cross-posted from: https://hcommons.social/users/adachika192/statuses/114611927184686873

Pro-Israel Figures Threaten to Kill Greta Thunberg Over Gaza Aid Mission - Quds News Network (2025-06-02)

https://qudsnen.co/pro-israel-figures-threaten-to-kill-greta-thunberg-over-gaza-aid-mission/
------

>> … Greta Thunberg is facing a wave of violent threats by pro-genocide individuals after joining a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. Pro-Israel figures have called for her death or harm as she sails to challenge Israel’s siege on the devastated territory.

>> Republican Senator Lindsey Graham posted on X: “Hope Greta and her friends can swim!”…

#StopIsrael #StopGenocide #FreedomFlotilla
@palestine@lemmy.ml @palestine@a.gup.pe

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bad headline. They are advocating for killing her. They are not threatening to kill her because most of the people mentioned do not have the power to do so. I could threaten to arrest Netenyahu but it would not be a credible threat because that’s not within my power at all. But I can post online in favour of the idea.

  • peteyestee@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know much about this Greta person. But sometimes I feel like she was human trafficked into becoming political puppet.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what the conspiracy theory about her was when she was just Climate Greta.

    • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      when she was younger she definitely was. not going to hold it against her as she was a literal child, however, it is obviously she learned she was being coerced into becoming a grifter and she broke off then.

      she could have very easily have become a lib grifter and make kunmbaya world tours.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Death threats are not 1A-protected free speech. So terrorism charges against those making the threats, yes?

    /we all know the answer to that question

    • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Terrorism charges don’t really mean much anymore. You can call anything terrorism at this point. They will need something less generic.

      • Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can call anything terrorism at this point.

        you know, except a white, right wing, man, who commits mass murder, for ideological reasons

        Those are lone wolves, and tragically mentally ill, of course

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I feel like years ago someone would have had to step down from their position and quit politics in shame for such a dishonorable statement.

      Hoping someone shoots missiles and sinks civilians trying to feed the poor. What a terrible soul.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. This means Greta is doing the right thing. Also, it’s about time she’s back in the spotlight, and not some minor footnote when talking about activism events.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Mossad had been given orders to kill her, she wouldn’t have made it to the boat. (It’d have been a “hit-and-run accident”, or a previously undiagnosed allergy or something. The people speculating that Mossad assassinated her would be dismissed as cranks, and would be right entirely by coincidence.)

    • idriss@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re over-estimating the Mossad. ALL the previous assassinations were carried out in a primitive way and got linked back to them in a short time.

      • Don_alForno@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s availability bias. Do you know how many they carried out that weren’t discovered as such?

        • idriss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          No I don’t, do you?

          You could use this logic on anything and it gets ridiculous rather quickly.

          Should I assume also that Mozambique intelligence carried out a gazillion sophisticated stealth assassinations that none of us has discovered yet? we don’t have the count too, right?

          (I can list some much more ridiculous examples, this logic doesn’t work, here’s the alternative: 0 evidence so far of any of that happened -> it’s safe to assume it never did until proven wrong)

          • Don_alForno@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Should I assume also that Mozambique intelligence carried out a gazillion sophisticated stealth assassinations that none of us has discovered yet?

            No, but if you claimed that they never carried out a single one specifically with the argument that none was ever discovered you’d be falling for the same logical fallacy.

            Also, compared to Mozambique, you know that Israel has far higher technological capabilities, a certain international backing and is in semi constant war alternating between cold and hot with most of it’s neghbour states, which makes one more likely to have both the need and the means to have successfully carried out secret killings than the other.

            Especially since x (too lazy to research right now) assassinations by Mossad were discovered and linked to them, so you know they do kill people. And from there you basically claim they get discovered 100% of the time. Which is ridiculous.

            • idriss@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a very weird logic. If I claim I have super powers and there are 0 documented cases of me doing anything super natural, you have to be the one to prove I don’t have such super powers??

              You see how ridiculous this sounds? I am saying it gets ridiculous really quick.

              • Don_alForno@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                If I claim I have super powers and there are 0 documented cases of me doing anything super natural,

                Is it somehow hard for you to understand that there literally cannot be documented cases of Mossad killing someone and not being linked to it, because as soon as they were documented cases, they would be linked to it?

    • The Menemen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol, people should stop thinking that intelligence agencies are all powerful. They fumble and fuck up stuff all the time.

      That said, the current Israeli government under the current political situation might very well arrange this basically as a public execution, knowing that western media will present it in the right light for them.

