New footage obtained by B’Tselem uncovers the moments when the Abu Haikal family was shot. Seven-month-old Sam Abu Haikal was killed in the shooting, and both his parents were injured. The footage clearly shows that the Israeli soldier fired at the car as it was slowing to a stop. The car was far from the soldiers and posed no danger to them whatsoever.
Moments later, in another video obtained by B’Tselem, seven-month-old Sam’s father, Fahed, is seen just after his son was shot. Fahed is holding baby Sam in his arms, trying to stop the bleeding from his head with his hands, while Sam’s mother, Daniyah, who was also injured by the gunfire while holding her son, is seen sitting on the ground, next to the car.
Last Friday, 5 June, an Israeli soldier fired at a Palestinian family driving home from a family visit, as they sat in their car in the Tel Rumeidah neighborhood in Hebron. The family was shot as the car was slowing to a stop at the soldier’s command. Sam, a seven‑month‑old baby who was in his mother’s arms in the back seat, was struck in the head and pronounced dead shortly afterward. Sam’s parents were also injured by the gunfire; his mother is still in the hospital. After the shooting, the soldier who fired and another soldier who was with him left the scene without checking the car or offering any assistance to the critically wounded baby or to his mother.
In the past two and a half years, Israel has killed tens of thousands of children in Gaza and the West Bank. The immunity it gets from the international community has led to a reality where, under Israeli rule, Palestinian lives are entirely disposable – even a seven‑month‑old baby.
My 2006 article arguing that we are moving toward much greater inequality in club football (because of its extreme commercialization) and greater equality in national team football (because of easy migration of players so they can, at four-year intervals, bring back to their countries improvements they have learned in the top leagues).
Globalization and goals: does soccer show the way?
https://t.co/nSbiBhHukl
We’ve reached the point where Nazi Germany placed less restrictions on foreign participation in the 1936 Olympics than has the United States for the upcoming FIFA World Cup.
Dirty rotten scoundrel Gianni Infantino must never be allowed to live down his obsequious sycophancy towards the US leadership.
I’m glad that FIFA decided to reverse this policy and allow water bottles to be brought into World Cup games.
No one should have to fear being priced out of being hydrated, especially fans who are often waiting for hours before a game in extreme heat.
🚨 WOW! Mayor Zohran Mamdani drops an incredible Mario Balotelli quote to explain his governing philosophy for the World Cup.
He confirms NYC won't celebrate just for keeping the city safe and running smoothly, because they are simply doing their job. Masterclass!
@EdwardGLuce@writejohnseiler Having conversations with french people gave me the impression Mearsheimer is right. No one is willing to be drafted to fight against Russia but they want the war to continue : "thats what Ukrainians are for"
"bubble concentrations" of the US stock market in the spring of this year, shown by Michael Harnett at the Bank of America. More featured on today's Chartbook Top Links in the comment below.
@eurogamer I think having a diagonal attack pattern would have made everyone lives easier, specially at the beginning of the game. Otherwise its a near perfect game
@pchicola@robertoantoniow No solo a Trump lo tienen de eunuco. Chuck Schumer, Josh Shapiro, John Fetterman, Lindsey Graham, Rick Scott, Anthony Blinken o Jake Sullivan adoran a su "aliado" genocida
@nelmibro El problema es que también a los demócratas liberales andan en esas. Tienen una venda en los ojos y piensan que el Trumpismo es solo un fenómeno pasajero. Son incapaces de ver los problemas estructurales que sufre el país.
Another fascinating article by my friend @kejimao, who remains one of the most thought-provoking geopolitical scholars in China: https://t.co/Qq9yKEQ8eZ
He tackles an apparent contradiction that I know many people are struggling with: if there is indeed some form of detente between the U.S. and China, why then is the U.S. still selling the "China threat" narrative to countries like India, Japan, and South Korea?
Mao's thesis: the U.S. now understands it cannot contain or suppress China anymore - that game is over. But the narrative remains enormously profitable. Keeping allies scared means keeping them buying US weapons, US energy, US technology. The China threat has gone from strategic doctrine to market preservation, or - as Mao puts it - from treating "allies" as "chess pieces" to treating them as "blood bags" (as in the medical bags you drain until it's empty and then discard).
Mao, being an India specialist and writing in an Indian paper, warns India it is particularly vulnerable to this because whatever leverage India once had over Washington has largely evaporated. The U.S. needed India when it believed it could contain China. It no longer believes that - which means India has gone from being courted to being invoiced.
There is, interestingly, a parallel to this around green energy that I myself highlighted in several of my articles (such as this one in Le Monde Diplomatique last December: https://t.co/eL9GRZSkGD).
Trump's anti-renewable rhetoric - "drill, baby, drill," calling green energy a "hoax" - functions exactly like this: it's not really about energy policy at home (renewables made up an extraordinary 88% of new US power generating capacity in 2025: https://t.co/b01fgI5inG), it's about keeping others dependent on US fossil fuels.
In essence, as things stand, neither the "China threat" nor the "green energy hoax" are operative strategies. They're sales pitches. The U.S. doesn't act on either one - it installs renewables at home and pursues détente with Beijing. The narratives exist for the purpose of keeping invoices flowing to countries foolish enough to drink the Kool-Aid.