Kwakigra

Edit: Spoilers Ahead!

Of human behavior commonly considered to be evil, we often give cowards a pass. It doesn't even rank in the top seven, according to the Divine Comedy. Cowardice is so normalized I haven't even heard an accusation of it from one person to another outside of media and history. Despite in my opinion being one of the most potent forces of evil driving human-made disasters today, cowards by their nature tend to be overlooked.

In the beginning of the film Obsession, we find the protagonist and villain of the film in a state of extreme weakness, insecurity, and apathy. He lives in his grandmother's old house and has made no changes to it whatsoever since moving in. He spends his time obsessing over the object of his affection, his childhood friend Nikki, or otherwise abusing his grandmother's prescription drugs. This is a sorry state which I can even relate to and is not itself inherently evil. I speculate that Bear is extremely depressed for a reason. What is cowardly is how Bear manages his difficult situation.

Bear is unwilling to face his demons and pursue a life which doesn't need to be self-medicated away in someone else's abandoned house. He has not pursued or even considered pursuing seeking actual medical intervention for his depression, nor seek support from friends or family. He has no plans for his future, and he doesn't even know what could make him happier outside of the oxycontin and his fantasies. He has no self control nor an interest in helping himself (or anyone else) at all in any way. The only aspiration he expresses in the film (to become a food critic) is made offhandedly and unseriously, unrelated entirely to anything else Bear says or does in the film. Bear has many real problems, but being a coward is his choice.

The earliest victim of Bear's cowardice is Sandy, his late grandmother's cat. Sandy consumes some of the oxycontin that Bear left out and dies. When he discovers her body, he asks "how did you get into the bottle?" The answer is obvious. A cat can't open a child-proof prescription container. Bear left it open. Instead of even acknowledging the possibility that his neglect for the cat he had total power over caused it harm, he dismisses the event altogether and carries on as if nothing happened. There could be no self-reflection and no effort toward self-correction after what to many would be a major wake-up call. The only effect Sandy's death had on Bear was to provide him an excuse for his behavior later. This is cowardly, and it is foreshadowing.

Bear doesn't know Nikki as well as she makes the mistake of thinking he does. From his behavior in the film, it's unlikely he ever intentionally tried to know who Nikki the person was. Other characters in the film correct Bear in reference to facts about their mutual friend which he is often incorrect about. He asks his friend for seduction advice and has no reason to think otherwise about what Nikki would want or even enjoy. Nikki is a concept to Bear. She is the concept of someone cool and attractive who could love him when he feels no love (even from himself). Nikki freely self-discloses her intimate thoughts to Bear, who is flattered that she would but doesn't have enough of himself to care about or understand what she is saying. Nikki isn't a person to Bear, but his target.

Before I continue, I want to describe the ambush predator. Unlike the pursuit predators who actively and openly hunt their prey, overpowering their terrified victim after running them down, ambush predators don't present their threat to their prey until after it's too late. Ambush predators are too weak to be pursuit predators, so they hunt differently. The jaguar rests high in a tree, waiting for its hapless prey to pass within pouncing distance. The goldenrod crab spider presents from within a flower, waiting for pollinators to seize suddenly. The pitcher plant smells sweet, luring its victims in before drowning and consuming them. Human predators also exist as both pursuers and ambushers. In intimate relationships, predatory men rarely present their threat to their intended prey until after it is too late. This is cowardice in human terms.

Bear makes a selfish wish. At first I believe this impulsive act was by itself innocuous, but according to the writer and director this is the first truly evil deliberate act by Bear in the film. I had to reconsider my initial position. It is true that Bear had no way to know that the wish would actually work, but the wish itself is evil. Let's say that Bear instead purchased a gag tablet of ghb from the joke store, put it in Nikki's drink, and was just as shocked that it actually worked. The supernatural nature of what Bear did should not distract from the intent of his actions even if he didn't expect it would work.

