|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Unless the big families of Gaza can successfully annihilate Hamas, there will be no peace in Gaza. All the rebuilding efforts and hope for peace in the region now lie on the capacity for local clans/gangs/notables to crystalize a resistance to Hamas and effect some kind of capacity to govern. Israel has committed horrible war crimes, but everyone should understand the line: there can be no society in gaza unless Hamas is effectively powerless. Unfortunately, religious extremists tend to be pretty fucking successful at things like this. It might take a while to consolidate but I do think Hamas will rebuild control unless
- Israel comes in periodically to fuck them up
- Aid/reconstruction is pulled on a district by district basis whenever Hamas targets anyone.
- Arab states help the local clans impose control
- Aid is quickly distributed by local clans and not stolen, in order to legitimize alternatives to hamas governance.
- The local clans/militia groups fight like fucking lions.
Thats a lot of things coming together to make this work. Which means realistically Israel will be in and out of Gaza for years to come until either Hamas is broken or Gazan society is broken beyond repair. Hamas and the IDF are basically playing a game of chicken with the civilians of Gaza. Who will flinch first?
|
Alternatively, the world could just pump so much aid into Gaza that Hamas stealing some of it does not matter. You know, make the people of Gaza get the feeling they actually gave something to lose. The way of stopping Hamas death cult us by providing a reason to live to the young people of gaza. Oversimplified if course, but there is a reason Germany post WW2 was rebuilt.
|
United States43505 Posts
On October 19 2025 22:12 Broetchenholer wrote:
Alternatively, the world could just pump so much aid into Gaza that Hamas stealing some of it does not matter. You know, make the people of Gaza get the feeling they actually gave something to lose. The way of stopping Hamas death cult us by providing a reason to live to the young people of gaza. Oversimplified if course, but there is a reason Germany post WW2 was rebuilt.
Gaza has received considerably more reconstruction aid than Germany did post WW2.
Given the overwhelming amount of poverty worldwide and the associated human cost I can't see any justification for a plan that relies on making Hamas so rich that they stop stealing money, not given the opportunity cost. Especially given that the underlying causes of the conflict are still unresolved and there's a likelihood that whatever you end up building gets destroyed by Israel.
We live in a world where USAID warehouses filled with nutrition bars formulated to save children on the brink of starvation are having their contents destroyed because USAID stopped paying the rent. Where, despite the media attention, Gaza isn't one of the worst conflicts worldwide.
So essentially, why not Ethiopia instead? Sure, why not both, raise my taxes, I don't mind. But right now we can't seem to find the money to do either. If we do somehow find billions, why Gaza first?
|
On October 19 2025 22:12 Broetchenholer wrote:
Alternatively, the world could just pump so much aid into Gaza that Hamas stealing some of it does not matter. You know, make the people of Gaza get the feeling they actually gave something to lose. The way of stopping Hamas death cult us by providing a reason to live to the young people of gaza. Oversimplified if course, but there is a reason Germany post WW2 was rebuilt. yeah we gave money to a stable democratic government that rebuilt civil society and had a competent legal and educational system. We didn't funnel money to the Nazis so the could enrich themselves, rebuild the military and get Germany destroyed again. Hamas is not compatible with the people of Gaza living happy lives. Period.
|
United States43505 Posts
Eh, I have some shocking news for you about what happened to the non senior Nazis in Germany. And about the German support for Nazism/Hitler in the immediate post war years. And about whether the German military was rebuilt.
|
I'm so tired of the Hamas = Nazis and Gaza = WW2 Germany nonsense.
If you are going for historical parallels, is there really no other way then go directly to Goodwin's law?
A way more apt, but no where need good comparison would be Afghanistan or Iraq.
2 countries that were invaded with different justifications, but Afghanistan fits basically perfectly, each of the Israeli incursions into Gaza since 2004 was a response to terrorist attacks coming from it, invasion of Afghanistan was justified as a response to 9/11.
In the end, the greatest military power in the history of the world backed by NATO had to leave the place and leave it to govern itself, or by a specific ultra religious terror group, depending on who you ask.
The big difference is that Israel, for one reason or another never even attempted to do nation building, and that's what makes this so fucked up.
