They Went to Get Flour With Their Mother in Gaza. 'She Came Back in a White Shroud.'
'Israel killed my mother,' Ahmed told The Intercept. 'We were waiting at the U.S. aid distribution point in Rafah.'
Ahmed's mother was one of the more than 400 Palestinian people who have been gunned down by Israeli forces in a particularly brutal new phase of the country's U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza. After the Israeli military, powered by U.S. bombs, destroyed Gaza's food supplies and choked daily life to a halt, the government cut off the flow of crucial aid to the people it was starving. The move has forced hungry Palestinians to a limited set of Israeli and U.S.-run aid distribution points. These places have become the sites of dozens of daily murders.
'For six days before my mother was killed on June 3, she, my sister Mirvat, and I would walk to the U.S. aid distribution point in Rafah every evening, leaving our tent at 7:00 p.m. and waiting until dawn for food,' Ahmed told The Intercept. 'The Israeli army surrounded us with drones, F-16s, tanks, and snipers.'
'I will never forget the moment I saw my mother shot by Israeli bullets, right in front of me.'
The family made the 2-kilometer journey nightly on empty stomachs. They were 'terrified,' Ahmed said, 'by the constant shelling and gunfire. We saw martyrs fall while waiting for food. Hundreds were wounded. We were all civilians — there were no fighters with us.'
Ahmed's older sister Mirvat, 20, told The Intercept that the daily march was just one of many grueling journeys the family was forced to make. 'The Israeli army bombed our home in Khan Yunis,' she said, 'wiping away every memory we had in that warm, familiar place.'
Israeli forces killed her 23-year-old brother, Nabil, in January of last year, Mirvat said, 'during our first grueling displacement journey to Rafah.'
'Nabil was the backbone of our family — our only provider,' she added. 'He was studying law and working at a company. He didn't earn much, but at least he could bring us food. He had dreams of becoming a successful lawyer one day, but Israel killed him — along with his dreams.'
Nabil's death devastated the family, Mirvat said. 'But when Israel killed my mom, it shattered our family. I will never forget the moment I saw my mother shot by Israeli bullets, right in front of me.'
Read our complete coverage
On that day, Ahmed waited with his sister and his mother for nearly 11 hours at the aid distribution site, suffering through a barrage of tear gas, sound bombs, and gunfire from Israeli forces. They were willing to stick it out for the chance to get some food. It never came.
'Suddenly, gunfire erupted,' Ahmed said. 'My mother told us to lower our heads, thinking she could shield us. She said, 'I'll at least bring back a kilo of flour.''
The next thing he remembered was the sound of his sister screaming.
'I turned around and saw my mother lying on the ground — shot in the head by Israeli forces,' Ahmed said. 'My sister and I threw ourselves over her body. If we had stood up, we would have been killed too. They were firing directly at us. We lay there for over an hour.'
As the brother and sister fled, they were separated, by Mirvat's estimate, for 30 terrifying minutes.
'I heard more gunfire, and someone said a child had been killed,' she said. 'I panicked, thinking it was Ahmed. I ran around, crying, searching for him.'
Once reunited, they were unable to find their mother's body and realized they would have to leave her behind. 'Even the Red Cross couldn't reach her,' Ahmed recalled. Eventually, they recognized their mother in an unidentified body brought to Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis.
Like many Palestinian young women, Mirvat and her 22-year-old sister, Nesma, had to take on maternal responsibilities for the family when their mother died. They have five younger siblings, including Ahmed, ranging in ages from 5 to 15 years old.
'My little brother and sister still deny she's gone,' Ahmed said. 'They keep saying she went to get us flour and will come back soon.'
Ahmed said that the only physical evidence of his mother he has left are the shoes she wore on the day of her death and the scarf she used to keep warm. But he remembers her kind touch and the way she used to tuck him and his siblings into bed at night.
'My little brother and sister keep saying she went to get us flour and will come back soon.'
Adding to the pain of losing their mother, Ahmed said, is the fact that the family remains hungry.
'We haven't eaten bread in two months,' he told The Intercept. 'My mother said she'd bring us flour, but she came back in a white shroud.'
Ahmed knows that his family's experience is not unique.
'All of Gaza is starving,' he said.
On June 17, Ahmed and Mirvat's father went out to get flour from a U.S. aid distribution point east of Khan Yunis. He walked 6 kilometers, Mirvat recalled, expecting aid trucks to arrive from the Kerem Shalom crossing in the southern Gaza Strip.
'He waited there for five hours,' she said, 'but no aid trucks ever arrived.'
As he waited, Israeli forces opened fire on the crowd of starving civilians.