It is not ambiguous in the film's text that Bear knowingly rapes Nikki as the first abuse of his new power. Even without the supernatural context, Nikki is clearly to Bear and herself not in control of her behavior. In the script the characters themselves openly discuss that Nikki is probably too drunk to be rational. Bear acts supportive to Nikki at every step and is likely actually uncertain about the situation himself. There is a pattern here, though. Every opportunity that the fully sober Bear has to get closer to sleeping with Nikki in this plausibly deniable situation, he takes. He has no self reflection, he is just an opportunist. He cares less about the well-being of his friend than he does about using her body. This is a realistic depiction of an unfortunately common tactic cowardly men resort to. This is called date rape in our world.

Nikki splits from her wish self who loves Bear more than anyone in the world, to her true self having an updated insight into Bear's actual cowardly nature. Both versions of Nikki suffer greatly. The true Nikki suffers her body being used by Bear against her will to perform his fantasies, and wish Nikki suffers by doing everything she can to love Bear when he is a bottomless pit where love goes to rot. Both sides of Nikki suffer from Bear's extreme neglect of her while she is clearly too compromised to feed herself or even go to the bathroom without him in proximity. Bear is not capable of loving himself or anyone else. Instead of facing this grievous issue in his life, he decides to play house with the dying wish Nikki and performs a boring relationship he eventually loses interest in. At no point does he perform any care for Nikki at all or help her in any way. He just isn't happy so he asks Nikki to try harder. At no point was wish Nikki not trying her hardest.

When wish Nikki begins to unravel at the horrifying discovery there is nothing in Bear or about Bear she could love despite being obligated to and true Nikki uses every moment she can to resist her captor, Bear is forced to acknowledge that he has a problem. From his perspective, his problem is that his wish isn't working right because he doesn't feel the love he is entitled to from Nikki per his wish. He is too cowardly to consider that his inability to feel anything for Nikki while she is forced to serve him in the situation he manufactured may have something to do with who he is. Again, he externalizes the problem he caused and calls the One Wish Willow hotline to ask them to make his wish work right. Very explicitly the operator asks him if he wants to cancel his wish, to which he responds he does not want to cancel and just wants to fix it. It is obvious to everyone but Bear that there is nothing that can be fixed about the situation. Bear would also know if he wasn't a coward.

Frustrated, Bear decides to try to cheat on the imprisoned Nikki when the opportunity presents itself. True Nikki asks him to kill her to end her misery, he implies she should stop complaining, and then he leaves with the intention to cheat on her. There is nothing to Bear other than his cowardice and opportunism. Wish Nikki, knowing Bear better than he knows himself, acts to protect her relationship in a way befitting of the extreme situation which has been unfolding throughout the film Bear has attempted nothing to alleviate. From his perspective, he is the victim because he asked her to fix their relationship and she didn't.

Bear, realizing he can't even cheat on Nikki to distract himself from her unhinged behavior that he directly caused, decides to take the coward's way out. Even here he chickens out at the last moment dooming Nikki to her unwilling servitude. By happenstance, his cowardice is overwritten by the effort wish Nikki is obligated to make. Poetically, Bear dies powerless.

What is the difference between Bear and millions of other wayward men too cowardly to face their true selves, but still feel entitled to a partner obligated to serve them when they won't even serve themselves? With many, there is unfortunately little practical difference. With the rest, the difference is opportunity. The behavior modeled masterfully by this film is why cowardice should be taken seriously as evil. It must not be mistaken for the weakness it comes from and must be seen for the force of destruction that it truly is.

A Korean developer named Sigrid Jin—featured in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month for having consumed 25 billion Claude Code tokens—woke up at 4 a.m. to the news. He sat down, ported the core architecture to Python from scratch using an AI orchestration tool called oh-my-codex, and pushed claw-code before sunrise. The repo hit 30,000 GitHub stars faster than any repository in history.

A few years ago I spent more time than I thought would be necessary to find a quality historical resource for a broad introduction to West African history from West African scholars. I found this instead, which covers the entire continent and its many regions and is composed by scholars of those regions.

The downloaded pdfs look amazing on my e-reader so I am finally getting into these. Happy Black History month!