They will continue to occupy the territory of Gaza they decided to, the millions will squeeze into an even smaller area, they, again, won't be able to even feed themselves (Israel made a deliberate effort to destroy what small capabilities for producing food Gaza had over the last 2 years), they'll deny their work visas and deny them the ability to basically do anything other then wait and beg for aid, and then later use that to demonize the population there.
They will inevitably also annex the West bank, creating even more refugees and the world will throw our collective arms up in the air proclaiming how "there's nothing to be done" while trading with them and selling them weapons.
|
On October 20 2025 03:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2025 22:12 Broetchenholer wrote:
Alternatively, the world could just pump so much aid into Gaza that Hamas stealing some of it does not matter. You know, make the people of Gaza get the feeling they actually gave something to lose. The way of stopping Hamas death cult us by providing a reason to live to the young people of gaza. Oversimplified if course, but there is a reason Germany post WW2 was rebuilt. Gaza has received considerably more reconstruction aid than Germany did post WW2. Given the overwhelming amount of poverty worldwide and the associated human cost I can't see any justification for a plan that relies on making Hamas so rich that they stop stealing money, not given the opportunity cost. Especially given that the underlying causes of the conflict are still unresolved and there's a likelihood that whatever you end up building gets destroyed by Israel. We live in a world where USAID warehouses filled with nutrition bars formulated to save children on the brink of starvation are having their contents destroyed because USAID stopped paying the rent. Where, despite the media attention, Gaza isn't one of the worst conflicts worldwide. So essentially, why not Ethiopia instead? Sure, why not both, raise my taxes, I don't mind. But right now we can't seem to find the money to do either. If we do somehow find billions, why Gaza first?
Why Gaza first? Because we let our ally demolish it? Ethiopia has had remarkably little destabilization from the outside in the last decades except for broad economic concepts like globalisation. and I am not saying the us and your money need to do it, I am saying this myth that the only way forward is to murder better is why we are in this situation. Extremism is created through poverty. Combat poverty. But apparently idealized solutions are only viable if they come in the form of "if we could only murderize Hamas better", let's keep those people living in rubble, I am sure they will not resent Israel and the people arming them for it.
|
On October 20 2025 11:27 KwarK wrote:
Eh, I have some shocking news for you about what happened to the non senior Nazis in Germany. And about the German support for Nazism/Hitler in the immediate post war years. And about whether the German military was rebuilt. Really desperate for pithy little humour, eh? Read what I wrote: We did not send money in to enrich former nazis as they rebuilt their military. We did send money in to rebuild a liberal democratic society in which former nazis were participants and even strongly relevant to state institutions. But as nazis they did not have power, and they sure as hell werent rearming as nazis. This is really basic reading comprehension. Less pith, more comprehension, tyvm.
|
United States43505 Posts
On October 21 2025 04:36 Ze'ev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 11:27 KwarK wrote:
Eh, I have some shocking news for you about what happened to the non senior Nazis in Germany. And about the German support for Nazism/Hitler in the immediate post war years. And about whether the German military was rebuilt. Really desperate for pithy little humour, eh? Read what I wrote: We did not send money in to enrich former nazis as they rebuilt their military. We did send money in to rebuild a liberal democratic society in which former nazis were participants and even strongly relevant to state institutions. But as nazis they did not have power, and they sure as hell werent rearming as nazis. This is really basic reading comprehension. Less pith, more comprehension, tyvm.
You're misunderstanding, but that's okay.
