Ultimately, this “generous offer” amounted to turning the West Bank into non-contiguous cantons, crisscrossed by a network of settlements, roads and Israeli areas. Even the supposed “capital” of the Palestinian state would mostly be under Israeli control, with stipulations and conditions that stripped any real sovereignty from any area of the supposed Palestinian “state”. Not even the sky above Palestinian heads would be under their control, nor the water under their feet, as Israel still demanded access to water resources under the West Bank.

If the use of human shields was so wide as to cause hundreds upon hundreds of dead Palestinian civilians, then surely there would be a reporter or an observer on the ground that could have caught a whiff of it. But reporters on the ground could find no trace of such a supposedly widespread action, Jeremy Bowen of the BBC wrote that he found no evidence of the use of human shields while he was covering the assault on Gaza. Similarly, Kim Sengupta writing for the Belfast Telegraph interviewed Palestinians in Gaza and unsurprisingly came to a similar conclusion: Hamas was not forcing anybody to be a human shield, counter to Netanyahu’s claims.

But perhaps these reporters were missing something, let us consult an organization which specializes in these matters. Fortunately for us, Amnesty international released a detailed report of its investigation into the matter. In their report they indicate that:

“The Israeli authorities have claimed that in a few incidents, the Hamas authorities or Palestinian fighters directed or physically coerced individual civilians in specific locations to shield combatants or military objectives. Amnesty International has not been able to corroborate the facts in any of these cases.”

So, it seems that the Israeli claims have no basis in reality, and are just a way to demonize Palestinians and legitimize their indiscriminate bombardment of civilians. This is hardly the first time Israel has used this accusation to delegitimize their enemies. For example, in the 2006 war against Lebanon Israel accused Hizballah of using human shields. Unsurprisingly, investigations by both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch similarly found no evidence.

police-jobs-suck.com:

Would you wear a uniform that evokes fear & distrust in your neighbors?

Would you risk your mental well-being, affecting you & your loved ones?

Would you be comfortable with helping send someone to prison for years because of a petty parole violation or non-violent offence?

Would you participate in actions that split apart families?

Are there other ways you can build safety, beyond policing, in your community?

I feared he would be martyred, when he returned to Russia after getting poisoned by the FSB and helping Bellingcat track down the agents who poisoned him (nobody in power did anything about them). Back then, his life was saved by a pilot deciding to make an emergency landing and a doctor suspecting a neurotoxin.

What finally took his life will be difficult to ascertain due to lack of transparency - a remote location, an extremely authoritarian system, war, politically controlled law enforcement and courts. Still, a day before death, Navalny appeared in court for another potential addition to his already 19-year sentence - in good spirits.

During Navalny's imprisonment, the regime made a sustained effort to break that spirit, issuing a constant stream of disciplinary punishments (a total of 27 times): for not placing his hands behind his back, for incorrectly introducing himself, for uttering a profanity, for failing to clear leaves in the yard, for citing the European Court of Human Rights’ demand for his release, for addressing the guard without using a patronym, and for declining to wash the fence.

They also transfered him to the far north and previously used sleep deprivement against him. I tend to assume that they also killed him, either directly or indirectly.

He was definitely not the perfect politician, but did things which a common politician never dares to do, which suggests having some principles. When they came for anarchists, he didn't forget them, but also spoke for anarchists.

Crossposted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/13937769

Across the United States, hundreds of jails have eliminated in-person family visits over the last decade. Why has this happened? The answer highlights a profound flaw in how decisions too often get made in our legal system: for-profit jail telecom companies realized that they could earn more profit from phone and video calls if jails eliminated free in-person visits for families. So the companies offered sheriffs and county jails across the country a deal: if you eliminate family visits, we'll give you a cut of the increased profits from the larger number of calls. This led to a wave across the country, as local jails sought to supplement their budgets with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from some of the poorest families in our society.

Winning proposal:

Once Derek Chauvin has been found guilty in a court of law, he is sentenced to a term of community service of a length and type appropriate to the severity of his crime. (So in this case, a lot. Life?) That community service is overseen by agents of the court; I’m thinking more like lawyers or clerks, less like armed bailiffs. Those agents are not charged with forcing him to stick to the community service, but rather just observing whether he does so.

If he forfeits on his community service, as determined by the courts, then he will be considered an “outlaw” - meaning, specifically, someone not protected by the law. Anything done to him that would ordinarily constitute a crime no longer does. No police are necessary; if he refuses to serve his time helping his fellow man, then anybody with a chip on their shoulder can punish him for it. As long as he sticks to his sentence, he’s safe, with his life dedicated to helping others. And if anyone were to commit a crime against him while he was in that situation they would face the same fate he currently faces—an appropriate community service sentence enforced by the threat of being put outside of the protection of the law should he violate that sentence.

Obviously, it’s crucial that the courts are seen as impartial and unimpeachable, since they don’t have a bunch of men with guns to enforce their will. But it’s the best I’ve got. Derek broke the social contract; either he makes amends or we’ll put him outside of the protection of that social contract. Simple as that.

In recent days, scientists from the School of Plant Sciences at Tel Aviv University have announced that they have recorded with special ultrasound-sensitive microphones the screams of pain that plants emit when they are cut or when they lack water. In Gaza there are no microphones.

Giorgio Agamben, October 30, 2023

Did my first bit of Lemmy moderation ever to ban someone for making dehumanizing comments and making copoganda. Copogandists, we don't want you here. This is not your space. Please report such comments as you see it.

Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin (December 9, 1842 – February 8, 1921) was a Russian anarchist and geographer known as a proponent of anarchist communism.

Boycott them:

• #BankOfAmerica (#BofA)
• #FifthThird
• #JPMorgan #Chase
• #PNC Bank
• #Suntrust
• #USBank (#USBancorp)
• #WellsFargo

Did I miss any?

And note that non-US banks are not off the hook here. Many banks in Europe invest in JPMorgan who then invests in private prisons in the US.

(clearnet link to the same page for those without Tor).

Since April 2021, protesters in Atlanta, Georgia have been fighting to defend Weelaunee Forest, where politicians and profiteers are attempting to build a police training compound known as Cop City. This movement has spread around the country, identifying and attacking the roots of state and corporate support for the project; later this month, opponents of Cop City will gather in Tucson, Arizona.

Yet the proposed police militarization center in Atlanta is only one of many. All across the United States, governments are allocating hundreds of millions of dollars to build new police militarization facilities, seeking to expand the repressive capabilities of the police and pouring more money into the pockets of their allies.

The movement to Stop Cop City has given rise to one of the fiercest struggles of the past three years. Does it represent a reproducible strategy by which abolitionists can take a structural approach to stopping the expansion of the police-industrial complex?

I think I agree with Robin D.G. Kelly that we can work toward and organize for abolition under capitalism, but that abolition itself also requires that capitalism be abolished alongside the police and prisons. Capitalism needs police and prisons to absorb surplus populations and as a means to keep proletarian unrest under foot. Capitalism cannot survive if prisons and police are abolished. Likewise, police and prisons need the wealth expropriated from the working class in order to maintain the police and prisons, as these things do not produce value in of itself.