Israeli rabbi identified as not being an extremist ie. mainstream representative of the ordinary person advocates the murder of children.

https:// youtu.be/jwLCF9YrizQ

And no one asks why would these children grow up wanting to kill Jews?

Americans don't seem to understand that the belief of the rabbi has become the belief of many world citizens who would see the same done to them because of what the USA has done to many people around the world in pursuit of its hegemony & piratical greed.

I was sent the following article today regarding the deliberate starvation not only of Palestinians in Gaza but probably in many now independent formerly colonial states:

"There will be no postwar for Gaza. The children of Gaza will forever be marked by the duration of time they spent in “hunger-time,” when their growth was arrested by starvation, their minds marred by trauma. Their lifespans will most likely be foreshortened. When Hamas took over the strip in 2007, Israel imposed a siege that weaponized food. They did it not against but through international humanitarian language. The Israeli NGO Gisha exposed the scientific exactness of this strategy, according to which healthcare professionals calculated a “humanitarian minimum” that would keep Gaza’s population above the caloric threshold of starvation while also keeping it alarmingly close to it. Calories were converted into other numbers—like the number of aid trucks and kilos of food that would keep Gaza afloat. For years, Israel dictated every aspect of culinary life in Gaza, from the ability of its people to sweeten their food to their obtaining particular condiments for the holidays. Sari Bashi of Human Rights Watch described the awkwardly intimate connection between Israeli officials and the public in Gaza that was forged by the siege: “Should hummus with or without mushroom toppings be banned from Gaza?” “Should butter be available for purchase, or just margarine?”

Caloric management of Gaza is a strategy that allows Israel and the international community to have their cake (by weaponizing food) and eat it too (by making the weaponization legal): pressure millions of civilians by limiting their food on the one hand, and respect international nutrition standards on the other. This is not to advocate against humanitarian aid in Gaza now. Aid is a moral imperative and starvation a crime against humanity. Rather, my point is that we also need to consider the ways in which humanitarian aid and international law got us here in the first place. How were Israel and Western powers able to keep people in Gaza so close to food insecurity for so long?

Food politics is, I believe, just one of the ways in which the current war in Israel-Palestine overlaps with another hundred-year-long process in which international powers and organizations have managed the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. From the creation of the League of Nations’ Mandate System right after World War I through every step of the ongoing displacement of Palestinian people, international organizations and Western empires have had their fingers in this region.

The history of humanitarian aid has always gone hand in hand with measurability. When a government defines a “humanitarian minimum” for human needs, it's supposed to resemble not just accuracy but also justice by way of accuracy: the bare minimum of what your body needs and what you deserve.

Nutritionists in this period played a unique role in this scientific-political ecosystem. Working across several technically oriented committees of the League and within the Health Organization, they turned nutrition into a tool of global order.

Most of the nutritionists who led international committees in the field were British, trained in and for the empire. Their aim was imperial productivity—and a long-distance marriage between the stomachs (and health) of their own people in Britain and agricultural lands far away.

Scientists working in this arena were thrilled to bring nutrition to the League of Nations and have a part in securing world peace. But health and agriculture were not all that easy to yoke together for several reasons. First, agribusinesses have their own interests. The kind of industrialized, profitable, animal-based mass food production promoted by international nutritionists in the 1930s—milk, meat and bacon—proved less than ideal for human health or indeed for the health of the planet. Second, the League was more successful in establishing health standards than agricultural standards. Something like a vitamin pill, which looked like medicine, worked smoothly in organizations that already regulated things like insulin shots or vaccines. But agriculture was less amenable to “standards.” Involving state control over nature, territory, and people, agriculture was inherently messy and location-specific. International organizations may have wanted to develop “the rural” in general but had conflicting ideas about what this meant (e.g., development, or education, or new technologies, or the introduction of new species, etc. ). But more than anything else, the marriage didn’t quite work out because, in the 20th century, not all peoples viewed as deserving food also deserved land.

Once food was detached from place or culture and abstracted into calories, protein, and vitamins, it could be divorced from land. Food aid was the backbone of international aid, and refugees and displaced persons fell under the purview of humanitarian rights. They had the right to food (“health” ), but territory and agriculture were about political rights. And so, if refugees now had the right to food, it did not include a right to land or collective political rights—hence they had a right to calories but not acres"