In his latest NYT column, Bret Stephens tries to excuse a uniquely horrific crime with uniquely horrific journalism.

In his latest column for the NYT, Bret Stephens tries to excuse a uniquely horrific crime with uniquely horrific journalism.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    12·
    10 days ago

    Objectively speaking, this is the equivalent in terms of ludicrousness of claiming that there is no evidence of a plan by the operators of a chicken slaughterhouse to deliberately end the lives of the poultry therein. You don’t kill 17,400 children in 13 months by accident; nor do you repeatedly bomb hospitals and ambulances if you aren’t, you know, deliberately aiming to kill civilians.

    But it’s not just about bombs. Forced starvation is genocide, too. And on that note, another question Stephens might answer is how intentionally depriving a population of two million people of the food and water that is necessary for human survival does not constitute an “intent to destroy” that group. Yesterday alone, Gaza health officials reported that at least 15 Palestinians had starved to death, including four children.

    • eldavi@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      10 days ago

      it makes you hope that stephens is a shill since actually believing this makes him a monster and i wish i could say that the nyt was monstrous for having him in staff, but they’ve already proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt and the nyt’s reremovedtion seems as invulnerable as the oligarchy.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        6·
        10 days ago

        nyt’s reremovedtion seems as invulnerable as the oligarchy.

        Ok look, the NYT is based out of New York City which has property owned by rich people all over the earth, you have to understand that gives the New York Times an air of mystique to liberals that their atrophied nervous system identifies as cultural power and relevance. It is like catnip for ideologically vapid centrists.