I get that seeing a dead child, or the grief of its parent, isn't in itself evidence of a deranged and genocidal campaign. Children are killed every day in road accidents and no one jumps to the conclusion that all drivers are child killers or war criminals.

I'm also mindful that a coroner cannot declare that someone has been murdered even when the evidence is clear. Typically the person is said to have been unlawfully killed, the actual crime being decided by a judge and jury.

However, to frame this massacre in such a way is incredible yet shockingly normal. It's the logic used by our politicians to excuse their self serving defence of the indefensible. Except none of them approached the events of October 7th with such sober judgement.

Sky News reported this attrocity but framed it in the context of Hamas firing rockets at Tel Aviv from Rafah. In effect they sanitised the brutality and obfuscated what we all know to be Israel's annoyance at being called out by the ICJ and its statement to the world that they can do what they please.

I suspect that the possibility of killing a child legally is simply made up, like the right of Israel to exist or its right to defend itself against those it occupies. The article, in itself, is a crime against humanity.