'Shrapnel hit his hand,' Mirvat said, wounding him. But she was ultimately grateful for the outcome. 'Thank God it wasn't his head. Had it been, he would've been killed too.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
30 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
International students are critical to US colleges. See which schools could be hit hardest by a ban
As the Trump administration announces sweeping changes to make it more difficult for colleges and universities to welcome international students, some schools are more vulnerable than others to the drops in enrollment that could result. About 1 million international students with visas were enrolled in U.S. institutions as of fall 2023, according to The Hechinger Report's analysis of U.S. Department of Education data. These students typically pay the full cost of attendance, helping to boost colleges' budgets and subsidize tuition for American students. Many schools enroll thousands of foreign students, and some smaller colleges rely on them to fill their seats. Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. This spring, the Trump administration revoked the visas of over 1,600 international students and canceled the legal status of more than 4,700 international students - some because of their involvement in pro-Palestinian campus protests. Following court orders temporarily restoring the legal status of students who had filed suit claiming the move was illegal, federal officials said they would restore the legal status of hundreds of those students, but the administration has said it's working on a new policy for stripping students' legal status that would affect universities nationwide. Meanwhile, the State Department has announced a new comprehensive vetting process of international students' social media profiles and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration will "aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students." A federal judge has blocked, for now, the Trump administration's complete ban on international students at Harvard University. Read more of our coverage of international students or search the table below to see what share of such students each college enrolls. Some key findings from the Hechinger Report's analysis of U.S. Department of Education data on international students: States with the highest per capita enrollment of international students are Massachusetts, New York, Indiana, Delaware, Connecticut, Missouri and Illinois. International students with visas made up 10 percent of students enrolled at private not-for-profit four-year universities - compared with 6 percent at public universities and 2 percent at for-profit institutions. Even so, public institutions - including community colleges - still enroll higher total numbers of international students, with roughly 600,000 nonresident students. That's compared with more than 400,000 at private not-for-profit colleges and universities. Colleges and universities with the highest percentage of international students include small business schools, art schools, religious institutions and science and technology universities. Note: This analysis relies on data about student enrollment collected annually from 6,000 colleges, universities and technical and vocational institutions by the Department of Education through the National Center for Education Statistics' Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. IPEDS' enrollment data defines a nonresident student as "a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States and who is in this country on a visa or temporary basis and does not have the right to remain indefinitely." Contact investigative reporter Marina Villeneuve at 212-678-3430 or villeneuve@ or on Signal at mvilleneuve.78 This story about international students was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter. The post International students are critical to US colleges. See which schools could be hit hardest by a ban appeared first on The Hechinger Report.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canada needs to get serious about digital sovereignty and scrapping the DST won't help
In May, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), woke up to an unusual technological problem. Microsoft, which provides enterprise services to the court, had apparently shut down email access for him and his colleagues, as a result of American sanctions meant to punish the tribunal for its investigation into Israeli conduct in Gaza. The news followed reports from earlier this year that Elon Musk had threatened to cut Internet access to Ukraine, which is dependent on his Starlink services, if the country refused to guarantee U.S. control over critical minerals. Although both Musk and Microsoft subsequently denied the reporting, governments around the world are waking up to the fact that their reliance on American technology products can quickly become a liability. Canada cannot afford to be complacent to the threat that the United States has the power to turn off our digital lights. Moves to bolster our digital sovereignty, however, carry their own challenges. The latest evidence of this came on Friday, when U.S. President Donald Trump, through his personal social media company, demanded that Canada rescind the digital services tax (DST), which targets large online platforms, as a precondition to trade negotiations. On Sunday, the Department of Finance announced it would do just that. Trade negotiations are always delicate, and doubly so when dealing with a head of state as mercurial as Trump. But if Mark Carney is serious about ensuring Canadian sovereignty, digital services are the wrong place to start giving ground. Canada's critical digital infrastructure is overwhelmingly dominated by American companies. They control not only the news that Canadians read, but for a number of remote communities, they are virtually the only communications lifeline to the outside world. Even more concerning is the role these tech giants play in the nuts and bolts of how our Internet works. The cloud computing market, which underlies virtually all digital services, is dominated by three American companies, Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Alphabet Inc. (which owns Google). The data-hungry nature of the digital economy means that incumbents are able to use their position to map existing control models onto emerging technologies, like artificial intelligence, further entrenching their market dominance into the next generation. Canada's willingness to accept American control of our digital infrastructure is puzzling considering the pains we take to guarantee the independence of other aspects of our information ecosystem. Canadian content and language laws are stringently enforced, and have even expanded in recent years. The CRTC imposes strict rules protecting our telecommunications market from foreign competition, even if it means higher prices for consumers. And the government has been extremely aggressive in its desire to prevent Chinese companies, such as Huawei, TikTok and most recently Hikvision, from establishing footholds in the country. While it may have made sense to consider American technology as a relatively safe alternative given the