|
On October 21 2025 03:50 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 03:15 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 22:12 Broetchenholer wrote:
Alternatively, the world could just pump so much aid into Gaza that Hamas stealing some of it does not matter. You know, make the people of Gaza get the feeling they actually gave something to lose. The way of stopping Hamas death cult us by providing a reason to live to the young people of gaza. Oversimplified if course, but there is a reason Germany post WW2 was rebuilt. Gaza has received considerably more reconstruction aid than Germany did post WW2. Given the overwhelming amount of poverty worldwide and the associated human cost I can't see any justification for a plan that relies on making Hamas so rich that they stop stealing money, not given the opportunity cost. Especially given that the underlying causes of the conflict are still unresolved and there's a likelihood that whatever you end up building gets destroyed by Israel. We live in a world where USAID warehouses filled with nutrition bars formulated to save children on the brink of starvation are having their contents destroyed because USAID stopped paying the rent. Where, despite the media attention, Gaza isn't one of the worst conflicts worldwide. So essentially, why not Ethiopia instead? Sure, why not both, raise my taxes, I don't mind. But right now we can't seem to find the money to do either. If we do somehow find billions, why Gaza first? Why Gaza first? Because we let our ally demolish it? Ethiopia has had remarkably little destabilization from the outside in the last decades except for broad economic concepts like globalisation. and I am not saying the us and your money need to do it, I am saying this myth that the only way forward is to murder better is why we are in this situation. Extremism is created through poverty. Combat poverty. But apparently idealized solutions are only viable if they come in the form of "if we could only murderize Hamas better", let's keep those people living in rubble, I am sure they will not resent Israel and the people arming them for it.
If financial aid would be able to fix the Israel/Palestine conflict it would have been fixed long ago.
If no neutral third party is willing to occupy palestine and rebuild it from the ground up and stay there for several decades whiteout becoming undermined or a farce like the UN troops in Lebanon, nothing will improve.
|
On October 20 2025 22:04 Jankisa wrote:
I'm so tired of the Hamas = Nazis and Gaza = WW2 Germany nonsense.
If you are going for historical parallels, is there really no other way then go directly to Goodwin's law?
A way more apt, but no where need good comparison would be Afghanistan or Iraq.
2 countries that were invaded with different justifications, but Afghanistan fits basically perfectly, each of the Israeli incursions into Gaza since 2004 was a response to terrorist attacks coming from it, invasion of Afghanistan was justified as a response to 9/11.
In the end, the greatest military power in the history of the world backed by NATO had to leave the place and leave it to govern itself, or by a specific ultra religious terror group, depending on who you ask.
The big difference is that Israel, for one reason or another never even attempted to do nation building, and that's what makes this so fucked up.
They will continue to occupy the territory of Gaza they decided to, the millions will squeeze into an even smaller area, they, again, won't be able to even feed themselves (Israel made a deliberate effort to destroy what small capabilities for producing food Gaza had over the last 2 years), they'll deny their work visas and deny them the ability to basically do anything other then wait and beg for aid, and then later use that to demonize the population there.
They will inevitably also annex the West bank, creating even more refugees and the world will throw our collective arms up in the air proclaiming how "there's nothing to be done" while trading with them and selling them weapons.
I personally think making strides toward a two state solution is a good idea, but your statement about nation building is a bit odd, seeing as it did not work for the US in the middle east, and as you said they eventually had to abandon the project.
Also, Israel does not, in fact, want to annex the west bank - I think that is a misconception. Annexation would mean the state would either need to make the entire population into citizens (which would empower the Arab-Israeli parties immensely), or deny it of citizenship (creating both a de-facto and de-jure apartheid).
What is actually happening is that the right-wing extremist parties, which Netanyahu's coalition relies upon for political survival, is enabling its constituents to encroach on that territory, in the misguided hope of eventually owning all of it. What Netanyahu is doing is basically what he does with anything related to Palestinians - kicking the can down the road, doing just enough to appease his coalition.
(I also disagree with your framing of the Gaza situation but that's a long conversation and I'm not sure I have the wind in me.)
|
The point of nation building is that it shows intent, intent that you didn't come somewhere just to fuck shit up, but that you genuinely want to help the people there.
It was obviously not a great idea or execution, but, especially in the case of Afghanistan it was obvious that US did try to help it's people. Just because it failed it doesn't mean it wasn't something worth doing. If Israel tried doing it 30 years ago and Oslo accords were put in place in good faith maybe we wouldn't be where we are.
I'm not sure that I see (and I believe most international experts agree) any reason not to call what Israel has been doing over the last 20 years in West bank as apartheid.
The big similarities between the OG apartheid and what is happening in West bank:
Dual Legal System & No Political Rights: Israeli settlers are governed by Israeli civil law and can vote nationally, while Palestinians are governed by military law and are denied representation in the governing body that controls their lives.