A few years ago I spent more time than I thought would be necessary to find a quality historical resource for a broad introduction to West African history from West African scholars. I found this instead, which covers the entire continent and its many regions and is composed by scholars of those regions.

The downloaded pdfs look amazing on my e-reader so I am finally getting into these. Happy Black History month!

The last thing I ever thought I would do would be to write more than a few sentences about someone like Charlie Kirk. I have always found him to be a particularly loathsome coward. He had no values, he promoted nothing of real world worth, he helped no one, and he never provided comfort or support especially during times of crisis. He spent his career using rhetorical tricks to avoid good faith conversations, spreading hateful rhetoric, and incompetently defending Republican orthodoxy any time it was obvious even to young conservatives that Republicans were acting against their interests. His last major political move was to encourage his audience to trust the government regarding the Epstein files. There is nothing left of his legacy but his career of petty contempt and apologetics for heinous actions. No one will miss him. He is highly replaceable in all facets and his children have been saved from years of abuse, neglect, and exploitation which having such a miserable person as a father had doomed them to.

Kirk has never been as important as he has been during the last two days. He is now dominating the headlines of the world’s major newspapers. This is to contrast how unimportant he has been for over a decade. He was originally propped up by the Koch brothers as the dominant anti-intellectual voice of the youth, the face of the organization “Turning Point USA.” The purpose of this organization was(is?) to convince college students that intellectual pursuits were worthless because common sense conservatism already had all answers. This was unconvincing to college students but may have encouraged many impressionable young teenagers to avoid critical thinking and embrace conservative orthodoxy. This was the peak of his career. He aged out of his role almost immediately and has been haunting the background of conservative media ever since. He was no longer a collegiate peer offering an alternative to knowledge, but an aging idiot yelling at kids.

His recent Jubliee “debate” is emblematic of his recent status. For the duration of the video, young people make a fool of him one after another while his lack of any kind of wit, charm, or insight leaves him defenseless. His wordplay fails, his points easily dismantled, and his celebration of his own self-perceived victories are met with open disgust. Kirk was powerless and had lost any influence that he once had. He was on the way out.

On September 10, 2025, a sniper used a high-powered rifle to cleanly dispatch Charlie Kirk at an estimated distance of 200 yards before escaping without a trace. For those unfamiliar with firearms it is extraordinarily difficult [for an inexperienced shooter] to hit a person-sized target at all from this distance, and the shot was an extremely precise killing shot. In my opinion it is extremely unlikely that this shooting was anything but the act of a highly trained individual with extensive resources. I do not believe that this was a sudden act of passion, and I do believe it was a planned and coordinated strike.

Why kill Charlie Kirk? Kirk was a conservative D-lister with no power and waning influence. While alive, he was a political liability and go-to punching bag for political commentators. I can’t think of any reason a terrorist group or actor with the skill and resources they had at their disposal would pick Kirk as a target rather than almost anyone else whose death may have set back Trump’s movement. It is somewhat possible that a skilled veteran was personally offended by something Kirk said or did and used their skills to take revenge, but I’ve not seen this amount of professionalism and precision attached to a motive of this nature before.

Donald Trump and Nancy Mace have claimed that this was an assassination performed by agents of the Democrat Party. I can’t think of any way that this would benefit the Democrats. However, I can think of who may believe this obvious lie. I was raised a conservative so I understand that a conservative might believe the egghead democrats would want to kill a simple truth-teller to shut him up and stop him from spreading common sense. The belief that enemies of conservatives are motivated by this is conservative orthodoxy which all conservatives are required to believe as proof of their group membership. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this statement makes sense only to orthodox conservatives and to no one else.

Today is September 11th and the headlines are dominated by Kirk’s shooting and Republican vows for vengeance. It appears that this killing has massively supported Trump’s current agenda by providing another justification to bring the military down on US citizens to protect state power. Whether it is a coincidence or not, Trump and only Trump has benefited from this killing. Considering how quickly momentous events have been forgotten in the last several months, I’m hoping this push to make Kirk an angelic martyr of the Trump movement is forgotten as quickly and Kirk resumes his rightful place in obscurity.