strength and longevity of our bilateral relationship, it is time for Canadians to accept that those days are in the past. In Europe, the revelation that American tech products could be used as a point of leverage sent governments scrambling to review their exposure, and to expand their investments into potential domestic alternatives that could better guarantee national security. Canada needs to chart a similar course, and prioritize diversifying away from our reliance on American tech. Some of this work may be done in collaboration with existing efforts among European partners, but there is no reason why Canada should not be leading in the development of innovative alternatives to the present American-dominated ecosystem. In particular, the past year has shown a growing eagerness among consumers to embrace alternatives to the Big Tech status quo, as evidenced by the rapid growth of users of alternative social media platforms such as Mastodon, Bluesky and Pixelfed. Canada should invest in creative solutions to break out of the existing platform-dominated paradigm and empower domestic champions such as the newly launched Gander Social. In particular, decentralized offerings present an intriguing alternative to empower users, and could deliver a new paradigm of digital communications. The government could lead the way by beginning to migrate its own digital presence away from American-dominated tech. However, the ability for new national champions to thrive in the tech space depends on a market that provides fair opportunities to new entrants. This means a need for strong enforcement of competition rules. Canada could also follow Europe's lead through rules around adversarial interoperability, which requires companies to make sure their products interface smoothly with their competitors, and minimizes the cost to consumers of switching. Canada could also consider stronger privacy enforcement, and rules that demand greater transparency and accountability from large online platforms about the decisions they make. If Canada wants to be the world's energy partner, we need to act like it Canada needs more teamwork and fewer turf wars to get major projects built None of this will be easy, and much of it is likely to draw the ire of a U.S. administration that has developed an astonishingly cozy relationship with the same Silicon Valley titans who just a few years ago decried Donald Trump as too dangerous to even give an account to. The DST, which ensures that large tech companies pay their fair share of taxes, should be an important part of Canada's strategy for digital self-reliance, by drawing revenue from the biggest players to seed new alternative information institutions. While it is difficult to backseat drive officials faced with the difficult and delicate task of negotiating with the Trump administration, the speed with which Canada rolled over in cancelling the DST, while apparently getting nothing concrete in return, is a troubling sign. Canada needs a stable and equitable trade relationship with the U.S., but not at the cost of our sovereignty. Michael Karanicolas is an associate professor and the Palmer Chair in Public Policy & Law at Dalhousie University. He previously held positions at UCLA and at Yale Information Society Project, where he remains an affiliated fellow. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump goes ‘woke' in report on antisemitism at Harvard
What the administration mainly offers in its finding, though, is a litany of sit-ins, walk-outs, and group letters organized by pro-Palestinian student groups — with remarkably little evidence of any intention to harass or discriminate against Jewish peers. Take, for example, the government's finding that 'Jewish and Israeli students at Harvard were repeatedly denied access to … libraries.' That sounds like an accusation of intentional discrimination. In fact, though, the only evidence for several of these 'denials of access' consists of Advertisement The answer is that the administration could classify that behavior as discriminatory only by embracing an especially radical version of an effects-based theory of discrimination. Specifically, the implicit argument proceeds in two steps. First, Jews or Israelis are much more likely than others to be offended by this kind of anti-Israel rhetoric — and so to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable in spaces where it is present. Second, when certain behavior (here, certain expression) has that kind of disproportionate impact on one group, engaging in that behavior amounts to discrimination against the disparately affected group — even absent any intent to single out its members. The legal term for this kind of discrimination theory is 'disparate-impact liability,' although that legal theory is usually seen only in domains such as employment and housing — not as a basis for speech regulation, let alone for mandating how peers should interact on college campuses. Advertisement And hence the rich irony: Not only is disparate impact widely recognized as a progressive idea, it is intensely embattled — thanks in no small part to President Trump. Just months ago, Trump issued a landmark executive Advertisement But somehow the anti-Harvard legal team, alone among federal officials tasked with enforcing civil rights, didn't get the memo. When it comes to people of color who are excluded from voting by ostensibly neutral requirements, the administration's position is that there can be no discrimination without proof of intent. Likewise for women excluded from public-safety jobs by physical capacity tests, or Black citizens who bear the brunt of police violence or decrepit public infrastructure. But if a college student's political activity disproportionately affects Jewish or Israeli peers — even just by causing offense or making them feel alienated — the administration deems that inherently discriminatory, no intent required. Could the administration claim instead that hostility toward Israel or Zionism is inherently antisemitic because many Jews see Zionism as part of their Jewish identity? Not really. Because Title VI does not cover religion, Jewishness is protected by the law only insofar as it constitutes a 'race' — a fact about one's ancestry. Under existing law, however, culturally salient practices or beliefs can play no role in the definition of racial categories. That is why judges have ruled that bans on dreadlocks and cornrows are not racially discriminatory, even if Black employees view these hairstyles as expressive of their racial identity. Advertisement The irony, once again, is that the contrary view — the culture-oriented conception of race that Trump's legal theory in the Harvard case would require the courts to embrace — is a well-known tenet of critical race theory, the 'woke' school that Trump and his allies have ridiculed for years. Maybe it is a mistake to scrutinize the legal analysis in what is evidently a political document. Yet if anyone still doubts the sham quality of this 'civil rights' action, there is no better proof than the lawyers' shameless reliance on ideas about discrimination that, when enlisted in the service of traditional civil rights concerns, the administration purports to find fundamentally un-American.
