Latest news with #slaughter
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
Why has Gazans' hunger attained the status of ‘moral crisis' when Israel's genocidal slaughter did not?
For the better part of two years now, we have watched in horror and helplessness as Israel has carried out its campaign of genocidal slaughter against the Palestinians of Gaza . We have seen tens of thousands of children murdered – blown to pieces, shot by Israeli snipers, crushed beneath the concrete of their ruined homes. We have seen cruelty and depravity almost beyond comprehension, and have heard countless statements of intent, from those who wield power in Israel, to continue this slaughter until there is no building left to be levelled, no life left to be crushed. And in this time, those of us who have spoken out about this horror, who have called it by its proper name, have asked a single question: when will it be enough? When will those powerful people and institutions who have turned a blind eye to this savagery, or who have deemed it sadly necessary for the defence of a western ally against its enemies, say that even they can stomach no more? That time, it seems, may finally have come. In recent days, as Israel's deliberate starvation of the population of Gaza has been laid bare for all to see, a number of prominent and powerful people who have previously supported the Israel Defense Forces's right to do whatever it pleases in Gaza have had a public change of heart. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, claims to have seen enough. 'The images from Gaza are unbearable,' she announced in a social media post in late July, as the sickening reality of starvation became too forceful for even her to ignore. 'Civilians in Gaza have suffered too much, for too long. It must stop now.' READ MORE These sentiments, coming from a politician who has long been among the most steadfast and powerful facilitators of Israel's slaughter of Palestinians, ring somewhat hollow. 'In the face of genocide and engineered starvation,' as Hussein Baoumi, deputy Middle East and North African director of Amnesty International put it, her statement was 'too little, too late'. [ As an Irish Jew my Star of David is no longer a badge of pride but a mark of shame Opens in new window ] The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, has come to realise he cannot be seen to unquestioningly support Israel when it is deliberately starving the population of Gaza. He announced, in recent days, that his government will formally recognise a Palestinian state before the next meeting of the UN general assembly next month unless Israel commits to a ceasefire, and to a two-state solution. The Palestinian people, of course, have a right to self-determination, and Palestinian statehood is already recognised by 147 of the UN's member states including, as of last year, Ireland. So Starmer's use of this recognition as a bargaining chip is profoundly questionable. The Canadian government has announced similar plans, as has France – though neither has included anything like the UK's abject condition of qualification. Starmer has, of course, been one of the most persistent supporters of Israel, throughout its long and bloody campaign of mass murder and ethnic cleansing. In November 2023, in response to the cutting off of water and electricity supplies to Gaza, he defended what he called Israel's 'right' to do so. He has since then gone out of his way to delegitimise and suppress protest against the genocide; in a highly controversial piece of recent legislation , his government designated the group Palestine Action a terrorist organisation, though its actions have been entirely non-violent. [ MSF calls for immediate closure of 'lethal' Israeli Gaza aid sites Opens in new window ] Even the editorial board of The New York Times, a newspaper whose tendency to view everything from the Israeli point of view has been so overwhelming as to make it frequently useless as a source of information on the conflict, has seemed, in recent days, to question Israel's actions in Gaza. Last week, in an op-ed tilted 'Gaza's Hunger Is a Moral Crisis', the editorial board acknowledged people were now starving to death, and called for the Israeli government to allow food deliveries, and to work towards a ceasefire. So what has changed? What is it about the spectacle of widespread starvation that has provoked the kind of moral response which endless months of genocidal slaughter did not? Why has hunger attained the status of 'moral crisis', when the deliberate bombing of civilian targets, the relentless killing of defenceless Palestinian men, women, and children, in their tens of thousands, never quite did? One way of answering the question might be to look at the language of that New York Times editorial. Reread, first of all, that headline: 'Gaza's Hunger Is a Moral Crisis'. Not Israel's use of starvation as a deliberate strategy of war, but Gaza's hunger. You cannot prosecute a moral crisis in The Hague. Hunger is not a war crime. Contrast this language with that of the International Criminal Court, which, in issuing its arrest warrants against Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, made special mention of Israel's 'use of starvation as a weapon of war'. It is much easier to speak out about a famine than it is about a campaign of mass slaughter, about the relentless bombing of homes and schools and universities and hospitals and refugee camps, because it is easier to view famine as a kind of free-floating, atmospheric misfortune, as a regrettable byproduct of war, as opposed to what, in this case, it actually is: an act of war in itself, and one explicitly outlawed by the Geneva conventions and by the UN. The New York Times invoking a 'moral crisis'; Ursula von der Leyen announcing that Gaza's civilians have suffered enough; Keir Starmer's sudden realisation of what he calls 'the pressing need for Israel to change course': none of this is any more than a shift in rhetorical positioning, the striking of a pose of moral condemnation. And all of it is predicated on an increasingly preposterous political fiction: that Israel has temporarily, if disastrously, strayed from its path of justice and morality, and that it can be somehow prevailed upon to return once more to that path. [ Occupied Territories Bill: US Congress group asks that Ireland be added to list of countries boycotting Israel Opens in new window ] No one understands the hollowness of this rhetoric better than Israel's government, who are perfectly content to let such rhetoric do its harmless work, seeming to launder the consciences of those who have, for close to two years, facilitated this campaign of genocide. And although the language may, for now, have changed its course, the weapons are still travelling in the same direction: from Europe and America to Israel, and onward, from there, to Gaza.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on Israel's offensive: this war must end now