  • Knightfox@lemm.eedeleted by creator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like to research these sorts of things because it feels like these types of sources are 99% emotion and 1% rationale review. First off, I really hope that everyone on the ship is ok and that this doesn’t turn into a worst case scenario.

    The Freedom Flotilla Coalition as well as Quds News Network makes some mistakes in their assumptions and reporting. First they frequently refer to the 2010 blockade run that resulted in the deaths of several activists and state that they were attacked by Israel in international waters. They also state that Israel is breaking the UN Law of the Sea Convention by having the blockade. Finally, they assert that Palestine is a sovereign state and thus entitled to sovereign control over their territorial waters, the inference being that Israel doesn’t have authority to blockade another sovereign nation.

    The problems with this are that:

    • Israel did not sign the UN Law of the Sea Convention

    • Under the UN Law of the Sea Convention Israel can claim territorial waters out to 12 miles from their cost and exclusive economic zone up to 200 miles out. There is some extra context about having disputes and made agreements with neighboring nations to share overlapping EEZs but it’s not important for this discussion.

    • While considered international waters the UN Law of the Sea Convention gives the nation Sovereign authority to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage natural resources. This extends to the authority to protect against illegal fishing, illegal trafficking, smuggling, piracy, terrorism, and unauthorized transit.

    • Whether you believe Palestine is a sovereign state or not is kind of a wash here, possession is 9/10 of the law here and the people with boats and guns make the rules not outside parties unwilling to also send boats and guns.

    Going back to the 2010 flotilla, it was 70 miles off the coast of Israel (well within the EEZ). Israel told them to to submit to inspection and that they would deliver the goods to Gaza. The flotilla refused to allow inspection in the EEZ and also refused to leave. Israel attacked and took over the ship. I’m really not sure what anyone was expecting here?

    Moving forward to the more recent attack on the Conscience, the ship was attacked around 14 miles off the coast of Malta (WAAAAYYY far from Israel’s EEZ). This one gets weird, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition claims that the ship was attacked by missiles launched by drones, but provided no evidence as such or who was the source. What was documented is the presence of an Israeli C-130 that was in the area and operating below 5,000 feet, but the C-130 had come and gone from the area hours before the Conscience arrived or was struck. The Maltese government offered the ship assistance, but wanted to inspect the vehicle first to which the captain declined. The Maltese government insists that their airspace was not breached.

    All in all the story from these people doesn’t seem to completely add up. They claim they have rights under the Law of the Sea, but Israel didn’t sign that agreement. They claim (correctly) that they are in international waters, but leave out that they are in the EEZ of Israel. They claim they have the right to travel without impediment, but the Law of the Sea allows a state to regulate travel in the EEZ pertaining to smuggling and unauthorized transit. Recently they claim that Israel attacked them, but provides no evidence and won’t allow inspection (even by 3rd parties).

    Again, I hope nobody gets hurt, I think it’s disgusting that some people wish harm on these activists, but a lot of their assertions don’t hold water. At the end of the day if you refuse to do what the people with guns tell you to do we have a pretty good idea what will happen. All the outrage and passive condemnation in the world don’t mean shit if that’s all it is.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      shield
      M
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Removed for misinformation.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20220707221235/https://www.haaretz.com/2011-09-13/ty-article/un-independent-panel-rules-israel-blockade-of-gaza-illegal/0000017f-f617-ddde-abff-fe779a520000

      "An earlier fact-finding mission named by the same UN forum to investigate the flotilla incident also found in a report last September that the blockade violated international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the blockade violates the Geneva Conventions.

      Israel says its Gaza blockade is a precaution against arms reaching Hamas and other Palestinian guerrillas by sea.

      The four-man panel headed by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer found Israel had used unreasonable force in dealing with what it called “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers.”"

      • Knightfox@lemm.eedeleted by creator
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would argue that nothing I said is misinformation. My post said that the basis for much of the Freedom Flotilla Coalitions argument is based on the Freedom of Movement clause of the UN Law of the Sea Convention as they state in #1 on their own post. Their purpose for doing the blockade run is about the violation of international law for Collective Punishment, but the basis for which they believe they can challenge the the blockade is the UN Law of the Sea.

        As I stated in my original post, they are smuggling goods inside of the Economic Exclusion Zone of Israel. When told to stop and yield to inspection they are claiming they don’t have to because of the UN Law of the Sea which is incorrect in this instance.