Edit: Clarified difficulty of shot. As has been pointed out this is not a particularly difficult shot for an experienced shooter. I intended to say that the average person who is not an experienced shooter would find this shot extraordinarily difficult, indicating that the shooter was skilled. A skilled hunter would likely have the knowledge and experience to replicate this shot. The planning of the shooter's location selection and getaway could indicate further skills which may indicate further knowledge causing me to suspect a degree of professional experience.

I have been thinking about this issue a lot considering the context of my life and the present political situation and have been planning to write my own essay, only to find that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had written exactly was I was thinking decades ago just before he was murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. I think it's an important thought to spread and I'm curious as to what y'all think. This is the essay:

Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.

Against stupidity we are defenseless.

Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed — in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical — and when facts are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.

For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.

If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid.

We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them.

We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem.

It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity.

It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.

The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances.

The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.

Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity.

Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person.

This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what ‘the people’ really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.

But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.

Source

I was a huge fan of Breath of the Wild when it came out and played the hell out of it. At a certain point, it felt like I hit the logical end point and there wasn't much else to do. When I started playing Tears of the Kingdom, I got exactly what I wanted which was more Breath of the Wild. I'm still playing ToTK and really enjoying it.

Tears of the Kingdom is more of a lot of things. The expansive world of BoTW was expanded even further upward to the sky and downward to the depths, the combat is better, the annoying mechanics are remedied, there is far more to experience, there are many more missions and things to collect, and there is far more customization and sophisticated use of the systems invented by Breath of the Wild. As I've been playing it (many more hours now than I played BoTW), I've been thinking about why I don't love it like I loved BoTW despite it me having more fun with it.

It's not uncommon to be disappointed by ToTK, and I've listened to many negative reviews. Oddly, I agree with most of what they say short of believing the game is bad or really failed in any way. I think ToTK is doing a different thing than BoTW. While ToTK fixed many mechanical issues from BoTW and added so much that BoTW might as well be obsolete from a gameplay perspective, ToTK completely lost the vibe that BoTW had which was that game's primary strength.

Breath of the Wild is mysterious, melancholy, and beautiful. It's a game about exploration in every way. Through the experience Link learns where he is, who he is, and the context of what is happening in real time with the player. The world feels especially dangerous because you start with literally nothing and you don't really know what's going on. The intrinsic and extrinsic rewards to the game are all to do with exploration. Seeing a century-old battlefield littered with the weapons of fallen soldiers amidst the ruins of a village totally reclaimed by nature is a particular kind of emotional experience, and there are many such experiences throughout the game. Unfortunately, there is only so much to discover and once the map is filled out, the cutscenes are seen, and Ganon is defeated, there isn't much to do after that but poke around the world for its own sake or test your patience with the annoyingly difficult DLC.

Tears of the Kingdom, a continuation of the story, is not so much focused on exploration. In ToTK, exploration is one of the many fun activities the player can do. The overworld is the same with some minor differences such as a network of caves, and the skyworld and underworld are filled with treasure and beauty but not much in the way of themes or emotional resonance. Far more so than in BoTW, the world of ToTK feels like the player's personal playground to experiment with and relax in. It's just not that serious.

Unlike in BoTW, it's easy to forget the main antagonist is even a problem in ToTK. The game is more interested in world building for its own sake. For example, the people of Kakariko village are far more concerned with local archaeology than the potential doom of the world. Most characters in the game are more concerned with their low-stakes slices of life than Ganondorf politely sitting in the castle and not threatening them at all. No one is in any real danger. Groups of villagers attack monster camps with ladles and pot lids and not one bad thing can ever happen to them. The tone from the previous game is obliterated, but it's fun, and I don't think this is a bad thing. I am ok with the focus shifting from discovering the world to greatly expand the capability to goof around in that same world.

