How is forced starvation allowed?

[Tinycatnoise]

The top story in the BBC right now is the starvation of Gazans by Israel. The images are horrifying and not dissimilar to seeing those images of concentration camps in Nazi Germany. I cried seeing those and am crying now. I am sure someone will claim antisemitism because of this statement, but anyone looking at these images of starving children would agree.

How is this still going on? I feel like we are watching a genocide take place that the world has turning a blind eye to. The daily shooting by Israel of people trying to get aid too is just barbaric. If nothing is being done to stop this, what is the next horror that will unfold in the world that people will just accept?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9xkx7vnmxo

So the only option was an illegal occupation? Which is collectively punishing over 2 million civilians? Controlling people and limiting their freedoms never works

Your exact words “Another key one is that the UN can’t or won’t operate without guarantees… although Israel offered them military protection, they declined. Something Hamas could provide tomorrow if they were even slightly concerned about starving children.”

Let’s be clear:
The UN hasn’t refused to deliver aid- they’ve said repeatedly that it’s not safe to operate because of Israeli bombardment, the killing of aid workers, and the lack of secure humanitarian corridors. They’ve asked for safety guarantees from Israel, which have not been met. Not just once, but systematically.

Suggesting this is somehow the UN’s fault, or that it could all be solved if Hamas simply offered a ceasefire is ridiculous. Aid groups don’t get to operate safely just because a non-state actor says so- they need concrete guarantees from the state carrying out the bombardment, which is Israel.

It’s misleading to blame humanitarian agencies for not running suicide missions under fire.

You accused journalists of exploiting a disabled child to “push a famine story”- that’s a serious charge. But again, the framing misleads.

The child you referenced is both disabled and severely malnourished. Medical experts and human rights monitors have verified widespread child hunger and wasting in Gaza. It’s not either/or- famine and disability aren’t mutually exclusive.

Instead of engaging with the catastrophic reality- that this child is literally starving to death in a war zone under siege- you cast doubt and suggest manipulation. That’s not accountability. That’s deflection.

You claimed, “a lot of people here aren’t driven by compassion” and then doubled down by saying “you are a great example.” Please, give me examples of where I have “bashed Israel”.

That’s not debate.

Questioning people’s motives for expressing horror at the deaths of thousands of children doesn’t make you principled. It makes you cruel. People are rightly angry because mass suffering is being dismissed, downplayed, or spun.

This isn’t about “bashing Israel.” It’s about telling the truth about what is happening to Palestinian civilians and refusing to look away.

You said: “This entire war exists because some people don’t believe Jews have the right to live, let alone live freely in their ancestral homeland.”

That’s not historical context- it’s a rhetorical smokescreen.

The war isn’t being waged because people question Jewish existence. It’s being waged in real time against a captive civilian population, with mass displacement, mass hunger, and thousands of children killed. Pointing that out isn’t antisemitic.

You’re trying to collapse all criticism of the Israeli state- including its government’s actions, its military conduct, and its treatment of Palestinians into a denial of Jewish existence. That’s a dangerous conflation.

As for Hamas: yes, they have a horrifying charter and committed horrifying acts. No one here is defending that. But invoking Hamas every time Israeli state violence is mentioned is a tactic- not an argument.

If you care about human rights, then you should be able to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinian civilians without immediately shifting the conversation to absolve a nuclear-backed state dropping bombs on refugee camps.

Raising evidence-based concerns about humanitarian violations, aid obstruction, or the disproportionate impact on civilians is not “bashing Israel.” It’s what any compassionate, thinking person should do- regardless of who the perpetrator is.

I have never denied Israel’s right to exist, never denied its people safety, and I certainly don’t condone Hamas or hate of any kind.

What I do take issue with is:

• Children starving behind blockades
• Journalists being killed
• Convoys being bombed
• Aid being blocked
• Facts being twisted to suit a narrative

None of this is anti-Israel. It’s pro-truth. It’s pro-accountability. If anything, it’s anti-impunity and that’s something we should all stand for.

So if you’re going to accuse me of “bashing Israel,” back it up. Quote me. Show me. Otherwise, stop using that label to shut down valid, evidenced criticism.

That’s a poor answer from the UN but ultimately asking for for guarantees of safety and asking for an armed escort are two very different things. Guarantees of safety could involve many things; from allowing the UN to have clearance equipment for unexploded items that is on their path to getting a guarantee that a designated route is not an active combat zone. I was reading about how staff suffer from shut downs in communications which is obviously an impediment to their safety,

You have to remember that 300 staff have died because of Israeli strikes and ground operations, some while delivering aid. There are cases of aid workers who died even when their location was known. So in this context it is clear what he is asking for I think.