        Since you referenced the UN Forum to investigate the 2010 flotilla incident, the UN panel in their report noted that

        “It is clear to the Panel that preparations were made by some of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara well in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt. The description given in the Israeli report is consistent with passenger testimonies to the Turkish investigation that describe cutting iron bars from the guard rails of the ship, opening fire hoses, donning life or bullet proof vests and gas masks, and assuming pre-agreed positions in anticipation of an attack. Witness reports also describe doctors and medical personnel coordinating before the boarding in anticipation of casualties. Furthermore, video footage shows passengers wearing gas masks, life or bullet proof vests, and carrying metal bars, slingshots, chains and staves. That information supports the accounts of violence given by IDF personnel to the Israeli investigation”

        “The Panel accepts, therefore, that soldiers landing from the first helicopter faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they descended onto the Mavi Marmara. Material before the Panel confirms that this group was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots, and there is some indication that they also used knives. Firearms were taken from IDF personnel and passengers disabled at least one by removing the ammunition from it. Two soldiers received gunshot wounds. There is some reason to believe that they may have been shot by passengers, although the Panel is not able to conclusively establish how the gunshot wounds were caused. Nevertheless, seven other soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.”

        So, the Flotilla asserts that they have the right to freedom of movement by the Law of the Sea Convention, which they didn’t, and when the IDF boarded the ship they were violently attacked by “non-violent” activists.

        • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldBanned
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The flotilla was intercepted by Israeli naval forces in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea, approximately 70–80 nautical miles from the Gaza coast, and well outside Israel’s territorial waters

          The blockade is illegal, the raid was illegal, activists has the right to self defense against the occupying force

          https://ihh.org.tr/en/mavi-marmara

        • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldBanned
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Going back to the 2010 flotilla, it was 70 miles off the coast of Israel (well within the EEZ). Israel told them to to submit to inspection and that they would deliver the goods to Gaza. The flotilla refused to allow inspection in the EEZ and also refused to leave. Israel attacked and took over the ship. I’m really not sure what anyone was expecting here?

          Do you have any source of the legality of murdering many activists on that ship?

          • Knightfox@lemm.eedeleted by creator
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can phrase it how you want, but at the end of the day they are smuggling goods in an area internationally recognized as being under the control and jurisdiction of a country. Part of nonviolent civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law. I don’t think it’s good that activists get hurt, but it’s definitely not surprising.

            In the incident a UN Panel found that the IDF boarded the Mavi Marmara and were met with resistance from ~40 of the passengers where were said to be armed with iron bars and knives.

            The panel had this to state about the actions of the flotilla:

            “However, the Panel seriously questions the true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, a coalition of non-governmental organizations. The leading group involved in the planning of the flotilla was the Turkish NGO “İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri Vakfı” (IHH), a humanitarian organization. It owned two of the ships; the Mavi Marmara and the Gazze I. There is some suggestion that it has provided support to Hamas, although the Panel does not have sufficient information to assess that allegation. IHH has special consultative status with ECOSOC, a status which in the Panel’s view raises a certain expectation with respect to the way in which it should conduct its activities.”

            “Other elements also raise questions concerning the objectives of the flotilla organizers. If the flotilla had been a purely humanitarian mission it is hard to see why so many passengers were embarked and with what purpose. Furthermore, the quality and value of many of the humanitarian goods on board the vessels is questionable. There were large quantities of humanitarian and construction supplies on board the Gazze 1, Eleftheri Mesogeio and Defne-Y. There were some foodstuffs and medical goods on board the Mavi Marmara, although it seems that these were intended for the voyage itself. Any “humanitarian supplies” were limited to foodstuffs and toys carried in passengers’ personal baggage. The same situation appears to be the case for two other of the vessels: the Sfendoni, and the Challenger I. There was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity.”

            “It should be noted that flotilla passengers specifically committed not to bring weapons on the journey. Neverthless, it is alleged that the IHH participants on board the Mavi Marmara included a “hardcore group” of approximately 40 activists, who had effective control over the vessel during the journey and were not subjected to security screening when they boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul. The Turkish report refers to 42 volunteers who acted as “cleaning and maintenance personnel” who boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul and asserts that these individuals were subject to security screening. The Panel notes in this regard that all participants agreed to follow the decisions of the IHH organizers during the voyage and that at least one witness described himself as working for IHH ‘like a security guard.’”

            “Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation.”

            So the event organizers had alleged ties to Hamas, there were 10 tonnes of supplies provided by the organizers but the only supplies intended for the Gazans was that which was brought by individual volunteers, and a core group of armed volunteers tried to resist the IDF when they boarded. These were the UN’s findings.

            • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldBanned
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can phrase it how you want, but at the end of the day they are smuggling goods in an area internationally recognized as being under the control and jurisdiction of a country. Part of nonviolent civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law. I don’t think it’s good that activists get hurt, but it’s definitely not surprising.

