Massacre In Gaza As US Embassy Moves To Jerusalem

Massacre In Gaza As US Embassy Moves To Jerusalem

The Israeli Defense Force slaughtered more than 100, wounded more than 12,000 unarmed protesters at Gaza fence protest against the new and provocative US Embassy in Jerusalem.
165
views

In the most shocking and deadly escalation of violence since 2014, the Israeli Defense Force fired upon unarmed protesters at the razor wire fence dividing the Gaza Strip from Israel. More than 100 Palestinians were murdered in total during the weeks of protesting, with some 12,300 wounded. More than half of these deaths occurred on Monday, the 14th when a total of 58 Palestinians, including children and an eight-month-old baby, were killed and more than 2,000 were wounded. Israeli officials claim that they were targeting Hamas; however, Israeli Brigadier-General Zvika Fogel confirmed that Israeli snipers were ordered to fire upon children.

Medics on the ground claim Israeli snipers are using butterfly bullets, an explosive round which causes major damage to tissue and born and results in severe internal bleeding. Many of the wounded protesters, mostly children, have had limbs amputated. Many have died after only a single shot. Ashraf al-Qedra, Gaza's health ministry spokesman. said: "Normally, a regular bullet breaks the leg. But these bullets create massive wounds, indicating that an explosion happened inside the body. It's an expanding bullet. It pulverizes the leg, and the leg gets cut off." He went on to describe that, when victims are hit, "all of their internal organs were totally destroyed, pulverized."

Left: Butterfly bullet Right: Abdel Rahman Nawfal, 12 in a West Bank hospital after being struck by an Israeli sniper equipped with butterfly bullets | Photos: Jamal Naim

The protests are in response to the United States moving its embassy to Jerusalem. Both Palestinians and Israel claim Jerusalem as their rightful capital. The move was intentionally provocative. The day of the opening ceremony was on May 14, a day Palestinians know as Nakba (English: the Catastrophe). Nakba commemorates the beginning of an ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians when Israeli forces pushed over 700,000 Palestinians out of their homes on May 14, 1948. The ceremony could have easily been put off to May 18, Israeli Independence Day. However, the more insulting and provocative day was chosen seemingly for no other reason than to insult Palestinians and further deny and downplay the genocide perpetrated against them by the Zionist colonizers.

The opening ceremony was, essentially, an invitation-only Trump rally. Those in attendance included right-wing Israeli politicians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, and Orthodox Jews and Christian evangelicals who had previously compared Trump to Cyprus the Great. Even the banners were paid for by Friends of Zion, a far-right evangelical Zionist group.

Palestinians, Jews, and even some who have supported Israel in the past were united in their condemnation of the incredibly violence against unarmed protesters by Israel. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'd al-Hussein announced that he would be stepping down from his position due to what he called the "chilling indifference" from the European Union towards Palestine, as well as the Syria refugee crisis and has decried US foreign policy which he described as "grossly irresponsible", especially under President Trump. As the United Nations prepares to vote on whether or not to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Netanyahu, apparently anticipating defeat, called the UN a "house of lies." Trump has been threatening to cut funding to members states which oppose the move and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has sent letters, warning that the US will be "taking names" of those who have and continue to oppose Zionist expansion and aggression in Palestine.

This bullying and name calling shows how desperate the US and Israel are. Clearly, they do not expect to win this one. Rather than attempting anything even resembling diplomatic normalcy, they will stick to their tried and true method of giving threats and throwing tantrums while committing genocide with impunity.

Cover Image Credit: Youtube

Popular Right Now

5 Perks Of Having A Long-Distance Best Friend

The best kind of long-distance relationship.
233903
views

Sometimes, people get annoyed when girls refer to multiple people as their "best friend," but they don't understand. We have different types of best friends. There's the going out together best friend, the see each other everyday best friend and the constant, low maintenance best friend.

While I'm lucky enough to have two out of the three at the same school as me, my "low maintenance" best friend goes to college six hours from Baton Rouge.

This type of friend is special because no matter how long you go without talking or seeing each other, you're always insanely close. Even though I miss her daily, having a long-distance best friend has its perks. Here are just a few of them...

1. Getting to see each other is a special event.

Sometimes when you see someone all the time, you take that person and their friendship for granted. When you don't get to see one of your favorite people very often, the times when you're together are truly appreciated.