I would say that BoTW is the meal and ToTK is the dessert. Many people were disappointed that ToTK wasn't another meal of the same quality as BoTW, but personally I'm ok with having dessert.

I think stealing is highly underrated in the writing community. Everyone loves a good thief but the bad thieves get all the attention, spoiling the reputation of all. I honestly think that being a good thief makes for a better writer and encourage everyone to steal prodigiously but tactfully.

Bad thieves belong in literary jail. Aside from the obvious consequence of potentially getting sued for copyright infringement, the far worse crime of bad thievery is against art itself. Bad thieves steal without even understanding the value of what it is they stole, so their attempt to fence it for their own profit is fraud and often makes the reader feel defrauded. No one likes a cheap counterfeit of something they actually value. Worse still, the inferior knockoff could become more popular than the original, diluting and perverting it into a commodity to be kicked around rather than an honest expression of humanity that it was originally. Stealing incompetently is harmful to the writer, the reader, and to literature. A good thief, on the other hand, gets away clean and is even lauded for their efforts.

There are two ways to get away with stealing ideas for your story:

1. The reader couldn’t know you stole the idea unless you told them.
2. The reader suspects or knows that you stole the idea and are pleased that you did.

The key to getting away with ideas you don’t want people to know you stole is to launder them. A dirty idea sticks out like a sore thumb in a different story. It’s jarring to read about a character or event which was written for another story and airdropped into yours. A whole dirty story just sucks because it can only ever be an inferior counterfeit of the original.

To launder stolen ideas, you have to make it look like you came up with it yourself and it was something you would have come up with. If you want to steal an idea for your story in the first place, it probably actually is something you would have come up with but didn’t. You have to strip away everything that attaches that idea to its original source and replace it with your own context.

Let’s say I wanted to steal Jack Sparrow for my story. That’s a pretty high stakes gambit, being one of the most recognizable characters in pop fiction and also owned by one of the most litigious companies in the world. I could drop a thinly veiled Jack Sparrow in my story and get my shit wrecked legally and critically, or I could keep what I need from the idea and get rid of the hard evidence. I want a character like Jack Sparrow in my story to serve a similar purpose that he served in the movies. I don’t need his name, his appearance, his gender, his profession, his style of dress, his dialect, any of his actions, or other dead weight. What I need of this character for my story is a swaggering liar who appears fully incompetent but is oddly successful. The reason I want a character like this in my story is because I believe he would make a good foil for my characters and could take my story in interesting directions because of the kinds of decisions I think he would make.

For the sake of this example, I’m taking him for my high fantasy setting. My Jaithe Arrow is an elven woman working as a mercenary captain who behaves a lot like Jack Sparrow. I don’t know what the movie writers were thinking about why Jack did what he did, but I do know why my Jaithe behaves the way she does. My interpretation of that character, as all audience interpretations of that character, is unique to my experience and personality and I can build on what appealed to me about the character. My story is not The Pirates of the Caribbean, so my Jaithe Arrow is going to be involved in and reacting to an entirely different set of circumstances. Ultimately, the character may remind the reader of Jack Sparrow, but the character is clearly not Jack Sparrow just inserted into a story he wasn’t made for.

This could bleed over into the second category. I’ve often heard “Firefly” referred to as “The Han Solo Show” with total fondness. There is probably a lot of Han Solo in the character of Malcolm Reynolds, and fans of one character are likely fans of the other. When fans make this connection, it’s because they liked that someone made a show about a character like Han Solo even if it wasn’t produced by Lucasfilm. Anything that may have been stolen is totally clean. Firefly is not like Star Wars and although the two characters are similar in many ways they each fit uniquely into their own respective stories.

The thing that I like most about the second way to get away with stealing is that most ideas you can steal are actually free. Anything that actually happened we have record of is free from earliest history to current events. Anything you experienced or heard about happening is free. Science is free. Philosophy is free. Esoterica is free. Any creative works in the public domain are free. With some possible stipulations, much open source content is free for you to use. The thing about taking all these free ideas is that readers often like learning about real things. I don’t think a single person was upset that much of what occurred in the Song of Ice and Fire series was stolen from actual history. I do know many people who really appreciate that he stole those events from the pages of history books, in fact. Even if you cobble your whole story together with these kinds of stolen ideas, it will probably read as more deep than cheap.

