The names of children killed thus far in Gaza from WaPo…
I can’t access the video right now, but is Peter Beinart talking about his book? Because I heartily recommend it: Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza (? - from memory).
Indeed he is… I think I have it on my list of books to read.
CRLH*! PQP!
What a article. I wouldn’t imagine an American newspaper publishing something like this.
That is a U.S. newspaper, actually, and one that has been on the wrong side of things for a while now.
Yes. It is amazing they published it. These numbers are a conservative estimate of the death toll, yet shocking enough to scare anyone with empathy. Will the newspaper be labeled anti-Semitic?
FTA:
Or they claim that those deaths don’t matter.
Or they’re nothing more than Hamas propaganda, and not worthy of comment.
ref, eg., David Marr’s talk with Zvika Klein, editor of the Jerusalem Post, with special attention to the last bit at 15:42 on:
Of course. If somebody has a pre-existing condition, such as the (checks notes) mortal coil, they don’t deserve healthcare or (checks notes) food and water.
Everyone born in Gaza now has a “pre-existing condition” if and when the Israeli terrorist force, “settlers”, or the Israeli famine, or the destruction of medical care kills them.
The Israeli/US organisation which blocks the actual humanitarian aid organisations is a resounding success. They have managed to finally shut down food distribution in Gaza. Extreme famine now runs amok.
Does aiding and abetting a genocide, ethnic cleansing, and a racist famine risk breaking international law? Inquiring minds would like to mull over this over sherry in the club.
Fuck off.
ETA
Also worth pointing out that this silly little thing they are talking about isn’t actually a particularly important thing in international law. I see one of the points in it being relentlessly pushed by Zionist accounts online but the irony is utterly lost on them. Zionists at one point came to Ireland to negotiate with the UK because they were terrorists according to the UK government at the time.
Also: Britain isn’t a signatory. It is to many other treaties in international law that would make not doing this problematic. The straws they are clutching just get less and less substantial.
People seem to be very reticent and cautious these days, don’t they?