AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
Today, Israel defended itself against accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In one of the biggest cases ever to come before the United Nations’ high court, South Africa accused Israel of acts of genocide against Palestinians and demanded an emergency suspension of Israel’s aerial and ground assault on Gaza. A decision on that request will probably take weeks, though the full case will likely last years. Israel often boycotts international tribunals and U.N. investigations, calling them unfair and biased, but this time, for the first time, they attended the hearing, sent a high-level legal team to defend against the accusations of genocide.
The two-day hearings at what’s called the Peace Palace in The Hague began Thursday with South Africa laying out its case against Israel, saying its three-month assault on Gaza is being conducted with the intent to bring about the destruction of Palestinians as a group. Israel defended itself today against the accusations. At the hearing, Israeli legal adviser Tal Becker criticized South Africa for accusing Israel of genocide.
TAL BECKER: The applicant has now sought to invoke this term in the context of Israel’s conduct in a war it did not start and did not want, a war in which Israel is defending itself against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations whose brutality knows no bounds. …
The applicant has regrettably put before the court a profoundly distorted factual and legal picture. The entirety of its case hinges on a deliberately curated, decontextualized and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities.
South Africa purports to come to this court in the lofty position of a guardian of the interest of humanity. But in delegitimizing Israel’s 75-year existence in its opening presentation yesterday, that broad commitment to humanity rang hollow. And in its sweeping counterfactual description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seemed to erase both Jewish history and any Palestinian agency or responsibility.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to another clip of the Israeli legal adviser Tal Becker, who talked about the October 7th attack by Hamas, saying Israel had a right to defend itself.
TAL BECKER: First, that if there have been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, then they have been perpetrated against Israel. If there is a concern about the obligations of states under the Genocide Convention, then it is in relation to their responsibilities to act against Hamas’s proudly declared agenda of annihilation, which is not a secret and is not in doubt. …
Astonishingly, the court has been requested to indicate a provisional measure calling on Israel to suspend its military operations. But this amounts to an attempt to deny Israel its ability to meet its obligations to the defense of its citizens, to the hostages and to over 110,000 internally displaced Israelis unable to safely return to their homes. …
Madam President, members of the court, the hostilities between Israel and Hamas have exacted a terrible toll on both Israelis and Palestinians. But any genuine effort to understand the cause of this toll must take account of the horrendous reality created by Hamas within the Gaza Strip. …
Madam President, members of the court, the nightmarish environment created by Hamas has been concealed by the applicant, but it is the environment in which Israel is compelled to operate. Israel is committed, as it must be, to comply with the law, but it does so in the face of Hamas’s utter contempt for the law. It is committed, as it must be, to demonstrate humanity, but it does so in the face of Hamas’s utter inhumanity. …
It is respectfully submitted that the application and request should be dismissed for what they are: a libel, designed to deny Israel the right to defend itself according to the law from the unprecedented terrorist onslaught it continues to face, and to free the 136 hostages Hamas still holds.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now at The Hague by Diala Shamas. She’s a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. In November, CCR sued President Biden, accusing him of failing to prevent genocide.
Diala, thank you so much for being with us. I know it’s very noisy outside. There’s a major pro-Palestinian rally outside the International Court of Justice. This is historic, this two days. Yesterday South Africa accused Israel of genocide. Today Israel defended itself. Can you talk about their major arguments, saying this is an existential battle, they are simply engaging in self-defense?
DIALA SHAMAS: Thank you for having me.
Yes, it really is a historical moment. And I would have preferred to start with yesterday’s argument and just the significance of what we heard yesterday and what we saw yesterday and what all of these people that are here now, even over an hour after the hearings concluded, still chanting and protesting and thanking South Africa, the significance that South Africa brought this petition and started, at the outset of the hearing yesterday, reminding the world and the court that the context is 75 years of apartheid. And, of course, we all know South Africa and the South African people have emerged from a horrific battle against apartheid. They know what abandonment by the international community looks like and feels like. And it is in that spirit that they have come to this court and also were very clear in their statement that they have come to the court out of their legal and moral obligation, but their legal obligation to do something to prevent the unfolding genocide against the Palestinian people.