I am not sure why people cite international law really. Partly because it should be pretty obvious that it is against international law for the terrorists in the country next door to act on an agenda of destroying your country and killing your citizens. And if they do, you have both the right and the duty to defend your citizens.

Blockades, including restrictions on goods, are permitted under international humanitarian law in certain circumstances, such as when they serve a legitimate military objective (e.g. stopping weapons smuggling), but beyond that when Hamas fires rockets, kills civilians, or crosses into Israel to commit mass murder, Israel is legally entitled to respond. Self-defence applies until the threat is neutralised, not just until international observers feel uncomfortable.

There is no “perfectly clean” way to dismantle a terrorist group embedded in a civilian population.

Israel is left with three choices:

Do nothing - and let citizens be murdered, indefinitely, and just keep spending billions on defense and wait until the next attack.

I suspect a lot of people would like option 1, and are rooting for Hamas to succeed in their mission of destroying Israel - certainly many people were out on or shortly after 7 October saying exactly that.

Option 2 is to use force - and get condemned for civilian harm, even when Hamas causes it.

Option 3 is to negotiate - but negotiation is pointless because the people they are negotiating with have openly said they only want to destroy Israel and accept nothing less.

International law gives Israel tools to defend itself - but no amount of legal framework removes the core problem: Hamas is committed to endless war. And no one has yet offered a better solution.

I am not saying I agree with everything Israel does, but this is the basic problem. No, you are right, the blockade didn't work, but I think choosing the blockade to prevent weapons import and terrorism, along with spending vast sums of money on very expensive defence systems was the least violent option.

I agree with the problem and that no one has said how it can be resolved.

Right... so continue bombing Gaza, kill another 60k or maybe 500k who knows.... no ceasefire, no destruction of Hamas and those poor hostages rot or are bombed...

Because thats what you re arguing for, a deal is either done with Hamas or it isn't, if not then rinse repeat the war so far....

Back in the day, the PLO were kicked out of Lebanon & sent to Tunis, its happened before.

& don't put words in mouth, i'm not excusing anyone, least of all Hamas.... another example of the pro Israeli posters trying to shut down anyone they disagree with.

Of course its anti Israel if you blame Israel alone, hold them solely accountable, pretend there was not some agency from Hamas (and others) , and pretend Israel had easy alternatives, and don't produce an alternative scenario beyond 'don't kill people' which is not a credible position when Hamas's raison d'etre us literally killing people.

How is she shutting you down? What actual power does she have to stop you posting?

You are again misrepresenting.

I did not say 80% was stolen. I said 80% was stolen OR intercepted. As you quoted me yourself!!!

I did not say "Hamas Affiliated Looters" I said "Armed Actors INCLUDING Hamas-affiliated looters". You are misrepresenting my words by skipping out half the sentence!

Screenshot included of what I actually said.
Screenshot included of what the UN actually said on the report.

So what I said was correct.

80% (actually 85% I think!) of the trucks are EITHER stolen OR intercepted - and that is as stated peacefully by hungry people OR by "Armed Actors" - obviously the armed actors forcefully taking control of the trucks do include Hamas Affiliated Looters so why are you pretending it doesn't???

You're telling me what I'm arguing for, then accusing me of putting words in your mouth? 🙄

Can you answer my question?

You said this-
'Only one side can facilitate this and thats the Israeli Govt, not Hamas, as they are a terrorist organisation and do not operate inside normal democratic values.. to put it mildly.'

I'm asking why youre saying only Israel can facilitate this? Why can't Hamas? Why, despite it being a terrorist organization, can it not surrender. Theyre men who can make decisions for those they represent and for themselves. Why can't they facilitate peace?

To be clear. Im not arguing for the war to continue for God's sake! I want it to stop as much as you do! Im arguing for Hamas to surrender, disarm, disband, return hostages and f off forever. They could do that. Its within their power. Why do you say that it isnt, and that only Israel can facilitate it?

Are you actually arguing that Hamas is not objectively a terrorist organisation? Seriously?

The thing that never happens, keeps happening.

Sorry, I meant to quote @Alexandra2001 on this. Could you answer my question?

No it was stated as a fact but unfortunately it is only a fact in some countries not all which I was highlighting. I view them as such as does the UK but you can see from this list there are a lot of states that don't

The thing that never happens, keeps happening.
What thing?

The poster I was responding to made a stated a number of facts I was merely highlighting where it wasn't always a fact.

Sorry facts are not context dependent like that. By any normal standards Hamas is a terrorist organisation. And anyway, we are in the UK so I don't give a shit what the Iranians or whoever think and its a ludicrous argument.

Sigh. Let's try handling this one at a time.

