Good morning. We’re covering an invasion in Gaza City and a U.N. report on genocide — and then we explore the state of free speech in America. After, we have the news you need to start your day. An invasion
Israel launched a ground offensive overnight in Gaza City. It also intensified its aerial bombardment, and smoke billowed over the city this morning. “Gaza is burning,” Israel’s defense minister said. Windows were felt shaking in buildings as far as 25 miles away. The military said troops would “surround Gaza City from all sides.” More than 300,000 Palestinians had already fled, but about half a million are still there. “Death would be more merciful than what we’re living through,” said Montaser Bahja, a former schoolteacher sheltering in an apartment in Gaza City. He said he didn’t have “anywhere to go in southern Gaza, no house, no tent, no car in which to travel.” The invasion came as a United Nations commission investigating the war in Gaza said that Israel was committing genocide against Palestinians. In earlier reports, the commission found that Israel had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in its war with Hamas militants, but stopped short of declaring it genocide. Israel denounced the report as “fake.” Israel’s plans for the assault, which had loomed for months, had drawn fierce international criticism. Families of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza also expressed concern for their loved ones’ safety. A cease-fire agreement is now less likely: Marco Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state, said at a news conference in Israel with Benjamin Netanyahu that a diplomatic solution to end the war might not be possible.
Free speech?
What are Americans allowed to say? We have always fought over the answer, and free-speech absolutists are rare on either side of the spectrum. Some liberals in recent years pushed to “deplatform” right-wing thinkers for what they see as hate speech; turned Israeli academics away from conferences; and got Donald Trump tossed from Facebook and Twitter. Some conservatives pushed to boycott Bud Light and Disney, deport visa holders who protest Israel and ban young-adult literature that discusses gender identity. But in the days since a gunman assassinated Charlie Kirk, Republicans have sought a new target — not a discrete person or an odious policy idea, but what they call “leftist ideology.” President Trump this past weekend blamed Democrats for political violence and said his administration would investigate left-leaning groups. Yesterday, his aides outlined a plan: They would label left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism. “We have some pretty radical groups, and they got away with murder,” Trump said yesterday, without naming any groups beyond antifa. He said some people “have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation.” “Agitation” is usually speech, and speech is not violence — though over the years activists on both sides have described it that way. Now, the federal government is using its power to cast the entire opposition as dangerous. Today’s newsletter is about this twist in our political debate. Investigating the leftA decade ago, Dylann Roof killed nine Black worshipers in a South Carolina church. Roof believed that Black-on-white crime was rampant, and he hoped his attack would incite a race war. The F.B.I. deepened its focus on white nationalism, but the Obama administration did not claim Roof was a proxy for Republicans. Nor did it paint the G.O.P. as a “domestic extremist organization,” as Trump’s top adviser said of Democrats. Since taking office, Trump’s administration has treated the left as a malign force. It can’t censure progressive speech without violating the First Amendment, so it has searched for other legal ways to weaken the Democratic Party, my colleagues have reported. Members of Congress asked the F.B.I. to investigate whether ActBlue, a donation platform used by most Democrats, had links to terrorism, for example. Now, though, Trump officials say Kirk’s killing may provide the framework they need to punish liberal groups.
Of course, these groups aren’t awarding grants for violent schemes. So deciding whom to target is likely to hinge on what they and their leaders say. No criticism allowed
The truth is that political violence is rare, as my colleague Charles Homans wrote last year. And most Americans say it horrifies them (though the share who say it’s acceptable has been inching upward). Neither side is immune. Liberal attacks are real; an activist shot the House Republican whip in 2017. But most of the recent attacks came from the right. MAGA assailants targeted Mike Pence; Nancy Pelosi and her husband; and the Democratic governors of Michigan and Pennsylvania. They sent pipe bombs to the homes of Barack Obama and Joe Biden in 2018. In the spring, a right-wing gunman hunted Minnesota state lawmakers, killing one as well as her husband. Yet conservatives have cast liberalism as a uniquely dangerous perspective. They argued that the murder of a woman in Charlotte this month was the result of liberal policies that let a mentally ill homeless man roam free. Now they say Kirk’s murderer represents the left generally. “They are at war with us,” a Fox News host declared last week. “What are we going to do about it? How much political violence are we going to tolerate?” So Republicans are demanding punishment for Kirk’s critics. People have been fired from their jobs after conservatives surfaced ugly posts in which they celebrated Kirk’s death or even just criticized his beliefs. A South Carolina congresswoman wants to cut funding for schools where teachers criticize Kirk. And the Pentagon suspended an army colonel who called the assassination “tragic” but said Kirk had spread “hate, racism, homophobia, misogyny and transphobia.” Even though Democrats overwhelmingly criticized the killing, conservative leaders argue that views like these are what drove the killer. The ideas thrive, Vance said yesterday, among “a minority, but a growing and powerful minority on the far left.” More on the Kirk shooting
Trump Administration
Federal Reserve
Trump’s Crackdown
International
Other Big Stories
This summer, the share of young children in Gaza who were malnourished rose sharply. The war there has made food scarce and expensive, and Israel’s blockade on aid deliveries this year exacerbated the problem. While aid deliveries have resumed, they have not been enough to reverse the food shortage. In a visual article, The Times examines the health effects of malnutrition in children.
When children are severely malnourished, their bodies draw on reserves to survive. Eventually, their organs begin to break down. They can become lethargic and stop eating even if there is food because eating takes energy they don’t have. They are also at risk of dying from common diseases that a healthier child might withstand.
After a U.N. commission found that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, the commission’s leader wrote that doing nothing isn’t neutrality, it’s complicity, Navi Pillay. Here is a column by John McWhorter on the Department of War and a meditation on butterflies by Margaret Renkl. New: The Times family subscription is here. One rate. Four individual logins. Savings for all. Now you and three others can enjoy unlimited access to The Times, while personalizing your own experience. Learn more.
Lost songs: Singles were once printed on cereal boxes. The cardboard records sound terrible, but collectors love them. “Kissing bug” disease: It’s been trending online, but the risk of it is extremely low in the United States. In Denmark: A woman from Greenland held her baby for an hour. Then Danish authorities took her away. On a walk: A Florida woman fought an alligator to save her Shih Tzu puppy. |