Today we heard predictable arguments in response, nothing that we haven’t already heard over the course of the last three months, and in many ways of what we’ve heard from the Israeli legal wing for the last 20 years, leaning heavily on self-defense — although South Africa, clearly, yesterday, and then today in a brief statement at the steps right here in front of me, reminded the world that self-defense is never a justification for genocide or any atrocity, really.
The other arguments, we heard a lot of more sort of factual disputes and gaslighting and cherry-picking and a lot of complaints that everything is sort of one-sided. And the two other main legal arguments that they leveraged were, essentially, first, that the court shouldn’t have jurisdiction in the first place, that South Africa hadn’t followed the proper procedures, that they hadn’t followed the appropriate protocols of notice to be in the court in the first place. And the second is that South Africa — the relief that South Africa is seeking, the provisional measures, are not something that the court is essentially permitted to grant, you know, citing various arguments to make that point.
So, you can’t be here, and then you can’t do anything about it, and, in the middle, everything we do is self-defense — and complete deflection, and never, at any point, addressing the incredibly powerful arguments laid out yesterday at a hearing for three hours by the South African legal team, the really compelling factual and legal arguments on intent, laying out, you know, the litany of statements by Israeli officials in the highest level of government all the way down to the foot soldiers, showing an environment and showing intent to commit genocide in Gaza, and everything else that was laid out.
So, it was really stark to sit today and listen to the arguments, after a day, yesterday, where, frankly, for the first time in the last three months, we’ve been able to hear, from beginning to end, uninterrupted, a compelling case of what we’ve sort of all seen play out over the course of the last three months. The South African legal team noted that we’ve been watching this on — atrocities on our phones. We have been seeing Palestinians broadcast their killing and the genocidal acts live. And the South African legal team put that out to the world and to the court very compellingly.
AMY GOODMAN: Diala, I want to turn to another clip from today’s hearing. This is Deputy Attorney General of Israel Gilad Noam calling on the court to dismiss the charges.
GILAD NOAM: This case concerns a large-scale armed conflict with tragic consequences for civilians on both sides. Yes, there is a heart-wrenching armed conflict, but the attempt to classify it as genocide and trigger provisional measures is not just unfounded in law, it has far-reaching and negative implications that extend well beyond the case before you.
Ultimately, entertaining the applicant’s request will not strengthen the commitment to prevent and punish genocide, but weaken it. It will turn an instrument adopted by the international community to prevent horrors of the kind that shocked the conscience of humanity during the Holocaust into a weapon in the hands of terrorist groups who have no regard for humanity or for the law. …
For us, provisional measures would lead to a perverse situation. It would effectively allow Hamas to continue attacking the citizens of Israel, to hold 136 hostages in unbearable conditions, to keep tens of thousands of displaced Israelis from returning to their homes, and, essentially, to promote its plan to massacre as many Israelis and Jews as it can.
AMY GOODMAN: Diala Shamas, you’re standing outside The Hague. You watched this argument inside The Hague. It just concluded. Senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, your response?
DIALA SHAMAS: Everything we expected. There were no new arguments raised by the Israeli legal team. Essentially, it amounted to them telling the court, “Trust us. Don’t believe what we’ve been telling the world, what we have been putting out in all of our statements, the statements that have circulated, clearly, you know, with genocidal intent, just saying we want to wipe out the population of Gaza, making comparisons, the famous Amalek quote.” And now they’re just saying, “Well, we were not serious there. Just trust us, that we are a, again, democracy with the rule of law” — this is something that — this is a public image that the Israeli government has, you know, done a lot of work to cultivate over decades, and that they do everything by the book. “And just don’t look at the evidence. Don’t look at everything the South Africans laid out plainly yesterday. Don’t look at everything the world has been seeing. And just trust us that we have procedures that we are following here, and, you know, we’re doing our best.”