Fading hopes of an end to the slaughter and misery in Gaza have been dealt a further blow by the Israeli government's announcement that it plans a major offensive in order to establish full military control of the central part of the territory. In the early hours of Friday morning, the country's security cabinet decided to order a new assault on Gaza City, the last major urban area in the strip. The first stage of the operation will see the forced expulsion southward of the city's 800,000 inhabitants, many of whom had already been displaced. This will be completed by the symbolically important date of October 7th, the second anniversary of the murderous Hamas attack that began the current conflict. Israeli defence experts estimate the subsequent 'mopping up' of remaining Hamas units could take a year or more. Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government took their decision despite the opposition of military leaders and opinion polls showing a clear majority of Israelis want to see a ceasefire and the release of the hostages held by Hamas. As has been the case since the early stages of the war, Netanyahu's own political survival is entwined with the continuation of hostilities. Many Israelis fear this new offensive will lead to the deaths of the 20 remaining hostages held by Hamas, most of whom are believed to be in and around Gaza City. The prospect of an 'endless war' and occupation of the territory will be unappealing even to many who are unconcerned by Palestinian suffering. Despite the deep divisions in his country, however, Netanyahu appears determined to press on, possibly under pressure from far-right members of his government who wish to see the Palestinian population forced out and replaced by Israeli settlements. READ MORE Whatever the intention, the result, inevitably, will be further harrowing scenes of death and immiseration across Gaza. The decision has already sparked international condemnation, including from some of Israel's closest allies. The German government has suspended shipment of any arms that might be used in Gaza – an unprecedented move. Meanwhile, mediators from Egypt and Qatar continue to work on a framework that would see a release of hostages and an end to the war, although there is little expectation of that bearing fruit any time soon. If carried out, this new offensive will only deepen Gaza's humanitarian catastrophe. The deliberate infliction of such suffering on a civilian population through forced displacement, siege tactics and mass hunger adds considerable weight to accusations of war crimes. The international community cannot ignore its own responsibility. A stronger, more coordinated response is required to prevent further atrocities and bring an end to a war that has already gone on far too long.
CBC
14-07-2025
- Politics
- CBC
A change to Alberta's on-farm slaughter program has producers wondering what comes next
The Alberta government made changes to the on-farm slaughter program earlier this month. But then reversed those changes after complaints Mark Connolly spoke to an Alberta producer.
CTV News
10-07-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Farmers pleased but anxious after Alberta pauses new on-farm slaughter sale limits
Alberta animal farmers are pleased but anxious for updates after the provincial government paused new limits on annual on-farm slaughter sales. Under Alberta's on-farm slaughter program, licensed producers can sell cows, pigs, chickens and other animals directly to consumers and avoid going through commercial meat inspection rules. The program gives farms, especially smaller operations, access to markets they wouldn't otherwise have, while giving consumers a way to buy meat in bulk and directly support local producers. Alberta launched the program in 2020 and last week introduced new rules limiting annual sales per farm to roughly 2,250 kilograms — or 5,000 pounds — of live animals. The government's website says that limit could mean roughly four cows, 76 goats or 150 chickens per farm. For Norwin Willis's family farm near Sexsmith in northern Alberta that would mean a roughly 70 per cent cut to his target slaughter sales this year. 'We were quite shocked, let's put it that way,' said Willis, who mainly sells chickens but also some pigs and cows. 'It would take out a huge chunk of what we are currently doing.' Brooke Vanderkley, a farmer near Sylvan Lake, south of Edmonton, is in the same boat. She sells about 600 chickens per year as well as a handful of cows with plans to grow beef operations. 'There's a lot of providers, us included, who have built how we run our business and how we run our farm in accordance with the program as it was currently standing,' Vanderkley said. The limits would have applied to all new on-farm slaughter operations licensed after July 2, while existing operations would operate limit free until they need to renew their licence, which is valid for five years. On Tuesday, Alberta's Agriculture Ministry published a notice saying it had heard concerns from producers about the 'unintended consequences' of the changes and the new rules would be put on ice for more consultation. Both Vanderkley and Willis said they appreciated the province taking their concerns seriously, but they were unsure about celebrating. 'The word pause makes me a little bit hesitant for what's to come,' said Vanderkley. 'It's not a full retraction.' Agriculture Minister R.J. Sigurdson said in a statement Wednesday the intention behind the limit was to protect public health, as it would reduce the amount of uninspected meat circulating in Alberta. 