I can’t help but notice that the article describes conditions that are clearly intended to kill, cause serious bodily harm, and deliberately inflict on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
It really seems like there’s a word for that. It’s weird that the article describes those conditions without using any particular word that those conditions describe.
I normally like the Guardian, but that article feels weird because I don’t know why it can’t just say that Gaza’s condition is that of an unambiguous genocide in progress.
don’t know why it can’t just say that Gaza’s condition is that of an unambiguous genocide in progress.
Maybe because the Guardian is like just about every other legacy news agency that has been sold out and publishes things to fit an agenda
Normally I’d agree, but The Guardian is actually usually an outlier in this regard:
Israel accused of act of genocide over restriction of Gaza water supply [Dec. 19]
Defining genocide: how a rift over Gaza sparked a crisis among scholars [Dec. 20]
A consensus is emerging: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Where is the action? [Dec. 23]
‘Secretary of genocide’: Blinken speech on Middle East interrupted by protester – video [Today]