And plenty of, you know, sort of concerns — and it’s hard to really figure out where to start picking, but a few really concerning statements about civilians, essentially making the argument that civilians have become targets because the legal team repeatedly stated over the course of their arguments that — you know, that because Hamas is operating in Gaza, Israel has to do what it has to do, and that includes the targeting of civilians.
But again, fundamentally, the claim that’s brought by South Africa here is the claim of genocide, which you can’t — there’s simply no argument that self-defense is a justification for genocide. The South African team has laid out the argument showing intent and also the underlying acts, and everything else is essentially a distraction.
AMY GOODMAN: Diala, the Biden administration is due in federal court later this month. While Israel faces charges of genocide at The Hague yesterday and today, in a case you’re working on with CCR, you’re taking it right to President Biden. Explain the theory of your case and what exactly you expect to happen. And is there any connection between that case in a U.S. federal court and what we’re seeing right now at the U.N.’s highest court, the World Court?
DIALA SHAMAS: Yeah, I couldn’t hear the full question, but I think you’re asking us about the case that the Center for Constitutional Rights has brought against Biden, President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken and Austin, and Secretary of Defense Austin, in California federal court, raising failure in their duty to prevent a genocide and complicity in genocide arguments. And that case has a hearing coming up on February — I’m sorry, January 26th, where our team will be standing up in court arguing for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to order the end of military assistance and other forms of assistance, political and diplomatic assistance, to Israel in light of the unfolding genocide.
The relationship is, you know, having to stand up in court and defend that a few weeks after this hearing, and possibly also after the ICJ has issued preliminary measures, is going to put this administration in a — I think it will be one of the first tests that we’ll have of how the U.S. government is responding to the ICJ — an ICJ decision and to the arguments raised here and the arguments that we’re also raising in the U.S. case. I think we’re all going to be looking to how the world responds to any preliminary measures issued by the Court of Justice.
As the South African attorney yesterday said, this is really, ultimately, a test of the very legitimacy of international law and the international legal order. If we can’t stop an unfolding genocide, then what is any of it for? She made a compelling closing argument, citing to a Palestinian, Munther Isaac, who spoke his sort of Christmas sermons, asking the world where — you know, “What will you say where you were when a genocide was unfolding?” And so, whether it’s at the ICJ or whether it’s in federal court in the United States, we’re really looking to government to do everything that they can to uphold their duty to prevent an unfolding genocide.
And having our case in the U.S. is, of course, incredibly important because the U.S. is the biggest supporter of Israel. There’s been investigative reporting showing how much military aid and military support has been indispensable to Israel’s assault and war on Gaza. And yet we’ve also seen repeated statements of unconditional support from the U.S. administration to the Israeli government, despite almost — you know, despite three months of daily attacks on civilians and daily statements showing an intent to destroy the civilian population of Gaza, in whole or in part, the Palestinian population.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Diala Shamas, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. Again, in November, CCR sued President Biden, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, accusing them of failing to prevent a genocide. For those who missed yesterday’s show, it was just after South Africa made its case at the International Court of Justice. We wanted to bring you South Africa lawyer Adila Hassim, who helped to lay out South Africa’s case at The Hague.
ADILA HASSIM: For the past 96 days, Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare. Palestinians in Gaza are being killed by Israeli weaponry and bombs from air, land and sea. They are also at immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration and disease as a result of the ongoing siege by Israel, the destruction of Palestinian towns, the insufficient aid being allowed through to the Palestinian population, and the impossibility of distributing this limited aid while bombs fall. This conduct renders essentials to life unobtainable.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s South African lawyer Adila Hassim speaking yesterday before the International Court of Justice, laying out South Africa’s case against Israel, saying it’s engaged in genocide in Gaza. To see excerpts of yesterday, you can go to democracynow.org.
