3 ms·
They keep warning. Israel cuts off supplies while changing strategies, nothing changes. That could not have happened if the original situation had been dire.
by LorenPechtel 1y ago
They keep warning. Israel cuts off supplies while changing strategies, nothing changes. That could not have happened if the original situation had been dire.
You claim there's nothing to buy but where's the evidence? They've managed to find another "starving" baby--once again, serious medical issues. As before, the relatives look fine.
And your "market" solution assumes there is a fair market. It can never work in the face of Hamas taking enough to cause scarcity.
- actionfromafar 1y agoI always wonder about these sorts of comments. If the people writing them found out the facts were different, would they feel dismay at how terribly wrong they were? Feel remorse? Or would they just find another way to argue? (This is of course, if they believed in it to begin with. Some just pretend.)
- zahlman 1y agoIf you believe the facts to be different, the expected mode of discourse on HN is that you provide evidence that the facts are different.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoI made a very simple, testable claim there. 1) The claim was the situation was dire, starvation imminent. 2) Israel cut off the supplies while restructuring the system. 3) That didn't result in a bunch of bodies. #2 is undisputed. Just look at the news about #1, I can not see this as reasonably disputed. That leaves only #3. Hamas doesn't show any inability to get their claims out, thus why in the world should I think there's a bunch of people dead of starvation. If I'm breaking it down wrong, show where. If you disagree with any of the subpoints, show where.