Systematic Segregation & Political Exclusion: Physical separation and movement restrictions are enforced. This system excludes Palestinians in East Jerusalem from national voting rights, and their participation in Palestinian elections is restricted.
Land Dispossession & Settler Expansion: Palestinian land is systematically confiscated to facilitate the expansion of Israeli settlements, reinforcing the political power of the voting Israeli population in the occupied territory.
All of the above, to me, clearly shows that they fit the definition:
Intent to Dominate: The goal of the Israeli system is to maintain and maximize Jewish Israeli control over land and political power across the territory, fulfilling the intent required for the crime of apartheid.
I also don't see how this is just some "right wing extremists". The Nethyanahu led government is currently leading in the polls for the next elections, Nethyanahu has, many times expressed his belief in "The greater Israel" which means:
The term Greater Israel was used after the Six Day War of June 1967 to refer to Israel and the areas it had just conquered — East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.
This is a quote from Times of Israel, not some leftist outlet, a direct quote from the guy who bombed 5 countries in a year and who's government killed 100.000 people, starved many more and leveled 80 % of Gaza. This is the guy currently leading in the polls, despite all the corruption scandals...
|
@Jankisa
I know there is a perspective that the west bank situation is an apartheid, but that is why I was very precise with my wording: "creating both a de-facto and de-jure apartheid".
Meaning, even if you think it's already a de-facto apartheid, annexing the west bank and refusing to make the population your own would make it a de-jure apartheid too, which would call Israel's democracy into question, among other very bad consequences.
So my point stands. There have been ample opportunities for Israel to annex the west bank, and it has never chosen to do so. What I listed are the biggest reasons.
(Whether it's a de-facto apartheid is a long conversation. I'm happy to do it if you think it would be productive.)
Secondly, I am not saying it's "some right wing extremists" as a way to shrug it off or absolve Netanyahu of responsibility. It is simply a statement of fact: the religious-zionism parties under Ben Gvir and Smotrich are the ones pushing for settling into more of the west bank, as well as Gaza. Netanyahu is choosing to appease them because it is politically expedient for him, and he bears responsibility for anything that happens as a result.
Thirdly, if you think the maintenance of a Jewish majority in Israel can only be explained by bigotry and a desire for supremacy, I implore you to critically weigh the likely consequences of turning jews into a minority in a middle eastern country, particularly given their history as one.
Look, I totally understand the need to analyze the conflict through various prisms incl. WW2, past injustices and so on. My biggest gripe about this sort of effort is that, more often than not, these comparisons are made as a way to delegitimize one side or another, rather than an attempt to identify obstacles or solve a problem.
And that is not to say, again, that no one bears responsibility. For example, if starvation in Gaza is a consequence of Israeli negligence around the GHF effort, I hope a committee or court finds out how it was allowed to happen, and people are held accountable. In my opinion, Netanyahu is chiefly responsible, and I don't think it would've happened under a Lapid, Golan, or even a Bennett government.
I'm happy to take this any which way but I hope we can pick at one thing at a time (SC players be old, and stuff). Let me know what you disagree with.
EDIT: Btw, you can technically "lead" the polls in Israel with 30 out of 120 mandates, depending on the rest of the distribution. Last I checked, I believe the opposition block were more likely to create a coalition, but it's a very complicated issue. If you're interested check out Israel's political deadlock circa 2021-2022 (IIRC).
|
Hey, thank you for the reply, I appreciate your approach!
OK, so, from what I wrote above and you replied to, I think we are in an agreement that what is currently happening in occupied West bank is de-facto apartheid, that, coupled with the every day violence that the people of West bank, who have largely been trying to "do the right thing" tend to suffer makes it very hard for me to understand how a nation can tolerate this in good conscience.
Apartheid is, in fact, a crime against humanity, and from where I'm standing, it seems to me that you find the current state of de-facto apartheid in the West bank as preferable to roughly 3 million of West bank Palestinian citizens being added to Israeli voting population, to me, that seems like something that would be an overall good, these people didn't show that they want to destroy Israel, they wouldn't be able to make any sort of majority and I think we can agree that crimes against humanity are bad.