When we come back, we’re going to speak with an Israeli Jewish Knesset member who’s facing expulsion for saying what Israel is doing in Gaza is genocide. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League’s offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet’s “Roadmap for Peace,” which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including “Larry King Live,” “Hardball,” “Meet the Press,” “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” the “Charlie Rose” show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that “he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel.” Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me “anti-Semitic,” and others accuse the book of “lies” and “distortions.” A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book’s title “indecent.”
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I’ve signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I’ve had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
Sometimes she manages to do even worse than that. Tuesday, she showed up on KPFA's The Morning Show to chat with 'Bomb the children of Pakistan' Aimee Allison. And each attempted to out whore the other.
For example, the segment kicked off with Helen's comments being played followed by a sigh from Aimee and then a long, drawn out "Well" filled with sadness. Typical crap from Aimee that should have everyone in the Bay Area screaming for KPFA to drop her already.
Alicia was lapping it up with all the zeal of Melissa Etheridge on a drunken Friday night. She rushed to insist, "Three years ago, I was on a book panel with her [Helen] and at that point she was quite critical of the Bush administration about the [Iraq] War in a way that an advocate would be and not a journa -- a straight up journalist would be."
What?
Three years ago was 2007 and the country had long turned against the Iraq War. Only a cheap whore like Alicia Shepard, giving half-offs on cum facials, would bother to be offended by a journalist -- an opinion columnist in Helen's case -- expressing a sentiment in keeping with the majority of Americans.
Alicia continued her crazy, "And, yes, many people championed the fact that she was asking those questions but they were really not appropriate. And it's been known for maybe the last five or so years that there have been rules for White House reporters and then Helen Thomas rules. She has, in a way, gotten away with a lot that I can't imagine any other reporter would today."
The questions weren't appropriate?
So it's 'appropriate,' Alicia, for a president to bomb another country on false pretexts, it's just not appropriate to question him on it? Doesn't make for 'polite conversation,' is that it? Where the hell, airhead, do you get off thinking journalistic history demands that reporters be either 'appropriate' or 'respectable'? Alicia gave up her profession in order to practice another one, a much older one. And as we already noted, Whores Cheat.
"Well Helen has always enjoyed," Alicia began, "as I said, special treatment. She's always sat up in the front row. The president has always called on her no matter who it is."
Is she is an outright liar or just that stupid? Jack Shafer (Slate), no huge fan of Helen, noted March 12, 2003 how Bully Boy Bush "deliberately snubbed" Helen by refusing to call on her. "The president has always called on her," insisted Alicia, "no matter who it is." Want to try that again, Alicia? If it helps, you can stay on the clock while you do it.
She certainly stayed on the clock while lying repeatedly such as when she declared, "Her feelings about -- anti-Semitic feelings -- have been known. And many in the press corps -- or I would say -- those who watched the White House press corps have felt critical of her for I'm sorry, felt critical of their brethren for not challenging her more for letting Helen quote-unquote 'get away' with these anti-Semitic comments."
Aimee Allison's role was to challenge that. But Whores Cheat. So when Aimee finally got around to questioning whether or not Helen's comments were anti-Semitic, she pushed it off on callers who were calling in (though not heard on air) and disagreeing that the comments were anti-Semitic.
"There's no way of looking at it except if she was an advocate for [laughing] the Palestinians," Alicia snarked revealing her own hatred is targeting the Palestinians because there's nothing funnier to her than someone advocating on their behalf. "In the sense that there's just nothing that she said that could be looked at as respectable."
Is truth 'respectable,' Alicia? Because your remarks had little-to-no truth in them. After savaging Helen, mocking her and laughing at her, Alicia tossed it back to Aimee, "I mean, what was your take, Aimee? I was just shocked."
"Yeah. I guess," Aimee appalling agreed, refusing to stand up for Helen. "Just, at 89, why would she make the comments now? Has she been known to make those kind of comments in the past?"
There's a reason we're going slowly through this train wreck. And here comes your first pay off, Alicia responds, "I have not known that in terms of anti-semitism."
What?
Alicia says she's not known of past remarks "in terms of anti-semitism."
