823

Palestinian town of Jericho names street after US soldier who set himself on fire (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by nkat2112@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Aaron Bushnell, who died last month, ‘sacrificed everything’ for Palestinians, says mayor of Jericho

A few of the initial paragraphs for context follow - but the article is worth reading fully:

The Palestinian town of Jericho has named a street after Aaron Bushnell, the US air force member who set himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in Washington to protest against the war in Gaza.

The 25-year-old, who died on 25 February, “sacrificed everything” for Palestinians, said the mayor of Jericho, Abdul Karim Sidr, as the street sign was unveiled on Sunday.

“We didn’t know him, and he didn’t know us. There were no social, economic or political ties between us. What we share is a love for freedom and a desire to stand against these attacks [on Gaza],” the mayor told a small crowd gathered on the new Aaron Bushnell Road.

Bushnell livestreamed his self-immolation on the social media platform Twitch, declaring he would “no longer be complicit in genocide” and shouting “free Palestine” as he started the fire. Law enforcement officials put out the flames, but he died in hospital several hours later.

Israel’s offensive in Gaza has killed more than 31,000 people, the majority of them women and children, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory. The war was triggered by the cross border attack on 7 October when Hamas killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and kidnapped 250 people.

Even as governments in Europe and the US have largely continued to back Israel’s campaign in Gaza as part of the country’s right to self-defence, Palestinians have taken heart from popular protests held from Michigan to Madrid.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Binzy_Boi@supermeter.social 109 points 9 months ago

I still question the intentions of the media and how a lot of outlets immediate ran to claim his actions as mental health related.

Like sure, I can see where that's coming from in a sense since self-immolation is inherently self-harm and you have to question a person's mental health for doing so, but at the same time, I don't know of anybody off-hand who says the same about the Buddhist monks who did the same in Vietnam.

Maybe times have changed and people don't see that action the same way as they used to back then, but if they are going to call this a result of mental health, I really hope they keep consistency with that from here on forward.

[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 71 points 9 months ago

Mental health is a scapegoat for reasonable reactions to the absolutely horrible times we are living through.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 42 points 9 months ago

Someone does something crazy for a cause I agree with -> Heroic, valiant, inspiring

Someone does something crazy for a cause I disagree with -> Mentally ill, traumatised, brainwashed

Lest I'd have to begin to consider I might have been supporting monsters all along.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

The only mental health issues I see are from the people in power that stand by and let these atrocities go unchecked.

[-] harderian729@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I still question the intentions of the media and how a lot of outlets immediate ran to claim his actions as mental health related.

They're beholden to Zionists.

They don't report in good faith.

Ex: Israeli prisoners are "hostages" while Palestinian prisoners are "detainees."

This whole shitshow is a case study of propaganda and indoctrination, along with the war in Ukraine.

[-] laverabe@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

along with the war in Ukraine

What exactly do you mean?

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 78 points 9 months ago

Where were all these internet psychologists calling self immolation mentally deranged and suicidal when it was in the Vietnam war history books?

[-] whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There was that Islamophobic Buddhist monk who self-immolated in Sri Lanka in 2013 to protest Muslim butchers. People across the spectrum weighed in on the idea of burning yourself alive to protect cattle. I don't recall anyone calling it crazy then. At most, reprehensible, misguided, etc. But the idea you'd kill yourself to protest the treatment of cattle/Muslim butchers wasn't considered "crazy" at the time.

The line seems to be when you'd do it not just for cattle, but also for Palestinians? Is that the conclusion I'm supposed to draw? That's when self-immolation starts becoming "crazy?"

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

No, the difference is the person who did it. You're probably reading western news and opinions. Those people feel like they have a similar perspective to Bushnell, which they probably don't feel they share with a Sri Lankan monk, so they don't judge- but they do judge the person they relate to. To make it related to just US politics for example, if someone self-immolated in either support or opposition of Trump then most Americans would consider them crazy.

[-] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I'm actually ok with people self-immolating in support of Trump.

