Unimpeded Mass Murder, Safari Style
You just may have noticed that a new ingenious modality of mass murder has been in operation in Gaza.
Call it game-hunting, safari style.
Recall how when some royals used to be taken on a tiger shoot, a bait would be tied to a tree so a big cat could be drawn to it for the dignitary's convenient aim.
So now, dangerously famished Palestinian children, women, old folk on spindly legs are got the better of by being drawn to the bait where ostensibly benevolent patrons are ready to hand out food packets.
As soon as they rush to the bait, the guns blaze. As most are eliminated, some manage to grab a packet or two, proving to the world how the scheme remains such a success at both ends – some get to eat, salving the qualms of those upset at being accused of allowing genocide, others swell the ranks of the dead, facilitating the grand project of ethnic cleansing.
When did the world see so clever a two-timing enterprise?
The genocidaires of the past gave no food packets; they only killed. Trump and Netanyahu do both at once. What could be smarter? And how could anyone object, not that anyone is objecting.
You see, the killings in Gaza are game-hunting; in Ukraine it is people who get killed.
Which brings home another sad reality: Curse me if you will, but as a true follower of the Sanatan Dharma, I have been having trouble reconciling Dharma with ethical indifference to the mass murder of a whole innocent population.
Nothing is closer in exclusionary genius to Hindutva than Zionism
I am unable to swallow the trick that my noble nation's so-noble government played in the United Nations General Assembly.
Where 149 countries voted in favour of demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and the resumption of humanitarian aid operated by the United Nations, Naya Bharat abstained from voting.
Perhaps we were setting up an example of how to eat the cake and have it too: after all, nothing is closer in exclusionary genius to Hindutva than Zionism, and nobody more consequential for ensuring Viksit Bharat than Trump, Musk, the Pentagon, Silicon Valley etc.
So, at one canny stroke of turning our face away from genocide, we accomplished the feat of not annoying either of our pals, not knowing how badly this Trump fellow would behave subsequently.
But these are risks great governments have to take in the larger national interest. After all, as Vishwa Guru, the worst we can do is to take sides.
Then, did we not also abandon our so-close friends in the SCO by abstaining there as well when the organisation to which India belongs issued a statement condemning Israel for attacking Iran?
Nobody may thus accuse us of inconsistency in our extraordinary foreign policy towards the comity of nations.
Now that I am arguing the case, I say mea culpa for not being able to square these cunning decisions with my Sanatana Dharma.
So, give me time and I will follow the leader whose finesse in these matters I have thus far been too incapable of absorbing.
In the meanwhile, the Mecca/Medina Islamic world more than matches us in their brand of sagacious cynicism towards the game-hunt in Gaza.
Also Read: If Trump Turns Tyrant, Can Others Be Far Behind?
As to the fussy International Criminal Court, their warrant of arrest against the conqueror of Palestine and the elimination of innocents remains a residual pinprick from a queasy but defeated world that no longer exists.
Why these judges and prosecutors in the Hague should be receiving either the world's attention or their salaries from honest tax-payers is a conundrum that may also be up for resolution should Trump and Netanyahu go from strength to strength, should the grand nations of Europe continue to behave with customary sophistication, and should rising stars like Narendra Modi show the way to moral fusspots whose understanding of great events and great ideas remains atavistic.
So help us god, and so may the Palestinian lambs-to-the-slaughter know that they serve a noble and mighty purpose in their canonical sacrifice.