The same woman who, mere minutes prior, was saying, "Her feelings about -- anti-Semitic feelings -- have been known. And many in the press corps -- or I would say -- those who watched the White House press corps have felt critical of her for I'm sorry, felt critical of their brethren for not challenging her more for letting Helen quote-unquote 'get away' with these anti-Semitic comments."
Which is it, Alicia, were these alleged feelings known or not? You're a referee at NPR and you can't even offer a consistent answer?
She wasn't sure about anti-Semitic statements (at this point in the interview) but, "I've certainly watched and seen her say things that were anti-war and anti the administration and then challenge them again in a way that you wouldn't see a reporter for CBS doing."
Oh my goodness, Helen's anti-war! Strip her of her American citizenship! Truly, that must be a huge offense to Alicia since she likens it to anti-semitism. Can you get more stupid than Alicia Shepard?
The Israeli armed violence against Gaza since October has been in a qualitatively different form than any previous violence. The bombardment of Gaza was vicious, with Israeli aircraft hitting residential areas with no concern for civilian life. The number of dead increased day by day at a rate not seen before. Then, when Israeli ground forces entered Gaza, they effected an illegal mass eviction of the Palestinian civilians from their homes and pushed them further and further south toward the border with Egypt. The Israelis violated their own promises of “safe zones,” hitting areas more densely packed than before because of the internal displacement. It was this scale of violence that provoked an early use of the term “genocide” to describe what was happening in Gaza. By early January, more than 1 percent of the entire Palestinian population in Gaza had been killed, while over 95 percent had been displaced. The kind of violence used here was not seen in any contemporary war, neither in Iraq (where the U.S. disregarded most laws of war) nor in Ukraine (where the death toll of civilians is far smaller despite the war now lasting two years).
The momentum of mass protest pushed the government of South Africa to file a dispute in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel for the crime of genocide. Both countries are parties to the 1948 Convention Against Genocide, and the ICJ is the venue for dispute settlements. The 84-page filing by the South African government documents many of the atrocities perpetrated by Israel, and also, crucially, the words of Israeli high officials. Nine pages of this text (pp. 59 to 67) list the Israeli officials in their own words, many of them calling for a “Second Nakba” or a “Gaza Nakba,” a use of the term “Nakba” or Catastrophe that refers to the 1948 Nakba of the Palestinians from their homes that led to the creation of the State of Israel. These words are chilling, and they have been widely circulated since October. Racist language about “monsters,” “animals,” and the “jungle” shape the speeches and statements by these Israeli government officials. Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said on October 9, 2023, that his forces are “imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” This, along with the character of the Israeli military strikes, is sufficient as a benchmark for the accusation of genocide. At the hearing at the ICJ, Israel was unable to respond credibly to the South African complaint.
It is a combination of the images from Gaza and the words of these Israeli high officials—backed fully by the United States government and many of the governments of European states—that provoked the sustained anger and desolation that has driven these mass protests.
Palestine’s mission to the United Nations has criticised US Secretary of State Antony Blinken for not mentioning some 24,000 Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip in his post commemorating 100 days of Israel’s war.
“Shame on those who remain complicit and not call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Shame on them,” the mission said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
President Joe Biden on Sunday marked 100 days since Hamas launched its deadly attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, vowing to get more of the American hostages freed.
"For 100 days, they have existed in fear for their lives, not knowing what tomorrow will bring," Biden said of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.
"For 100 days, their families have lived in agony, praying for the safe return of their loved ones," Biden added, saying the families have been "at the forefront of my mind."
"No one should have to endure even one day of what they have gone through, much less 100," he said.
In more news on Gaza, the NGO Save the Children says more than 10,000 Palestinian children have been killed by Israel’s assault — that is 1% of the total child population in Gaza. At least 1,000 children have lost one or both of their legs.
This comes as doctors warn conditions inside Gaza’s remaining hospitals continue to deteriorate amid Israeli attacks and dwindling supplies.