2. You always have someone to give unbiased advice.

This person knows you best, but they probably don't know the people you're telling them about, so they can give you better advice than anyone else.

3. You always have someone to text and FaceTime.

While there may be hundreds of miles between you, they're also just a phone call away. You know they'll always be there for you even when they can't physically be there.

4. You can plan fun trips to visit each other.

When you can visit each other, you get to meet the people you've heard so much about and experience all the places they love. You get to have your own college experience and, sometimes, theirs, too.

5. You know they will always be a part of your life.

If you can survive going to school in different states, you've both proven that your friendship will last forever. You both care enough to make time for the other in the midst of exams, social events, and homework.

The long-distance best friend is a forever friend. While I wish I could see mine more, I wouldn't trade her for anything.

Cover Image Credit: Just For Laughs-Chicago

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

The Crimes And Misdemeanors Of A Sitting President

Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is: Can this nation survive any more division?

156
views

Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is; can this nation survive any more division? Is Nancy correct in her comment, "He's just not worth it?" Impeachment should not be used as a political tool to remove an unwanted government official out of office. Its purpose is to bring charges against a government official and once the official is impeached then the legislative body can impose judgment which could ultimately remove the official from office.

Moreover, in the past, this country has impeached two sitting presidents and neither ended with his removal. According to www.merriam-webster.com, the definition of impeaching is "(a) to charge with a crime or misdemeanor, specifically: to charge a public official before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. (b) to remove from office especially for misconduct, and (c) to bring an accusation against."

So how many cases of impeachment has the United States experienced with sitting presidents? According to www.History.com, eight U.S. presidents have faced impeachment, but with very different results. John Tyler was the first president to face impeachment proceedings in 1843. Representative John Botts of Virginia filed claimed Tyler conduct of the U.S. Treasury although the House of Representatives voted Botts' claim down.

Andrew Johnson was the second sitting president to have impeachment proceedings filed against him. In 1868 President Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and according to Congress, the president violated the Tenure of Office Act. Even though Johnson was impeached the Senate would not confirm his removal from office and he finished his term.

With the exception of Grover Cleveland, the twentieth century gave way for many calls for impeachment beginning with Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and ending with George H.W. Bush. None of these presidents were subjected to the process as the claims never had the votes to call for a hearing on the committees.

There were three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, however, he resigned in 1974 before any of the proceedings could take place. In 1998 Bill Clinton was impeached over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the Monica Lewinsky case. In Clinton's case, the Senate acquitted, and he finished his term in office just like Andrew Johnson.

President Trump is under scrutiny for some of the very reason's other presidents have had impeachment proceedings. He has proven to most American's that he is a danger to our democracy. Trump has snubbed his nose at the foreign emolument clause, creating an open way for foreign powers to pressure our president to stray from his constitutional obligation to the United States. The firing of the FBI Director James Comey and fulling admitting on national television to Lester Holt that he did because of "this Russia thing." This is "obstruction of justice," and other presidents have been charged with this article of impeachment. However, Nixon resigned, and Clinton was acquitted.

So why is he not worth it? First the truth, he won the election. Unless there is proven evidence that he colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 presidential election reversing this fact will drive this new faction of voters back to the polls to elect another under-qualified candidate. In addition, the Republican Party will use the impeachment as a platform in the upcoming election. Citing the Democrats stole the White House from them.

Second, is the nation ready for even one year of Mike Pence as president? His record as Governor of Indiana is the only evidence needed. He banned Syrian refugees, he reinstated mandatory minimum sentences and authored a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn't take to Twitter, has the political knowledge, and is waiting his turn to strike like an incurable virus.

Third and even more disturbing is the Republican Party and their efforts to gloss over his crimes and misdemeanors and cite the economy, and jobs. Many won't vote against Trump because of his base; cannot afford to have to explain their decisions to his base voters in 2020. Most fear they will have to go through a primary. Even though if they removed Trump and put Pence in his place they could have during their two-year reign and most American's civil liberties would be a thing of the past.

The voters gave their voice in 2018 and Congress is working, unlike the previous Congress. They have a lot of work to do and spinning their wheels debating the crimes and misdemeanors of the sitting president is counter-productive. History will repeat itself and he will be acquitted.

Related Content

Facebook Comments