I understand that having a Jewish majority in Israel is important given the stated goals of organizations such as Hamas, but if Israel wants to continue existing forever in that neighborhood they can either try to, well, build a pluralistic nation and integrate Palestinians, give them their own, actual state (which the West bank encroachments and things in Gaza are actively making more and more impossible) or exterminate / displace them.
Obviously, the number 1, which is the most logical to me is a non-starter even to you, who, to me, seems very reasonable.
So we are left with 2 very dark choices, and you can't blame that on right wing extremists.
Also, it's very hard for me to accept the framing of starvation as "consequence of Israeli negligence around the GHF effort", you can't call everything negligence, a few bad apples, investigation will be done etc. all the time. This one, in particular, with going from 200 aid points to 4, with not letting anything in for 2 months, seems like impossible to chalk up to negligence, it was deliberate, it was a tactic and that was documented:
Israel has a lot of very smart people, they didn't "neglect" to let food in to Gaza, after the ceasefire was broken, they stopped it for 2 full months before starting to let in some via a very shady organization. That's not negligence, that's malice.
Anyway, we can go over that, but it's not my intent to go in to it, I just read that framing and it irked me.
Anyway, obviously, you know the political situation in Israel much better then me, so, I'll ask you, who will you vote for? What do you think their policy regarding Gaza and West bank should be?
|
I'm under a time constraint at the moment, so I'll highlight a few things and we can jump into any one of them later.
My position on the west bank is not that it is an apartheid, but that it can be analyzed as one, which tells you much less about the situation than the much better description of an "occupation". I.e. there would be no concerns over oppressed populations if there were to be no occupation, and so that is the first and foremost problem. The occupation needs to end, and that has obstacles which need to be recognized and tackled.
There is a tendency in the west to analyze occupied territories as if Israel governs them wholly, which leads to things such as viewing military conflict as policing events, with all the conclusions that come with that (preferential treatment of certain populations over others).
Governing the entire population of both the west bank and gaza is a non-starter, and is unfeasible on multiple levels. We can go into that later if you choose.
Saying the population in the west bank does not want Israel to be destroyed is highly debatable. In general, it's really tricky to make grand statements about populations. I always view those as victims of the media environments in their respective regions. The only thing that matters is what actions will take place if there were to be any sort of deal or new arrangement. I tend to think animosity toward Israel and jews will not dissipate overnight if that region were to become one with Israel (and since 2005's unilateral moves and their outcomes, you can forget about unilateral anything).
My preferred road to a solution is a two-state solution, mutual recognition, disarmament of extremist militias, lifting of the blockade, oversight of international forces, education reform, and dismantling of settlements according to an agreed-upon land swap.
I believe either Lapid or Golan could potentially take us there. I am currently torn between them.
I don't see the hunger situation the same as you. I understand that some are viewing it as hunger "as a weapon of war". I think there is a tendency to look at the actions of the government in such a way, that whenever they undermine the observer's conclusion, they are waved off as "stuff Israel does to have the benefit of the doubt"; whereas there are explanations that fall more neatly onto the situation, and still implicate the government in serious crimes. We can go into details about why I see it as negligence (in line with Netanyahu's overall status quo/appeasement/kicking the can strategy) if you choose to talk about that.
|
On October 22 2025 02:26 mindjames wrote:
My preferred road to a solution is a two-state solution, mutual recognition, disarmament of extremist militias, lifting of the blockade, oversight of international forces, education reform, and dismantling of settlements according to an agreed-upon land swap.
I believe either Lapid or Golan could potentially take us there. I am currently torn between them.
Well, if that is their platform, here's hoping!
On October 22 2025 02:26 mindjames wrote:
I don't see the hunger situation the same as you. I understand that some are viewing it as hunger "as a weapon of war". I think there is a tendency to look at the actions of the government in such a way, that whenever they undermine the observer's conclusion, they are waved off as "stuff Israel does to have the benefit of the doubt"; whereas there are explanations that fall more neatly onto the situation, and still implicate the government in serious crimes. We can go into details about why I see it as negligence (in line with Netanyahu's overall status quo/appeasement/kicking the can strategy) if you choose to talk about that.
I would love for you, when time permits, provide a counter argument to what I wrote and linked, because I don't see it in this paragraph.
