Anyone who’s been following the Gaza genocide on social media today will be seeing this phrase “legally killed child” alongside footage of children ripped apart by Israeli militar…
The pictured paragraph from the Atlantic leads up to the following, which concludes the article:
None of this excuses OCHA, which jeopardized its credibility by repeating dubious numbers, long after the reasons for doubting them had been explained. That credibility is a precious resource. The IDF claims to have killed “at least 13,000” combatants—lower than Netanyahu’s estimate—but refused to comment yesterday when I asked if it had any idea how many civilians it had killed. The correct answer is, well, a lot. It would be nice if, before the war is over, some trusted third party could verify this macabre estimate with greater precision.
What the journalist is basically saying is that the IDF is acting as if it has a lot to hide, comparing it to extremely unfavorable historical examples. Basically saying that if they’re any better than armies we demonize from the past, they should allow the scrutiny of international press.
Israel can argue until the end of time about their actions being “legal”, and whether they’re right or not doesn’t matter all that much: “legally killed children” are not that easily distinguished from murdered children. Because at the end of the day it’s the same fucking thing, which any moderately intelligent reader will manage to arrive to without having a public meltdown first.
“Legal” is a funny word. The Nazis were famously legal in everything they did. Legality does not presuppose morality. Even if Israel successfully argued they had legally killed thousands of children, the IDF is still child murderers. And the fact that they will not allow free press anywhere near their actions is more than a little bit of a red flag.
The article is not a defence of Israel or the IDF. Taking words out of context to try to sow division does not do us any favours.
Sensationalist bullshit.
The pictured paragraph from the Atlantic leads up to the following, which concludes the article:
What the journalist is basically saying is that the IDF is acting as if it has a lot to hide, comparing it to extremely unfavorable historical examples. Basically saying that if they’re any better than armies we demonize from the past, they should allow the scrutiny of international press.
Israel can argue until the end of time about their actions being “legal”, and whether they’re right or not doesn’t matter all that much: “legally killed children” are not that easily distinguished from murdered children. Because at the end of the day it’s the same fucking thing, which any moderately intelligent reader will manage to arrive to without having a public meltdown first.
“Legal” is a funny word. The Nazis were famously legal in everything they did. Legality does not presuppose morality. Even if Israel successfully argued they had legally killed thousands of children, the IDF is still child murderers. And the fact that they will not allow free press anywhere near their actions is more than a little bit of a red flag.
The article is not a defence of Israel or the IDF. Taking words out of context to try to sow division does not do us any favours.