Badri Raina taught at Delhi University.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
37 minutes ago
- First Post
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Good luck with that': Trump's border czar hits back at Mamdani's anti-ICE plan for NYC
US President Donald Trump's immigration chief Tom Homan has issued a fiery challenge to Zohran Mamdani, the newly victorious NYC mayoral primary candidate, after Mamdani vowed to 'kick the fascist ICE out of New York City.' Responding on Fox Business' Kudlow a day after Mamdani's win, Homan scoffed, 'Good luck with that,' before adding: 'Federal law trumps him every day, every hour of every minute.' 'We're going to be in New York City, matter of fact, because it's a sanctuary city and President Trump made it clear a week and a half ago, we're going to double down and triple down on sanctuary cities.' he said. Homan, tapped by Trump to spearhead his border crackdown, said agents would focus on areas 'releasing public safety threats and national security threats back to the street.' Trump's border czar asserted that if immigration enforcement officials can't arrest people in jail, they would 'find them' in neighbourhoods or work sites, adding, 'so game on, we're coming.' New: 🚨 Border Czar Tom Homan on Zohran Mamdani for wanting to protect illegal aliens who are p*dos and r*pists. 'Good luck. Federal law trumps him every day, hour, and minute. We're going to be tripling down in NYC.' 👊🏻 — Jay 🇺🇸 Rapid Response Guy (@RapidResponseXY) June 25, 2025 The warning comes amid rising tensions over immigration enforcement in the Big Apple. Mamdani, a Democratic socialist and Queens assemblyman, declared victory in the June 24 Democratic primary with a pledge to 'Trump-proof' the city. His campaign criticised Trump's use of ICE to target immigrant families, and he pledged sweeping changes to protect undocumented New Yorkers. But Homan made clear the administration has other plans: 'Not only are we going to send more agents to the neighborhood, we are going to increase worksite enforcement tenfold.' In contrast, Homan praised current Mayor Eric Adams for cooperating with ICE on 'significant public safety threats' and helping trace the 300,000 missing children trafficked across the US. He described Adams as a law-and-order mayor whose 'hands are tied in many ways.' Mamdani has clashed with Homan before. In March, he confronted him at the New York state Capitol and posted video of the encounter during his campaign. The Astoria politician was protesting ICE's arrest of anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil, detained for allegedly lying on his visa application. Today I confronted 'border czar' Tom Homan who came to Albany to do Trump's bidding — push for mass deportations, carry out the assault on working class New Yorkers, and justify the unjustifiable detention of legal permanent resident and father-to-be, Mahmoud Khalil. — Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) March 12, 2025 Now, Homan says, the fight over immigration enforcement in New York City is far from over: 'We don't have this problem in Florida… so we're going to double up and triple up on New York.' Meanwhile, Trump posted to Truth Social on Wednesday: 'It's finally happened, the Democrats have crossed the line. Zohran Mamdani, a 100% Communist Lunatic, has just won the Dem Primary, and is on his way to becoming Mayor. We've had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous.' Trump continued: 'He looks TERRIBLE, his voice is grating, he's not very smart, he's got AOC+3, Dummies ALL, backing him, and even our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin' Chuck Schumer, is groveling over him. Yes, this is a big moment in the History of our Country!'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard The Trump administration has escalated a high-profile legal battle with Harvard University by filing an appeal against a federal court order that blocked a presidential proclamation aimed at barring international students from attending the institution. The case has drawn global attention to the US education system, raising concerns about academic freedom, the treatment of foreign students, and the broader implications of immigration policy on higher education. The legal dispute centers on a White House proclamation issued on June 4, which accused Harvard of accepting donations from foreign adversaries, specifically referencing Chinese entities. The administration argued that these "entanglements with foreign countries" posed a national security risk, invoking a 70-year-old law designed to restrict the entry of foreign enemies to the US. This action triggered a lawsuit from Harvard, challenging the legitimacy and motivations behind the proclamation. Court order blocks policy, criticizes administration's rationale US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a strongly worded order blocking the enforcement of the Trump administration's proclamation, pending the resolution of the lawsuit. In her decision, she accused the administration of "misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this administration's own views," as quoted by The New York Times. Judge Burroughs also criticized the administration's use of international students as leverage, stating it had acted "with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens." She dismissed the national security argument as 'absurd,' according to The New York Times. Harvard's international community at the center of the conflict Harvard enrolls approximately 7,000 international students and scholars each year, including around 2,000 recent graduates, accounting for nearly 25 percent of its student body. The Trump administration's policy threatened their ability to attend classes in person, raising fears of deportation or forced withdrawal. While the case proceeds through the courts, Harvard has begun developing contingency plans. Some students may be able to study remotely or from international partner institutions. The New York Times reported that the Kennedy School of Government is working with the University of Toronto to accommodate affected students. A growing debate over foreign influence and academic freedom The Trump administration's appeal has intensified an ongoing debate over foreign influence in US academic institutions. Citing previous legal precedent, including the 2017 Supreme Court ruling that upheld travel bans for several majority-Muslim countries, the administration is attempting to frame the Harvard case within the same national security context. As the legal process unfolds, the case is being watched closely both in the US and abroad. Critics argue that targeting international students may harm the reputation and global standing of American higher education institutions. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