Let’s be clear:
The UN hasn’t refused to deliver aid- they’ve said repeatedly that it’s not safe to operate because of Israeli bombardment, the killing of aid workers, and the lack of secure humanitarian corridors. They’ve asked for safety guarantees from Israel, which have not been met. Not just once, but systematically.
Suggesting this is somehow the UN’s fault, or that it could all be solved if Hamas simply offered a ceasefire is ridiculous. Aid groups don’t get to operate safely just because a non-state actor says so- they need concrete guarantees from the state carrying out the bombardment, which is Israel.

Israel has offered to give the UN safe passage and protection to ensure they are safe.

The UN has refused unilaterally to accept this.

Here is a video of the UN admitting this, and when questioned on the mindfuck contradiction of saying Israel is responsible for their safety but that they will not accept Israel's protection, their response is that they need a ceasefire.

https://x.com/EYakoby/status/1948846975677276252?t=zl8_-CWXVQ3B0JS6VSE6CA&s=19

Please have a watch and come back and share your thoughts now you have this new information. For ease I will transcribe loosely the video:

Journalist: you just said that the UN would not accept security support in Gaza from any of the warring parties?

The UN: that is correct

Journalist: But hasn't the UN said that as the occupying power in Gaza Israel has the responsibility to provide security

The UN: It has a responsibility to ensure that we are safe. It's pretty obvious we'd be an even greater target if we were surrounded by armed soldiers during this conflict. The best protection is for this conflict to stop.

Journalist: I understand that but there still seems to be a contradiction here because on the one hand you're saying Israel is responsible for the security of humanitarian delivery and on the other hand the UN will not accept IDF provided security to these convoys, so I'm not sure how you reconcile that?

The UN: I think we reconcile it by trying to keep our people as safe as possible. okay, on that note...byeee!!!

Do you or do you not feel this might be the reason Israel cannot provide them with safety guarantees? How the fuck are they meant to do that?????

Also worth pointing out: MSF took exactly the same tone in Ukraine. They documented the bombing of maternity wards
no one said they were “anti-Russian” activists. People understood that reporting on medical harm isn’t political, it’s their job

The tone seems different to me here as they don't apportion blame, although admittedly I have only looked for one example from Ukraine;

We are horrified to hear reports that a hospital complex including a maternity ward in Mariupol was struck in an attack today. While we can’t confirm that this was a targeted attack, we know from our staff that houses and hospitals have been damaged during the fighting over the past days.

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/ukraine-hospital-mariupol-struck-attack

Whereas, when the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital was hit on 17 Oct 2023, MSF immediately blamed Israel for a massacre;

@ MSF
We are horrified by the recent Israeli bombing of Ahli Arab Hospital in #Gaza City, which was treating patients and hosting displaced Gazans. Hundreds of people have reportedly been killed. This is a massacre. It is absolutely unacceptable...
8:30 PM · Oct 17, 2023

The Al-Ahli Arab Hospital is the hospital likely hit by a misfired Hamas rocket - or at the very least the cause is contested.

MSF also quoted one of their doctors, Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, the source of their information that evening, who held a press conference in Gaza shortly after the hospital was hit.

Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah is a pro-Palestinian activist and very political;

@ GhassanAbuSitt1
History will eventually show that when Western leaders (USA, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Holland) descended on Israel in the week after the 7th October they agreed with Netanyahu on the genocidal project and gave the ok for the Final Solution of the Palestinians and as a problem population.
11:36 AM · Jul 26, 2025

British-Palestinian doctor calls out 'axis of genocide' at BDS event;

https://www.newarab.com/news/ghassan-abu-sitta-calls-out-axis-genocide-uk-bds-event

They’re not a political pressure group

To be fair they seem to act like one;

Doctors Without Borders slams EU's 'hypocrisy' over Gaza, urges action to stop mass atrocities.
MSF says Israel's actions amount to 'orchestrated ethnic cleansing,' accuses EU of complicity through inaction.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/doctors-without-borders-slams-eus-hypocrisy-over-gaza-urges-action-to-stop-mass-atrocities/3633829

Also, I read that Rima Hassan, the French-Palestinian MEP and activist on board the Madleen with Greta Thunberg, recently served as an MSF board member.

I’d have to go back through the thread to find examples beyond @Anonimummy who only sticks in mind because I asked directly so many times and eventually gave up! My point though is that people providing evidence to support their points aren’t nitpicking evidence, they’re just trying to make a good argument using evidence. And the best way to question evidence is by providing an alternate report or review. The people who are unable or refuse to share any sources, even when asked are, to me, suspicious purely because they cannot back up what they are saying with any form of evidence. So I get that this isn’t a court of law but we are debating a very serious topic and I think for it to stay productive, people need to provide sources.

