You said no to his question. Now you say there was a blockade? Alright…Haviv mentions that UN statistics showed there was a few months worth of food in Gaza when Israel started a blockade. (However, because of some people stockpiling food, others began to run out)
Give a watch of Haviv Rettig Gur to understand. Not starvation, yes hunger. Complicated mess;
Watch
https://youtu.be/SQx1Qy5Z5fA?si=UnsqluH5uwyUxzmv
Ok.
Let me try to understand two things which are thrown around here as contradictory.
IDF blocks and restricts some portion of food and other aid allowed into Gaza. Yes or no?
Hamas steals some portion of aid and food that actually makes it into Gaza. Yes or no?
The questionYou said no to his question. Now you say there was a blockade? Alright…
Hamas deliberately shoots kids if they take aid that they don’t control.I kinda hate that I even acknowledge the argument that Hamas steals food.
We all agree that Hamas are the villains.
The expectation is that Israel is the good guys.
If it's your territory, you're the good guys, and you're ultimately responsible for the people in Gaza (don't tell me Hamas is responsible for them....they're the villains, remember?), then the answer can't be to starve the people to root out Hamas. Gaza is Bibi's responsibility. It's been under his watchful police state for longer than I can remember. In America, we hopefully wouldn't blow up a school in Puerto Rico in order to get a few terrorists. We hopefully wouldn't starve the whole island to root out the terrorists. And if we do that, we're not the good guys. I can't fathom we would deliberately shoot kids in this scenario.
I'm more confused, now.The question
IDF blocks and restricts some portion of food and other aid allowed into Gaza. Yes or no?
So is IDF blocking food but allowing other aid into Gaza?
No.
There was a period back in March where they tried pressuring Hamas by stopping all aid into Gaza in hope to get the hostages freed. It did not work.
This is more confusing than MAD's reply.I kinda hate that I even acknowledge the argument that Hamas steals food.
We all agree that Hamas are the villains.
The expectation is that Israel is the good guys.
If it's your territory, you're the good guys, and you're ultimately responsible for the people in Gaza (don't tell me Hamas is responsible for them....they're the villains, remember?), then the answer can't be to starve the people to root out Hamas. Gaza is Bibi's responsibility. It's been under his watchful police state for longer than I can remember. In America, we hopefully wouldn't blow up a school in Puerto Rico in order to get a few terrorists. We hopefully wouldn't starve the whole island to root out the terrorists. And if we do that, we're not the good guys. I can't fathom we would deliberately shoot kids in this scenario.
Israel has said at various points that they interpreted the flow of aid either in its entirety or partially. So by thier own admission they have not always allowed aid. Hamas had lied their ass off about it but they’ve been caught too many times to count stealing the aid and shooting their own people.So far, every person who has answered has agreed both the IDF and Hamas are prohibiting relief supplies from reaching their targets.
A little bit of both.Just curious was there a purpose for the question? Or just wondering what the answers would be
I kinda hate that I even acknowledge the argument that Hamas steals food.
We all agree that Hamas are the villains.
The expectation is that Israel is the good guys.
If it's your territory, you're the good guys, and you're ultimately responsible for the people in Gaza (don't tell me Hamas is responsible for them....they're the villains, remember?), then the answer can't be to starve the people to root out Hamas. Gaza is Bibi's responsibility.
And I’m the one accused of being “emotional”? I’m addressing the logic of the claim, not the morality of hostage-taking. Spare me the straw man, questioning a simplistic cause-and-effect isn’t the same as endorsing the act.
I've certainly not argued every civilian death is unavoidable or acceptable. Merely pointing out that was is hell and once set into motion atrocities by definition happen.Saying proportionality “isn’t part of the calculus” concedes the core problem. Guerrilla warfare in cities makes civilian harm more likely, but that doesn’t make every civilian death unavoidable or acceptable. Arguing that it’s inevitable risks excusing tactics that could be changed to reduce harm, and shifting the focus to whether a critic can design a perfect war plan avoids answering whether the current one meets basic moral and legal standards.