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

The Arab nations and France have put conditions on Hamas. It’s just Starmer with a bizarre take.

If there is nothing that can be done and Hamas stay in place then it really is sad for Gazans.

ETA and Israel at threat.

It always comes back to … but Hamas

little point trying to debate anything in a sensible manner on this website anymore imo.

The world can see what is going on anyway

@mnhq have you actually looked at how these threads display when you expand quote? It’s an absolute dogs dinner. Completely unreadable. Just saying.

Well yes. Hamas started the war and theyre one of two parties that can end it. So, pretty crucial, and yes it'll always come back to it.

The inverse argument 'But Israel' wouldn't make much sense to argue against would it?

Of course Hamas, and of course Israel.

🙄

I agree that we should all be seeking facts. But surely the actual undeniable facts will be uncovered after the war is over. History books will regale the full extent of atrocities. Hamas’s tactics, movements and atrocities will be more understood as will Israel’s approach and what was happening behind closed doors. So I’m not sure what indisputable facts are available to us now. We can’t trust Hamas ‘facts’, we can’t trust the Israeli government ‘facts’ (or can you?), we can’t be sure everyone else involved are reporting facts (UN, NGOs etc), although I still believe those bodies are much more reliable/closer to the truth than the warring parties.

So we must wade through the information we are able to read/see and use those accounts, reports, opinion pieces to shape our opinion. And everyone is free to put as much or as little weight on various accounts and use them to support their arguments. They must also accept that people may deem their weighting wrong (on both sides). What I think is challenging is when it appears the pro-Israel side is hell bent on casting suspicion on anyone who condemns Israel, even if they also agree that Israel has done wrong. Suddenly, the UN, reputable charities, aid workers, drs working in war zones have agendas that include supporting a terrorist organisation and or being raging antisemites. It seems a huge stretch with little/no evidence that that is the case.

As I’ve previously mentioned, a lot of NGOs have interacted with Israel for a long time and they have seen the dynamic between ordinary Palestinians and the Israeli government and army. They are not anti Israel in the sense that it shouldn’t exist, they are anti Israel in its approach to the Palestinian people. I think if you’d seen Israel’s treatment of Palestine first hand for a long period of time, you’d be pretty sceptical/concerned about what they hoped to do in Gaza and report accordingly so that it hopefully didn’t happen.

And I know it’s not a court of law but I genuinely think the ‘evidence’ or sources provided on the pro Israel side have been few and far between or deeply bias. I don’t think Charlie Kirk, for example, is equal to an MSF or Jonathan Sarcedoti is more on top of the ‘facts’ than UN-run bodies. Maybe there’ll be uproar at this but I think if we are looking for fact, then opinion pieces by individuals with clear bias are the last place we should be looking for facts.

In your opinion. There’s nothing wrong with the poster who is sensible. Even if some disagree.

It’s actually a bit mad that you consider someone who holds views that support terrorism an “activist”.

But regardless. I don’t know what you are saying by sharing the first link, it’s an example of advocacy work that MSF do. They don’t just rely on staff accounts, they use medical evidence also and they also have a research arm actually.

With the accusations that terrorist supporters/terrorists have worked and volunteered for them. I think an awful lot of mud has been thrown at any organisation that criticise Israel. Israeli spokespeople have said that every doctor in Gaza supports Hamas as reasoning for the high numbers of medical staff that have been killed by Israel. On the other hand it is entirely possible that people would slip through their vetting process.

Having experienced their work, and having worked in this area. I think they are a very effective organisation and I admire their advocacy work which ultimately makes all their work more difficult.

@EasternStandard

Well, let’s face it, it’s the vast majority of the world’s opinion by now. But if you want to knock around in a little echo chamber thinking you’re making a difference, you do you. As I said, little point trying to actually debate anything on here these days really is it. In my opinion.

Sure, reading the CITME threads are not compulsory.

Given the new announcement recently it’s interesting to read other pp views on that. No one has to. And given people are disagreeing it’s not an ‘echo chamber’.

I don’t think expecting little from a terrorist organisation is excusing Hamas. It is merely being realistic. A terrorist organisation isn’t going to follow any laws - they have zero regard from them. Their aim is to break laws and terrorise people. Everyone knows that terrorists are the bad guy. I don’t think anyone, including @Alexandra2001 is hoping for a Hamas victory.

You can deem it unfair that states are held to a higher standard than terrorists groups but to expect anything different is unrealistic. Obviously, they are not equal. Terrorism is grounded in hate. That’s never going to lead to law abiding, mr nice guy behaviour. On the flip side, states, especially western democracies, have put themselves on a pedestal to a certain degree and said that this is what the good guy looks like. We are meant to be ‘saving’ the world from alternative models of government that will end in disaster, exporting democracy as the gold standard of statehood. Meanwhile, terrorists are hateful murderers.

I think it is really important to reiterate that the pro-Palestinian movement is, for the most part (because it of course will be used as a cover for extremism) agree that Hamas have acted terribly. They want Palestine to be free of them. But they also see the acts of Israel in the war against Hamas (or prior to this, the treatment of Palestinian people day to day) and find it increasingly unacceptable. Yes, Hamas escalated the conflict between the two sides but the military approach of Israel has to be condemned. If only to stop Putin, for example, from carpet bombing Ukraine because we no longer care about ‘the cost of war’.