And I’m sorry you felt the he said/she said was nit picking. I think I just really struggle to understand the ability to ignore or disregard so much evidence by the ‘pro’ Israel side. I understand being critical of sources but I’m not sure I see enough ‘wrong’ with the evidence I’m looking at to totally disregard it. Meanwhile, I don’t see much more than the Israeli government line on the other side and I find that a tough one to believe now. I think the history of interactions between the two countries, the things govt. members have said about Palestinian people (boldly and with no shame, seemingly) are really troubling. That together with the wide spread bombing and limiting of aid points to a potentially sinister plan for the area.

I actually think there’s a lot of agreement here - acceptance that Israel (govt and military) has done wrong, consensus that Hamas are definitely not the ‘good’ guy and that both sides are hurting civilians. I think the sticking point is whether Israel or Hamas are responsible for ‘fixing’ the problem. I can see the argument re handing back hostages and it all ends tomorrow. But I think that massively disregards the way Palestinians have had to live for a long time. And the hatred that will have been created by destroying so many homes. I fear that although Hamas escalated the conflict massively, Israel have made it impossible for it to end quickly or easily because of their treatment of the Palestinians people. At this point, I’m not sure how they get rid of Hamas because their actions must be helping Hamas recruit people. And I’m not sympathising with Hamas. But I do sympathise for the innocent people who have nothing to lose - no family left, no home or freedom being locked into this cycle of extremism. It’s really worrying. I think Israel’s only option is to continue to keep the Palestinian people oppressed after this war as they can’t guarantee the removal of Hamas. Yes, that’s on Hamas for hiding in plain sight but, like the report I shared a few posts ago, controlling a whole population as if they are all a security threat and limiting their access to their own farm land or no allowing them to have electricity or build schools is also not something we should accept.

@Clavinova With MSF , they aren’t political in the sense that they support a particular political ideology or they wouldn’t call for voting for a particular candidate. This is not allowed in many countries anyway:

They do however undertake advocacy work. Which means they use what their front line staff see and experience to put pressure on various governments, the UN and other relevant parties to do things that will improve the humanitarian situation on the ground.

Some NGOs remain completely silent, so they don’t comment on the causes of a crisis or call on governments to act. MSF speak out against injustice. They make no secret of this. It is one of their core principles and they have an advocacy team.

I agree with you on a lot and disagree with you on a lot, but appreciate that you have conversations in good faith.

One thing that would be very helpful for people is to understand the difference between facts and opinions.

Saying "Amnesty says such and such" is not evidence that such and such is true - it is just Amnesty's opinion.

For example, they believe trans women (biological men) should be able to compete in women's sports. That isn't proof that this is a fact, it is just their opinion and one I strenuously object to.

There are some things which will always be subjective - but there is also always facts and your subjective opinion will always be formed by the facts you have in your possession. People should aim to have all the facts they can.

You should just listen to the plastic surgeon very recently returned from Gaza being interviewed on channel 4 tonight. Just scandalous and beyond human comprehension, the stories she is telling.

Sorry facts are not context dependent like that
Why?

And anyway, we are in the UK so I don't give a shit what the Iranians or whoever think and its a ludicrous argument.
I'm not arguing anything I was pretty shocked by the small number of states that have designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation I was merely highlighting it. If you don't give a shit why are you arguing me about it.

Because Israel are the democratic Govt, they should be operating within international law, they hold the moral high ground.

Hamas by definition operate outside of any of this.

We have influence over Israel, we gave none over Hamas, Iran does but good luck getting them on side, though the nuclear deal could provide leverage?

As i said, my concern is to stop the fighting, get the aid in, release the hostages, perhaps and obv i don't know if this would work, let Hamas in Gaza go to Iran etc.

The alternative is war and death of Gazans and the hostages, i cannot imagine what they are going through, its beyond comprehension.

Saying "Amnesty says such and such" is not evidence that such and such is true - it is just Amnesty's opinion.
Yes it's their opinion I would suggest an informed opinion.

The difficulty we have in this, which has been mentioned many times is the absence of independent assessors and journalists in Gaza. This leaves a massive vacuum. What Israel has which the Palestinians don't as much, is a voice and a platform. We hear from their ministers, Netanyahu, their military, their ambassadors and so on. The only voice Palestinians have which has any legitimacy is from the ngos and doctors working in Gaza. That is all we have to rely on to get some kind of picture of what is the reality on the ground. If that is continually discredited by Israel, who should we listen to? It can't be the Israeli government or the IDF because they are involved in the conflict and will have a bias and an element of propaganda

So if you're a terrorist you dont have to follow law and you're allowed to operate outside of it? Why?

Why are the government of Israel expected to end the war, while the government of Gaza is not expected to, because we've named them terrorists? They are still people. They are still one side of the negotiations. Why are they not expected to end the war?