To me, the starvation situation, along with shooting a tank round in to a hospital "because a camera was there" as well as opening fire at the aid distribution points to the tune of killing thousands over months are not something that can be waived off.
There are many other ways that IDF operated during this conflict that, to me, illustrate rules of engagement and tactics that are completely unacceptable and not explainable as either negligence or isolated incidents.
But, let's focus on the starvation, let's talk about the amounts of food that were getting in and the way the GHF and IDF were distributing it.
|
Alright, let's start with a few points of agreement (hopefully):
1. The stated goal of Israel's blockade over Gaza is to cut off all weaponry and military supplies headed for Hamas, PIJ, etc.
2. International law mandates that if you blockade an enemy region, then you must provide humanitarian aid to its civilian population.
3. Israel is perceived around the world as a western-style democracy and enjoys all the benefits that come with that. Abandoning international law would be devastating on many fronts, such as trade, military assistance, cultural representation, immigration, tourism and so on.
Now, here is my first point:
Israel is incentivized to do the bare minimum required by international law while seeking its war objectives.
Why?
1. Because providing aid costs resources that could've otherwise gone into said war objectives.
2. Because feeding a population that a moment ago celebrated Oct 7th is not a popular idea among average joes who don't understand international law around blockades (and doubly so among rightwingers). I.e. political nightmare.
3. Because by providing for the Gazan population, you are essentially lifting that responsibility from Hamas; not to mention, feeding Hamas.
Now to contend with the information you pointed to.
It's true that aid was cut off for two months starting March 2nd. I think the reasonable thing to ask next is: why then? What happened around that time? Why not before and not after?
Well, March 1st was the scheduled end of the 1st phase of the ceasefire that came into effect during the last days of the Biden admin. Israel wanted to extend the phase and resume hostage & POW swaps, while Hamas pushed to proceed to phase 2 instead.
So the Israeli government decided it would try to pressure Hamas by enforcing an absolute blockade. By then, you have Trump in the White House, who in that time had already taken credit for Biden's progress, while doing absolutely nothing to make sure the deal lasts. But I digress.
Has Israel done the bare minimum in terms of providing aid? Well, let's see. Israel claimed in March that they expect the aid that came in prior to the new enforcement to last for 60 days. If we check COGAT's data in prior months, we do see a very significant bump in the numbers during January & February (likely in line with the ceasefire). In those months we see 164K and 216K tons, respectively.
The fact that this aid disruption came during a ceasefire, plus the calculated aid rationing - leads me to believe that, at least in the case of this specific enforcement, it was not used as a weapon of war, but rather to pressure Hamas and make them cave to the Israeli extension offer.
Later on, both the ceasefire and this type of enforcement fell through.
What do I think of it? Well, I think it was reckless and irresponsible. For one thing, I think the bare minimum is a very bad place to be in. I definitely don't like how negotiations were carried out given the above. And I don't see aid as the right pressure point to target, given the optics of collective punishment.
I also think Netanyahu cannot be trusted to phase out of this war without external pressure (hence my comments on Trump earlier). Netanyahu comes with his own set of incentives that complicate things further, but that's a whole other rabbit hole.
All in all, I don't think the evidence is there, in the case of the two month aid disruption, to call it starvation as a weapon of war.
(Which - sidenote - is my gripe with much of the discussion around this conflict. Things can be bad enough to warrant inquiries and indictments without being the most extreme and uncharitable things people can think of. Unfortunately extreme statements garner most of the attention.)
I realize now how long this post is, so let's first find out if we're on the same page with regards to all of the above before we go on to May 2025 and GHF.
|
I will also say, for the sake of my time and yours. I am not looking to converse with anyone who straight up supports Hamas in any way, ever; thinks leadership on both sides is morally comparable; or thinks that October 7th was in any way justified. If you claim to care about international law, I expect you to recognize that Hamas does not - and I expect you to vehemently oppose Hamas' conduct in every step of the way.
I am willing to discuss what I believe the current government of Israel is, and has been, doing in opposition to my moral stances and with regards to international law. What I am less excited about is conceding wrongdoing in good faith when the other side is simply being partisan, opportunistic and unprincipled.