[-] harderian729@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

That's so accurate.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I really don't understand, my definition of Liberal has always been "Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded" which is something I subscribe to. Before I came to lemmy I never even heard of people refer to liberals as anything other than that.

Now if you were to say "Liberal Party of NY" or "Liberal Party of Canada" etc then I can see how more specific political beliefs across their ranks could be made points out of, but if you just say all Liberals then you sound like a frother to me.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

What they mean is neo-liberal which requires some reading. “Classical” liberal politics has been dead for a few decades.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In America the Democrats are considered "liberal" as they adopt left policies when they become too popular to ignore. Some examples :

Black rights(MLK, Malcolm X), Vietnam war, Iraq, Afghanistan.

When they happened and you spoke out, liberals would ridicule you. "No America wouldn't commit war crimes in Iraq they are the terrorists and we're the heroes"!

Now the same is happening for israel which are clearly committing a Genocide yet the liberals are frantically supporting it. When you say "stop doing Nazi shit" they look at you like you're the crazy one. Now public opinion is shifting so hard they are starting to turn and will pretend they were on the "correct side" all along

Liberals were pushing back against all of the "leftie" policies until public opinion shifted so far that they decided to jump ship for voters.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Beyond accurate. Malcolm X and Dr King were both correct how Liberals stand in the way of progress.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

At some recent point, we decided that clearly ambiguous, philosophical questions had hard, fast, and absolute answers.

[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago

You know this article pissed me off with the self-immolation bit.

Self Immolation in protest couldn't be from preexisting mental illness. He clearly was emotionally impacted by his experience in the environment enough that his rational brain thought that by assuming such agonizing pain and stating the protest, the message would get heard a squeak louder.

Suicidal people don't think rationally. They want the pain to end. Or they become wildly careless. They don't sit there and go "how do I accomplish some good and end my suffering " while selecting the second worst way to die.

[-] fishos@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

While I 100% agree with your interpretation in this case, I'm sure we can agree that "mentally ill person setting themselves on fire because the voices in their head told them too" is a plausible scenario. Self-immolation itself can absolutely be mental illness.

This was not mental illness.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

You won't ever know if it was or wasn't a mental illness and stating it as fact that it wasn't is about as misguided as the press calling it 100% a mental illness.

The thing about a mental illness is it's not always visible, not always curable. There is a tiny red line that stands between a person killing themselves in protest, and because of a mental illness.

[-] Random_German_Name@feddit.de 16 points 9 months ago

I agree with most of your comment, but when I was suicidal I absolutely was looking for ways to achieve something good through my death.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

See, in order to assume his act was "crazy," we have to start by making it a normative principle nobody should ever lay down their life for others. I think the divergence over whether his act was political or was he automatically crazy boils down to: are you a bootlicker?

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The question is does it have any reasonable possibility at all of saving other's lives?

[-] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Wasn't Jericho destroyed by the ark of the covenant or something?

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

No, it was destroyed by angry men screaming and blowing horns until the walls gave up.

[-] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Heck, it would be cooler if it were destroyed by plasma glassing by the scarier Covenant from Halo, not that pitiful ark from the bible tales /S

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Nope. Just like most of the early books of the Old Testament, that was pure fiction.

https://www.britannica.com/video/179549/Battle-of-Jericho-archaeologists-event-Book-Joshua

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

Airmen. He wasn’t a soldier.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 45 points 9 months ago

Airman, not plural

[-] CptCarp@startrek.website 28 points 9 months ago

Airperson, not gendered.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 34 points 9 months ago

Airbeing, not specied.

[-] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 30 points 9 months ago

Airbender, not avatar.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

Air, not solid.

[-] DarkMessiah@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

Nair, not hair.

Also, this is the most Reddit I have seen come from Lemmy, which simultaneously entertains and worries me.

[-] ULS@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Air.

/Thread.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] spacesatan@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Airman is already the gender neutral term.

load more comments (17 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024

823 points (96.0% liked)

World News

39333 readers

3109 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.