              The occupation is illegal stop justifying the unjustifiable , there is a difference between occupied land and internationally recognized land administrated by a country. I don’t want to hear about it being surprising or not. I want to know if you think the death of the 9 activists was respecting international law

              This document expose all Israeli lies and you covering from them . You ain’t fooling anybody pretending to be unbiased https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/mde150132011en.pdf

              the event organizers had alleged ties to Hamas Everybody is Hamas according to Israel

              • Knightfox@lemm.eedeleted by creator
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You made a lot of statements and a lot of questions at once, so I’ll try to split them up.

                The occupation is illegal

                Agreed

                stop justifying the unjustifiable

                Disagree?

                there is a difference between occupied land and internationally recognized land administrated by a country

                Agreed, the coastal waters off the coast of Israel are different than the dry land in Gaza

                I don’t want to hear about it being surprising or not

                I’m sorry?

                I want to know if you think the death of the 9 activists was respecting international law

                Yes, people were smuggling goods through the internationally recognized waters administered by Israel. When the IDF boarded the ship to stop the smuggling they were attacked by a group of the passengers. While unfortunate, it was legal to defend themselves. I will say that the IDF should have done more to prevent the escalation to the point that people didn’t get killed, but that would likely have required an even larger show of force.

                This document expose all Israeli lies and you covering from them

                This is an article by Amnesty International? I’ll take the UN Panel’s report which stated ““The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.””

                Everybody is Hamas according to Israel

                Not really a good answer. Interestingly the Palmer report does say specifically where in the Israeli report they document the connection to Hamas, but for the life of me I cannot find the actual report. If anyone finds it I’d be curious to read it.

                • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldBanned
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, people were smuggling goods through the internationally recognized waters administered by Israel. When the IDF boarded the ship to stop the smuggling they were attacked by a group of the passengers. While unfortunate, it was legal to defend themselves. I will say that the IDF should have done more to prevent the escalation to the point that people didn’t get killed, but that would likely have required an even larger show of force.

                  Justifying murder very cool. The law say to only use enough force necessary. Murdering with live ammunition is not

                  The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces
                  during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were
                  killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory
                  explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths.
                  Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times,
                  including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the
                  material presented by Israel.

                  https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/720841?ln=en&v=pdf

                  https://news.un.org/en/story/2010/09/352342

          • Knightfox@lemm.eedeleted by creator
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hey thanks for providing this, it actually answers the question. For those who didn’t read through this, the main International Laws Israel is accused of violating are:

            • Human Rights violations - Israel is a member state of the UN and as such the UN asserts that Israel must follow the laws set forth. In reality Israel has been a signatory on 9/18 human rights treaties.

            • Invading a UN recognized State - Palestine was recognized in 1988 and is considered part of the UN. Israel occupying Palestine is tantamount to a violation of International Law.

            I started this post and then had to step away and by the time I got back I had a bunch of responses, but you were the first.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-legal-status-of-israels-siege-blockade-of-gaza

          Collective punishment contravenes the Hague Conventions on the laws of war, as well as Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.”

          Also in 2010, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, condemned the blockade, stating: “I have consistently reported to member states that the blockade is illegal and must be lifted.”

          In 2011, after Israel’s attack on a flotilla of civilian ships taking aid to Gaza killed nine human rights activists, including an American citizen, the UN released a report by a panel of five independent rights experts who concluded Israel’s blockade is in “flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law.”

          In 2012, 50 international aid agencies, including the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and Oxfam, released a statement calling on Israel to lift its siege and blockade, declaring: “For over five years in Gaza, more than 1.6 million people have been under blockade in violation of international law. More than half of these people are children. We the undersigned say with one voice: ‘end the blockade now.’”

          In a 2016 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 condemned Israel’s blockade as illegal, stating: “As a form of collective punishment imposed upon an entire population, the blockade is contrary to international law.”

          • Knightfox@lemm.eedeleted by creator
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is a good response to my earlier question. Please note that my first post was about the assertion of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition that they had the right to run the blockade. When someone said that the blockade itself was illegal I asked for a source which you and they have provided.

            You could make the argument that since the blockade is illegal then the right to defend it would be ceded, but I don’t think it works that way. Much like how if a cop illegally arrests you you still don’t have the right to resist arrest.

            The UN Panel that investigated the 2010 incident said both that the loss of passenger lives on the IDFs fault was unacceptable (especially including shooting some of the dead multiple times or in the back) and that the treatment of the passengers was unacceptable.

            That same panel also stated, “The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”