I hope we are on the same page on that. You seem nice but I've been wrong before.
|
On October 22 2025 12:31 mindjames wrote:
Alright, let's start with a few points of agreement (hopefully):
1. The stated goal of Israel's blockade over Gaza is to cut off all weaponry and military supplies headed for Hamas, PIJ, etc.
2. International law mandates that if you blockade an enemy region, then you must provide humanitarian aid to its civilian population.
3. Israel is perceived around the world as a western-style democracy and enjoys all the benefits that come with that. Abandoning international law would be devastating on many fronts, such as trade, military assistance, cultural representation, immigration, tourism and so on.
Now, here is my first point:
Israel is incentivized to do the bare minimum required by international law while seeking its war objectives.
Why?
1. Because providing aid costs resources that could've otherwise gone into said war objectives.
2. Because feeding a population that a moment ago celebrated Oct 7th is not a popular idea among average joes who don't understand international law around blockades (and doubly so among rightwingers). I.e. political nightmare.
3. Because by providing for the Gazan population, you are essentially lifting that responsibility from Hamas; not to mention, feeding Hamas.
Now to contend with the information you pointed to.
It's true that aid was cut off for two months starting March 2nd. I think the reasonable thing to ask next is: why then? What happened around that time? Why not before and not after?
Well, March 1st was the scheduled end of the 1st phase of the ceasefire that came into effect during the last days of the Biden admin. Israel wanted to extend the phase and resume hostage & POW swaps, while Hamas pushed to proceed to phase 2 instead.
So the Israeli government decided it would try to pressure Hamas by enforcing an absolute blockade. By then, you have Trump in the White House, who in that time had already taken credit for Biden's progress, while doing absolutely nothing to make sure the deal lasts. But I digress.
Has Israel done the bare minimum in terms of providing aid? Well, let's see. Israel claimed in March that they expect the aid that came in prior to the new enforcement to last for 60 days. If we check COGAT's data in prior months, we do see a very significant bump in the numbers during January & February (likely in line with the ceasefire). In those months we see 164K and 216K tons, respectively.
The fact that this aid disruption came during a ceasefire, plus the calculated aid rationing - leads me to believe that, at least in the case of this specific enforcement, it was not used as a weapon of war, but rather to pressure Hamas and make them cave to the Israeli extension offer.
Later on, both the ceasefire and this type of enforcement fell through.
What do I think of it? Well, I think it was reckless and irresponsible. For one thing, I think the bare minimum is a very bad place to be in. I definitely don't like how negotiations were carried out given the above. And I don't see aid as the right pressure point to target, given the optics of collective punishment.
I also think Netanyahu cannot be trusted to phase out of this war without external pressure (hence my comments on Trump earlier). Netanyahu comes with his own set of incentives that complicate things further, but that's a whole other rabbit hole.
All in all, I don't think the evidence is there, in the case of the two month aid disruption, to call it starvation as a weapon of war.
(Which - sidenote - is my gripe with much of the discussion around this conflict. Things can be bad enough to warrant inquiries and indictments without being the most extreme and uncharitable things people can think of. Unfortunately extreme statements garner most of the attention.)
I realize now how long this post is, so let's first find out if we're on the same page with regards to all of the above before we go on to May 2025 and GHF.
You have written a long post to say why Israel is incentivised to commit crimes against humanity. No, duh. Of course there are incentives. There's also incentives to just nuke Gaza. The reason you can't just nuke Gaza, or starve Gaza, or chemically castrate all Gazans, or any number of other inhuman policies isn't because you have no reason to. It's because as a global society, we have come together and decided that there are rules to waging war. War is a horrible affair regardless, but there are things that we agreed on to protect the humans that are caught in the middle of it, regardless of their culpability.
The problem isn't that Israel has no incentive to go beyond the bare minimum required. It's that they have not done the bare minimum. They have wantonly slaughtered civilians, with international targeting of hospitals and schools, willingly starved them, and committed a bunch of other war crimes. That Hamas also committed war crimes does not excuse Israel, especially not at the scale they have done so.
|
@Arcofales
I'm happy to respond to you the moment you revisit the first sentence of your reply and consider whether that is a charitable reading of my post.
If not, no worries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cKcJ55M.png)