There is nothing ethically wrong about adapting ideas of other people to your own work. In fact, it’s basically impossible to create anything completely original. Even if you did, it would be at best an interesting novelty rather than something readers would find relatable. The originality of a given writer is how their mind processes their experience and presents it to readers. The same idea presented by two different people in completely different ways can appeal to vastly different audiences. Oftentimes, an idea will never reach an audience unless a writer uses their creativity to bridge the gap from a different audience to the next, and that’s almost always a good thing.

Many writers would not consider what I advocated for here to be stealing. I wrote this for anyone who might have. Writers appropriate ideas like this constantly whether consciously or not because we are human creatures in communication with one another. If you come across any idea that you would like in your writing, you can actually have it. Take it and make it yours. By the time you’re done adjusting it for your own purposes it’ll be as original as anything else. Get stealing!

In this music video, the US military attempts to intercept a UAP. A pilot, ordered to make a killing shot, refuses his commands and instead engages the enemy in a dance off. The alien defeats the pilot, causing central command to mobilize all branches of the US military to outdance the alien threat. Since the full military might of the world's sole superpower is engaged in the largest theater of war ever, the shadow government neutralizes everyone involved to maintain the status quo. This causes the alien to "throw it back" to the beginning of the loop.

I can't exactly explain but this is exactly my sense of humor.

With only marginal exceptions, everyone in Gaza is sick, injured, or both. This includes every national aid worker, every international volunteer, and probably every Israeli hostage: every man, woman, and child. While working in Gaza we saw widespread malnutrition in our patients and our Palestinian healthcare colleagues. Every one of us lost weight rapidly in Gaza despite having privileged access to food and having taken our own supplementary nutrient-dense food with us. We have photographic evidence of life-threatening malnutrition in our patients, especially children, that we are eager to share with you.

Virtually every child under the age of five whom we encountered, both inside and outside of the hospital, had both a cough and watery diarrhea. We found cases of jaundice (indicating hepatitis A infection under such conditions) in nearly every room of the hospitals in which we served, and in many of our healthcare colleagues in Gaza. An astonishingly high percentage of our surgical incisions became infected from the combination of malnutrition, impossible operating conditions, lack of basic sanitation supplies such as soap, and lack of surgical supplies and medications, including antibiotics.

Malnutrition led to widespread spontaneous abortions, underweight newborns, and an inability of new mothers to breastfeed. This left their newborns at high risk of death given the lack of access to potable water anywhere in Gaza. Many of those infants died. In Gaza we watched malnourished mothers feed their underweight newborns infant formula made with poisonous water. We can never forget that the world abandoned these innocent women and babies.

We urge you to realize that epidemics are raging in Gaza. Israel’s continued, repeated displacement of the malnourished and sick population of Gaza, half of whom are children, to areas without running water or even toilets available is absolutely shocking. It was and remains guaranteed to result in widespread death from viral and bacterial diarrheal diseases and pneumonias, particularly in children under the age of five. Indeed, even the dreaded polio virus has reemerged in Gaza due to a combination of systematic destruction of the sanitation infrastructure, widespread malnutrition weakening immune systems, and young children having missed routine vaccinations for nearly an entire year. We worry that unknown thousands have already died from the lethal combination of malnutrition and disease, and that tens of thousands more will die in the coming months, especially with the onset of the winter rains in Gaza. Most of them will be young children.

Children are universally considered innocents in armed conflict. However, every single signatory to this letter saw children in Gaza who suffered violence that must have been deliberately directed at them. Specifically, every one of us who worked in an emergency, intensive care, or surgical setting treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head or chest on a regular or even a daily basis. It is impossible that such widespread shooting of young children throughout Gaza, sustained over the course of an entire year is accidental or unknown to the highest Israeli civilian and military authorities.