3 ms·

It's not serious to dismiss the allegations by just saying > If Israel had intended to not supply any food or water to the Palestinians [...] the bottom line i

It's not serious to dismiss the allegations by just saying > If Israel had intended to not supply any food or water to the Palestinians [...] the bottom line is they did not do so. because several heavyweight international humanitarian organizations say that they did. Even the US government implies this when they tell Israel to open border crossings or get cut off from military aid.

YZF 2y ago
It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. Why didn't Egypt supply food and water to the Palestinians? (Before Israel took the border corridor). What other war can you provide me as an example where a the opposing side provided supplies to its enemy? Does Russia supply Ukraine with food and water? Does Ukraine supply Russia? Did the allies supply the citizens of the Islamic State with food and water? Yes- The Gazans depended on Israel in many ways before they started this war, most of them by their own choice. Did the Germans deliver food and water to the UK during WW-II? Do the Turkish give the Kurds food and water as they bomb them? If the government of Gaza, Hamas, has stocks of food and water, and it does not disburse those to the population, and even steals aid from the population, why is this Israel's problem? Those organizations you're referring to are anti-Israeli and their statements are political. The US, who has closer knowledge of what's going on on the ground, says Israel has not committed war crimes.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. After sufficient arm-twisting from the Biden administration, it did. But until that point - it withheld. And quite intentionally and forthrightly so: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba. “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-ministe...
  - hansworst 2y ago
    Well, it’s going to be hard to talk their way out of that one.
    - jq-r 2y ago
      But it was spoken in anger so it doesn’t count. /s
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Your prediction was quite prescient.
    - YZF 2y ago
      I don't think so. A siege is not prohibited under international law. The Palestinians at that point had plenty of water and food. The bar, to me, would be at the point where they're actually starving, i.e. they have used up the entirety of the stuff they stocked up, including Hamas' stocks in the tunnels, and were starving/had nothing to drink, and Israel at that point refused to let any provisions through. This is actually starving the population. You can lay a temporary siege that's well below that bar. Again, a siege is not prohibited under international law. The civilian population being to leave would be one example. Allowing humanitarian relief would be another. Along the lines of what I said above, the question of humanitarian relief only arises later into the siege when there is actually a humanitarian problem. And Israel reversed course on some decisions and allowed aid even before that. Gallant did not say Israel would prevent Gazan civilians from leaving to Egypt (e.g.). This was said at the heat of the moment. I do realize it's hard for random people on the Internet to understand the shock Israel was under at that time. It's also fair to expect the minister of defense to moderate what they say. It's also still very much a cherry pick reduced to a propaganda line item.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        This was said at the heat of the moment. Lo and behold -- unfortunately not quite all, but certainly a lot of the provocative / uncompromising language he Palestinian side is, in essence, coming from a place of anger or other distressful emotional states as well.
- atoav 2y ago
  You are aware that there are international laws regulating what an occupying force is and isn't required to do? Not letting civilians in occupied areas starve is one of the laws. And this is very basic occupational law, if you don't know that maybe consider lowering your voice on the issue in the future? https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/occupation https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/occupation
  - valval 2y ago
    I can’t think of many groups of people more gullible than those who believe in a concept of “international laws”.
    - geysersam 2y ago
      Do you think the world would be better without them?
      - valval 2y ago
        I don't think the world would be any different without them.
    - atoav 2y ago
      I don't believe international law effectively solves the problems it is intended to solve, but if we are discussing whether a country was acting the right or wrong way how do you suggest we judge that? Right of the strongest? Follow the opinion of the warlord of the day? Follow our gut? Be so kind and bless us with your maxime that should guide the day in your opinion. Sure many people are blindingly naive about the geopolitical realities involved, but that does mean only thinking about what is is sufficent. If we want to improve things there needs to be some ruler to measure the conduct of nations.
      - valval 2y ago
        Local laws. Lol.
  - 2y ago
- geysersam 2y ago
  Why would every major humanitarian organization be anti-Israel? It doesn't make any sense. Besides, it's a straw man to say the claim is that no food or water is being supplied. The accusation is not that no supplies are provided. The accusation is that Israel obstructs supplies. > The US, who has closer knowledge of what's going on on the ground, says Israel has not committed war crimes. There are many actors with knowledge of what happens on the ground. Taking Israels closest ally to be the final judge of this claim is ridiculous.