Dr. Khaled Abu Awaimer: “Today the area around Al-Aqsa was hit. All ambulances were destroyed. We even started to run out of medical supplies. And sadly, we have cases we can’t do anything about. We have nothing to offer, so we feel completely helpless. This is very sad and bad, to be honest. We hope that any side will be able to at least ensure the ability for the medical staff to work.”
Meanwhile, a new report by Oxfam finds that the daily death toll in Gaza from Israel’s attack “massively exceeds the daily death toll of any other major conflict of recent years.” Oxfam said Israel is killing on average 250 Palestinians a day — that is about five times the daily death toll reported in Iraq, Ukraine and Sudan, and more than double the daily death toll in Syria.
The city of London in the video below.
At COMMON DREAMS, Jon Queally reports:
Major coordinated demonstrations took place across the world on
Saturday to mark the 100th day of Israel's bombardment and military
assault on the people of the Gaza Strip that have now claimed the lives
of nearly 24,000 Palestinians, a large majority of them innocent men,
women, and children who had nothing to do with the attacks orchestrated
by Hamas on October 7 of last year.
In London, as many as 500,000 people marched on Parliament Square to demand an immediate cease-fire Gaza, condemn their own U.K. government's support of Israel's disproportionate and "genocidal" onslaught, and warn against a wider regional war that experts warn is creeping closer by the day.
"This Global Day of Action, from Australia through to Asia, Europe and the Americas, is the first coordinated, international movement against the war being waged by Israel on the Palestinian people," said Gaza Global Day of Action organizers ahead of the demonstration. "It will send a powerful message not just to the Israelis but to the Western powers who are backing them that the public say 'not in our name.'"
In Dublin, organizers of a march that saw more than 100,000 march through city streets called it the largest rally for Palestinian rights in Irish history.
As the Irish Timesreports:
The crowd was filled with Palestinian flags, posters calling for an "End to the Gaza genocide" as well as makeshift washing lines, with baby clothes hanging from it, representing the many young lives lost in the conflict.
At the front of the march, four people held mock corpses in bloody body bags to represent the growing number of civilian casualties.
In the United States, tens of thousands marched in Washington, D.C. to denounce the Israeli onslaught—which has claimed over 23,000 lives, including more than 10,000 children—as well as their own government's complicity in the carnage. President Joe Biden was on the tip of many demonstrators' tongues and polls in the U.S. have shown very little support across the political spectrum for how he is handling the situation.
Jake and Ida Braford, a young couple from Richmond, Virginia, who brought their two small children to the protest, told the Associated Press the situation in Gaza has made them unsure of their support for Biden come this year's election.
"We're pretty disheartened," Ida told the news agency. "Seeing what is happening in Gaza, and the government's actions makes me wonder what is our vote worth?"
Following the march, demonstrators left a pile of bloodied baby dolls, including severe parts, in a pile outside the White House as a message to Biden. "The blood of the over 10,000 murdered children in Gaza is on his hands," said CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, thousands gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Jakarta to condemn the ongoing "genocide" in Gaza perpetrated by Israel with the backing of the U.S. government and other Western allies.
NPR has a photo essay on the DC protest. Meanwhile, Australia's ABC notes:
In the southern city of Rafah, an Israeli air strike on a house sheltering two displaced families killed 10 people, the Gaza health ministry said.
Holding up a photo of a dead girl with a piece of bread in her hand, Bassem Arafeh, a relative, said the families in Rafah had been eating dinner when the house was struck on Friday night.
"This child died while she was hungry, while she was eating a piece of bread with nothing on it. Where is the International Criminal Court to see how the children die?" Arafeh said.
"Where are the Muslims … and the world leaders?"
-
-
-
The Sunday funny11 hours ago
-
-
Tuna Lime Tostada12 hours ago
-
-
-
Idiot of the Week22 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Terminator Genisys1 day ago
-
Cray-Cray Boe-Boe1 day ago
-
-
Diana Ross1 day ago
-
Maria Martin, With Love and Light3 days ago