@PinkBobbyhow do you see Gaza being free from Hamas? How do they get to that stage?

My post is QT replying to your post which says

we're talking about decades long occupation which Israel considers indefinite. Plus it does not work and most likely contributed to preventing any pathway to peace

We weren't talking about letting aid in. We were talking about what you refer to as a decades long occupation and I was asking what alternative you suggest.

I think failing to recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a bit more than a 'flaw'.
Did I say it was just a flaw? You initially mentioned "flaws" in the context of the UN not me. The UN hasn't universally agreed the definition of "terrorism" so it's not just exclusive to Hamas and highlights the difficulty with 193 member states trying to agree on something, they get around it I guess by maintaining sanctions with groups associated with terrorism.

I can't see where this is going tbh.
It was never going anywhere so not sure why you pulled out my comment on Hamas to begin with I was only stating a fact.

Couple of weeks here and my impression is that Pro Israel people (ie those who don't think Israel is evil) provide plenty of evidence for their beliefs and it's met with anger , scorn, dismissal, and a variety of very unpleasant behaviour.

Just a heads up that sentence you quoted was me not @Alexandra2001 think you're mixing our posts up.

Charlie Kirk isn't a source of fact, he's a source of opinion. Same for MSF unless they're providing verified data.

Ah my apologies. Alexandra, I was replying to a post and you have taken my post out of context.

I am not a military expert so I don’t know the full capabilities of the Israeli army or even what military options exist in these times. What I have seen is Israel’s ability to very carefully target individuals in other countries without killing any civilians, presumably so they don’t start a war with a neighbouring state. I believe a slower and more deliberate approach would’ve saved many innocent lives. I believe the widespread bombing of civilians means more Hamas recruits and more innocent lives lost. I think they’re approach is massively disproportionate and whilst I don’t know how Hamas can actually be defeated without conflict, I really cannot see the best way to get rid of Hamas being by giving Palestinians a reason to support them.

Yes exactly.

I think we generally do provide evidence to back up for our opinions and answer the questions asked to the best of our ability, without feeling the need to exaggerate or twist someone’s words.

To be fair @PinkBobby did say they weren’t targeting you with that comment about lack of evidence. But I’m not actually sure who they could have been meaning apart from the one poster they mentioned (no idea if that was fair or not).

I’m impressed by how well the pro Israel side do debate ( or non Israel haters, as you say). I appreciate most people on this board don’t agree with our opinions. But that’s a different matter to criticising our style of debating.

I was really hoping I wouldn’t have to trawl through hundreds of posts to support this point as I hoped my general approach to this debate would mean people wouldn’t think I was just sh*t stirring.

my preference would be for you, @Voxon and @SharonEllis to provide me with 3 places you get news about Israel from which you deem trustworthy. Alternatively, I have to spend god knows how long rereading this post to name and shame. Which isn’t really how I want to spend my time. I’m pretty sure I have asked @Voxon this question before and she replied along the lines of reading multiple sources and then forming an opinion from there. But if anyone could just do a list of places where I can get the pro-Israel perspective that is as unbiased as possible, that would be great. Please don’t make me read 900+ posts. My kids get up so early 😂

Actually, I did write '/pro-terrorist' and deleted it - as he still appears to be in post as the Rector of the University of Glasgow and successfully fought off an application by the GMC to suspend him from practicing (in relation to similar social media posts). He also gave evidence to the ICJ for South Africa's genocide case against Israel - but yes, it's all a bit mad if he holds views that support terrorism and is considered a reliable witness/public servant.

I don’t know what you are saying by sharing the first link, it’s an example of advocacy work that MSF do

I was replying to your post when you said; 'they [MSF] aren’t political in the sense that they support a particular political ideology or they wouldn’t call for voting for a particular candidate' - yes, I know, they called for Australia to issue sanctions against Israel - that sort of political.

Israeli spokespeople have said that every doctor in Gaza supports Hamas

Have they?

That’s the point I’m making - that if we can’t guarantee there are any/many facts out there, we can still rank opinions or reports that may be bias. And I’m not sure how anyone can question the UN or an NGO but suggest an option piece is ‘good’ evidence.

This is so bizarre. 3 of us seem to be in the dock for some reason and the fact that, to use your phrase, you are looking to 'name and shame' well, I'm not sure Im interested. I use a very large range of sources. If there is something specific I've said that requires a reference go ahead and ask.

Maybe it won’t need military action. Looking at this recent take

‘Under a plan led by Jean-Noel Barrot, the French foreign minister, Arab states agreed to isolate Hamas in return for European recognition of Palestinian statehood before – rather than after – a final deal with Israel.’

I get my news from a wide range of sources from across the political spectrum. I read them all then I make my own mind up where I think the truth lies.

Examples of sources I read to follow the war in Gaza - & I accept they are all biased in different ways but together they allow me to form what I believe is a balanced opinion.

The BBC, Reuters, Times of Israel, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Spectator, Sky News & even Al Jazeera (though their bias is so blatant).

I take your point about your kids & honestly it’s never worth trawling through hundreds of posts. I did that once as someone was pushing me for evidence of something. When I found the post that proved my point they said it wasn’t relevant anyway 😂

So back to the original post

How is forced starvation allowed?