'This change would help to minimize the risk of food-borne illness and outbreaks and maintain Alberta's reputation as a safe source of high-quality meat,' Sigurdson said. In 2023, nearly 450 people were infected after a substantial E. coli outbreak in Calgary, which was traced back to a commercial kitchen company supplying meat to daycares. Thirty-nine children and an adult were hospitalized. Officials said the company only used meat purchased from an inspected source and not directly from an on-farm slaughter operation. RCMP have said the illegal slaughter and sale of uninspected meat has increased in recent years, and in a few cases charges have been laid. Sue King, a farmer in Crooked Creek, northwest of Edmonton, said she thought the government's proposed limit would just punish farmers following the rules. 'A huge portion of us are following the rules, and with anything there's going to be people that don't,' said King, who runs an on-farm slaughter operation while also providing a butcher service to other producers. 'If there are issues specifically to (do with) food safety, if that's what their concern is, they need to address those specific operations.' Vanderkley agreed. She said the government already has rules in place to protect public health, such as prohibiting producers like her from selling meat commercially or from selling more than a certain number of animals to the same person each year. She suggested the province beef up its inspections of on-farm slaughter operations as a licence condition or make licence holders take a food safety course. Sigurdson didn't have a firm deadline for when the new round of consultations would be finished but said it would take the time that's needed. 'We are committed to getting this right to ensure the program supports public safety, as well as the sustainability of Alberta's livestock industry,' Sigurdson said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 10, 2025. Jack Farrell, The Canadian Press
CBC
10-07-2025
- Business
- CBC
Alberta farmers pleased, anxious after province pauses new on-farm slaughter sale limits
Alberta animal farmers are pleased but anxious for updates after the provincial government paused new limits on annual on-farm slaughter sales. Under Alberta's on-farm slaughter program, licensed producers can sell cows, pigs, chickens and other animals directly to consumers and avoid going through commercial meat inspection rules. The program gives farms, especially smaller operations, access to markets they wouldn't otherwise have, while giving consumers a way to buy meat in bulk and directly support local producers. Alberta launched the program in 2020 and last week introduced new rules limiting annual sales per farm to roughly 2,250 kilograms — or 5,000 pounds — of live animals. The government's website says that limit could mean roughly four cows, 76 goats or 150 chickens per farm. For Norwin Willis's family farm near Sexsmith, in northern Alberta, that would mean a roughly 70 per cent cut to his target slaughter sales this year. "We were quite shocked, let's put it that way," said Willis, who mainly sells chickens but also some pigs and cows. "It would take out a huge chunk of what we are currently doing." Brooke Vanderkley, a farmer near Sylvan Lake, south of Edmonton, is in the same boat. She sells about 600 chickens per year as well as a handful of cows with plans to grow beef operations. "There's a lot of providers, us included, who have built how we run our business and how we run our farm in accordance with the program as it was currently standing," Vanderkley said. The limits would have applied to all new on-farm slaughter operations licensed after July 2, while existing operations would operate limit free until they need to renew their licence, which is valid for five years. 'Unintended consequences' On Tuesday, Alberta's Agriculture Ministry published a notice saying it had heard concerns from producers about the "unintended consequences" of the changes and the new rules would be put on ice for more consultation. Both Vanderkley and Willis said they appreciated the province taking their concerns seriously, but they were unsure about celebrating. "The word pause makes me a little bit hesitant for what's to come," said Vanderkley. "It's not a full retraction." Agriculture Minister R.J. Sigurdson said in a statement Wednesday that the intention behind the limit was to protect public health, as it would reduce the amount of uninspected meat circulating in Alberta. "This change would help to minimize the risk of food-borne illness and outbreaks and maintain Alberta's reputation as a safe source of high-quality meat," Sigurdson said. In 2023, nearly 450 people were infected after a substantial E. coli outbreak in Calgary, which was traced back to a commercial kitchen company supplying meat to daycares. Thirty-nine children and an adult were hospitalized. Officials said the company only used meat purchased from an inspected source and not directly from an on-farm slaughter operation. RCMP have said the illegal slaughter and sale of uninspected meat has increased in recent years, and in a few cases charges have been laid. Sue King, a farmer in Crooked Creek, northwest of Edmonton, said she thought the government's proposed limit would just punish farmers following the rules. "A huge portion of us are following the rules, and with anything there's going to be people that don't," said King, who runs an on-farm slaughter operation while also providing a butcher service to other producers. "If there are issues specifically to [do with] food safety, if that's what their concern is, they need to address those specific operations." Vanderkley agreed. She said the government already has rules in place to protect public health, such as prohibiting producers like her from selling meat commercially or from selling more than a certain number of animals to the same person each year. She suggested the province beef up its inspections of on-farm slaughter operations as a licence condition or make licence holders take a food safety course. Sigurdson didn't have a firm deadline for when the new round of consultations would be finished but said it would take the time that's needed.