YZF 2y ago

It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. Why didn't Egypt supply food and water to the Palestinians? (Before Israel took the border corridor). What other war can you provide me as an example where a the opposing side provided supplies to its enemy? Does Russia supply Ukraine with food and water? Does Ukraine supply Russia? Did the allies supply the citizens of the Islamic State with food and water? Yes- The Gazans depended on Israel in many ways before they started this war, most of them by their own choice. Did the Germans deliver food and water to the UK during WW-II? Do the Turkish give the Kurds food and water as they bomb them? If the government of Gaza, Hamas, has stocks of food and water, and it does not disburse those to the population, and even steals aid from the population, why is this Israel's problem? Those organizations you're referring to are anti-Israeli and their statements are political. The US, who has closer knowledge of what's going on on the ground, says Israel has not committed war crimes.

aguaviva 2y ago
It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. After sufficient arm-twisting from the Biden administration, it did. But until that point - it withheld. And quite intentionally and forthrightly so: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba. “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-ministe...
- hansworst 2y ago
  Well, it’s going to be hard to talk their way out of that one.
  - jq-r 2y ago
    But it was spoken in anger so it doesn’t count. /s
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Your prediction was quite prescient.
  - YZF 2y ago
    I don't think so. A siege is not prohibited under international law. The Palestinians at that point had plenty of water and food. The bar, to me, would be at the point where they're actually starving, i.e. they have used up the entirety of the stuff they stocked up, including Hamas' stocks in the tunnels, and were starving/had nothing to drink, and Israel at that point refused to let any provisions through. This is actually starving the population. You can lay a temporary siege that's well below that bar. Again, a siege is not prohibited under international law. The civilian population being to leave would be one example. Allowing humanitarian relief would be another. Along the lines of what I said above, the question of humanitarian relief only arises later into the siege when there is actually a humanitarian problem. And Israel reversed course on some decisions and allowed aid even before that. Gallant did not say Israel would prevent Gazan civilians from leaving to Egypt (e.g.). This was said at the heat of the moment. I do realize it's hard for random people on the Internet to understand the shock Israel was under at that time. It's also fair to expect the minister of defense to moderate what they say. It's also still very much a cherry pick reduced to a propaganda line item.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      This was said at the heat of the moment. Lo and behold -- unfortunately not quite all, but certainly a lot of the provocative / uncompromising language he Palestinian side is, in essence, coming from a place of anger or other distressful emotional states as well.
atoav 2y ago
You are aware that there are international laws regulating what an occupying force is and isn't required to do? Not letting civilians in occupied areas starve is one of the laws. And this is very basic occupational law, if you don't know that maybe consider lowering your voice on the issue in the future? https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/occupation https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/occupation
- valval 2y ago
  I can’t think of many groups of people more gullible than those who believe in a concept of “international laws”.
  - geysersam 2y ago
    Do you think the world would be better without them?
    - valval 2y ago
      I don't think the world would be any different without them.
  - atoav 2y ago
    I don't believe international law effectively solves the problems it is intended to solve, but if we are discussing whether a country was acting the right or wrong way how do you suggest we judge that? Right of the strongest? Follow the opinion of the warlord of the day? Follow our gut? Be so kind and bless us with your maxime that should guide the day in your opinion. Sure many people are blindingly naive about the geopolitical realities involved, but that does mean only thinking about what is is sufficent. If we want to improve things there needs to be some ruler to measure the conduct of nations.
    - valval 2y ago
      Local laws. Lol.
- 2y ago
geysersam 2y ago
Why would every major humanitarian organization be anti-Israel? It doesn't make any sense. Besides, it's a straw man to say the claim is that no food or water is being supplied. The accusation is not that no supplies are provided. The accusation is that Israel obstructs supplies. > The US, who has closer knowledge of what's going on on the ground, says Israel has not committed war crimes. There are many actors with knowledge of what happens on the ground. Taking Israels closest ally to be the final judge of this claim is ridiculous.