CNN — A newborn baby died from the cold in a tent encampment in Al-Mawasi, in southern Gaza, a health official said Wednesday, highlighting the stark challenges to survival faced by Palestinian children displaced from their homes amid Israel’s ongoing assault on the strip.
Sela Mahmoud Al-Fasih “froze to death from the extreme cold” in Al-Mawasi, Dr. Munir Al-Bursh, the director general of the Ministry of Health in Gaza, posted on X on Wednesday.
In the past week, at least four infants have died of hypothermia from low temperatures and a lack of access to warmth while living in tents, Dr. Ahmed Al-Farra, the head of pediatrics and obstetrics at Nasser Hospital, in Khan Younis, said on Thursday. Among them were a three-day-old and a one-month-old who also died in Al-Mawasi, he said.
This abuts with the “right of return” arguments. If Palestinians were allowed to leave, would Israel permit them to return to the Gaza Strip, or would the front of Palestinian resistance instead shift to Egypt’s border?
I know where my money is, but…
No it doesn’t. This is an emergency. It’s a genocide.
And maybe let Palestinians decide whether or not they want to risk not having a right of return vs. dying rather than have Egypt decide it for them?
Would you argue that Native Americans shouldn’t have been allowed sanctuary in some city during the Trail of Tears because if they accept sanctuary, they might not get their land back?
It is an emergency, but will the next one be on Egypt’s border, or Gaza’s is the question they seem to be asking.
Palestinians seem to have had no say up to this point, why change course now? I know why, but it’s mighty inconvenient for any powers that be.
Finally, Your Trail of Tears analogy is really strained. As far as I know there was (and still is) no hope of tribes getting their land back, the tribes had a designated “indian territories” they were being relegated to. as opposed to the Palestinians who have the destination of “not here”.
When has there ever been a refugee situation where the world accepted those refugees were fairly removed from their land and should give up hope of getting it back?
This is some sort of weird “finders keepers” playground rule that doesn’t exist in the real world.
Would you stand on a border and refuse to let a child through because one day they might get their land back if they aren’t murdered first? Does that really make sense to you?
The case of the Palestinians now pretty neatly fits into “give up the chance of ever getting back”
No, individuals having to watch this on the border have it rough and the entire situation is shit, but Cairo playing realpolitik on the matter of refugees is not something I can reasonably fault them for: they are elected to prioritize Egypt’s interest, and allowing a group that may reasonably become a southern Hezbollah is in direct conflict with that mission.
Allowing mothers and children is the human thing to do, but with no actionable plan to return them, they become a liability with a fuse of some 16-20 years.
Now you’re arguing that Egypt shouldn’t have let them out because they would have no chance of getting back what they aren’t going to get back anyway.
The fact that you think there should be a ‘but’ after that does not speak highly of you.
I’m arguing (and have been) that Egypt is looking out for Egypt only. Allowing Palestinian refugees introduces a possible liability for the Egyptian government to deal with down the line.
You’re right. I’m a monster for allowing myself to try and rationalize the actions of a government instead of assuming all they do comes from a place of humanity.
Governments are not people, they do not act as such. At best they are corporations with the endgoal of “stay in power” instead of shareholder value.