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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Mental health is a scapegoat for reasonable reactions to the absolutely horrible times we are living through.
I agree. Recognizing that “greedy scumbag” is the default for humanity has really put things into perspective for me.
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.
The only mental health issues I see are from the people in power that stand by and let these atrocities go unchecked.
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.
along with the war in Ukraine
What exactly do you mean?
Nothing! There is no propaganda supporting Ukraine.
Just look away…
There’s lots of propaganda around the war in Ukraine, seems you’ve fallen for it in fact.
Yeah, I thought they were gonna take back Crimea too :(
At least I can learn from my mistakes. That’s more than most of you can say.
It’s still in the cards but would take some major major negative developments for the Russians, like major mutinies or supply issues or economic collapse.
The War could still very much go either way, hence the US and Europe caring about it so much.
Also I apologize if my original comment sounded hostile, your comment came off tankieish and I always get feisty with those.
Just to explain why, not to take from your broader point, it’s because he’s not of the people being harmed. Typically this form of protest is done by those being harmed.
The thing is, and I’m not bringing it to say it is anyone’s obligation no matter what they do or who they are, but Bushnell was a soldier. A soldier is usually already not as removed from the idea of death or harm coming their way, unlike most other people. Ideally, they are not readily available to put their own lives in the line, but they are aware the job entails duty and that duty may require more than common resources, hence putting the body at risk.
When you simply shift this duty to uphold justice for oppressed people on the other side of the planet rather than to sit with thumbs twiddling for your own country’s military orders, it is easily justifiable to use this resource in line to protect others.
A journalist, a psychiatrist, or many of the other life occupancies have different resources they use and can also utilize as a last resort.
Airman. He also had some pretty extreme claims about who exactly was doing what in Gaza.
An airman is a specific subset of soldier. I know you’re just trying to be dismissive, but stop being a pedantic asshole, and wrong at that.
Soldiers serve in an army. The USAF hasn’t been a part of the army since 1947. Pedantic, sure. Wrong? No.
A definition for soldier is one who serve in an army and an army is “a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land” (emphasis mine, note not explicitly on land) or “a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army
The Air Force absolutely fits the latter definition, and it fits the former as well if you don’t consider the land part exclusive, which it isn’t.
Other definitions of soldier also exist, which do not require it be a member of an army, but a military in general. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soldier
If you’re going to be pedantic, at least be pedantic and accurate. There’s no sense in being pedantic and wrong.
Vietnam
Not the best example.
There were soldiers dishonorably discharged from Vietnam for shell shock because PTSD was not yet officially recognized at the time. And because of that discharge, they were then not able to get VA benefits for the mental healthcare that they needed.
What is the connection between a monk immolating himself and American soldiers having ptsd?
The OP has a valid point in that both cases were instances of self immolation.
OP made the connection to the monks and said that what they did was not questioned as a mental health issue. I only meant to point out that there was not a great track record of mental health issues being identified/treated during that time.
Where were all these internet psychologists calling self immolation mentally deranged and suicidal when it was in the Vietnam war history books?
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?”
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.
I’m actually ok with people self-immolating in support of Trump.
That’s so accurate.
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.
What they mean is neo-liberal which requires some reading. “Classical” liberal politics has been dead for a few decades.
Idk about that, the NY Liberal Party started in 1940 which barred Communist Party members from joining (other than their founding members). Seems like the more classical liberalism examples were more conservative to me.
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.
Don’t forget marriage equality. It was Bill Clinton who championed the Defense of Marriage Act and signed it into law.
People have forgotten that Bill Clinton won his second term by championing himself as having the best aspects of the Democrats and the Republicans (basically he called himself the Hannah Montana of politics) and Hillary Clinton believed abortion was a states’ right issue (the mess we have today).
Once again, the definition in your social circles which are commonplace here on Lemmy directly contradict the actual definition of the political stance.
You can thank (American) politics for that. Where left is right and right is extreme right. Terms get hijacked by everyone until they lose their meaning.
In fact most Western countries with “liberal” parties still support israel.
What is still in line with the definition is that liberals accept policies from the progressives once they become popular enough to win votes with. Liberals are against thing until it becomes unpopular to be against thing.
Only 9 countries opposed the UN Resolution on Gaza in December:
Austria Czechia Guatemala Liberia Micronesia Nauru Papua New Guinea Paraguay USAYes because it started becoming severely unpopular. Check how many were opposing it before that.
Also many countries such as Germany and Canada are still sending israel weapons for Genocide.
Cool so we agreed you lied.
“In fact most Western countries with “liberal” parties still support israel.”
Liberals tend to say that the system just needs a few tweaks here and there while the reality is that the entire thing is rotten to the core and the stuff they enjoy now in their “developed” countries was built upon centuries of exploitation of other people, which is still ongoing stronger than ever.
When confronted with these facts, some liberals act defensively and instead of learning and growing in their understanding, they start aligning with right wing thinking. That’s why the saying goes “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”.
I assure you that destroying democracy and rule of law will not lead to good outcomes for you or anyone else, and certainly doesn’t fit the definition of “progressive reform.”
Beyond accurate. Malcolm X and Dr King were both correct how Liberals stand in the way of progress.
At some recent point, we decided that clearly ambiguous, philosophical questions had hard, fast, and absolute answers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What’s the first worst?
Drowning by far.
I only took a small amount of marsh water in, but Jesus Christ, the panick is unbelievable. You can’t get rid of what’s in there and you use up whatever is in your blood so quickly. Also the water fucking hurts like a mother fucker. And if you survive. Like I did, I got pretty bad pneumonia from it.
Horrible.
Probably Starvation, because of the whole “body slowly eating iitself up” thing.
You know, the way Israel (with, lets never forget, the unwavering support of the US and Germany) is killing children in Gaza.
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?
The question is does it have any reasonable possibility at all of saving other’s lives?
Wasn’t Jericho destroyed by the ark of the covenant or something?
No, it was destroyed by angry men screaming and blowing horns until the walls gave up.
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
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
deleted by creator
It’s kinda funny that Indiana Jones actually had zero impact on pretty much anything that happened in that movie.
Whether it really happened or not, I think enough time has passed to allow rebuilding it several times over.
Airmen. He wasn’t a soldier.
Airman, not plural
Airperson, not gendered.
Airbeing, not specied.
Airbender, not avatar.
Air, not solid.
Nair, not hair.
Also, this is the most Reddit I have seen come from Lemmy, which simultaneously entertains and worries me.
Air.
/Thread.
AIR
Zero 7
Airman is already the gender neutral term.
No, that would be airwoman.
here’s an af.mil article that includes the phrase “female airmen” multiple times https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3334170/female-fitment-program-drives-positive-change-in-air-force/
Kind of like how there are just humans and not humans and huwomans.
No, it’s more like how we used to refer to all professions as being different kinds of men. Mailmen, firemen, policemen, etc. because men were the only ones with those jobs. I’m sure it’s not intentionally gendered language, but it definitely is and we can change it if we want.
People dying because of border fuckery again, dude set himself on fire and we here unironically talking about the correct way to name a profession. Time and a place, person. this aint it.
The minimum viable sex chromosome combination is a single X, which appears female, therefore female is the proper default. Deal with it.
Loop of
I think it was unfortunate that the dude took the protest to the extreme by self-immolating.
I think it’s unfortunate you think there’s a reason to post week old articles.
