there isn’t an Uyghur genocide. Wikipedia had to change the article title from “Uyghur genocide” to “persecution of Uyghur in China” because there’s simply no evidence to support the “genocide” thesis.

              To see footage of what a genocide looks like, open up YouTube or tiktok and look at today’s bombings of Gaza. You simply won’t find video footage of violence against Uyghur because there’s not such a thing. Everyone in China has access to a smartphone and if there was remotely any violence taking place, you’d have it plastered all over western media. The “Uyghur genocide” was manufactured by a Christian radical and co-founder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Association called Adrian Zenz, and he did so in collaboration with the US state propaganda “media” Radio Free Asia. I dare you to find any post-2022 evidence from a primary source of any systematic violations of human rights against Uyghur people.

              By calling everything a genocide, we diminish the actual significance of occurring genocides, such as the Gaza and Rohingya ones that you mentioned. I beg you to please get informed on the subject of Uyghur. I dont deny that there likely happened some human right violations such as forced education of thousands of Uyghur, but that happened during a very brief span of time already half a decade ago, and it stopped, and it doesn’t really fit under the definition of genocide at all. Black people in the USA face TODAY much higher numbers of mass imprisonment (up to 1/4 of black males in the US above the age of 30 have been through the prison system) and I don’t see anyone calling that genocide.

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.worldEnglish
          222·
          3 days ago

          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?

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldMEnglish
            428·
            3 days ago

            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

            • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
              17·
              2 days ago

              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.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                113·
                2 days ago

                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.’"

                • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  10·
                  2 days ago

                  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.

                  • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    5·
                    1 day ago

                    Thank you for this. I’m sure this will be the end of the conversation as far as Jordan is concerned. But I appreciate the receipts and sources.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                110·
                2 days ago

                That genocidal statements are genocidal statements no matter who says them? Then yes, we agree!

                • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  6·
                  1 day ago

                  Brother it’s only a genocidal statement in the hands of Israel, the group who is right now committing a genocide. I do not give a shit if they kick their feet and say how the emancipating slogan is actually super harmful. They are committing a genocide. They are lying. To continue committing genocide. You get that right? That your buying a genocidal excuse for more genocide?

                  This is why I pick this fight with you every time and this is why you get down voted to hell every time the fight is picked. You are masquerading as a pro palastinian and then follow it up with “well, both sides are committing genocide, isreal is kinda acting in self defence ngl”. Your a fucking wolf brother. You should be ashamed.

                  Let me take you at face value, let’s say your not purposefully spreading misinformation, you just don’t know better. You need to do 5 seconds of research from an actual pro palastinian sources, stop listening to Nathanal b yahoo about what his opinion is and stop waving your Lebanese or Jordan or whatever friend you have around like it protects you from the genocidal misinformation you are actively spreading.