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

No it is not a sign that the poll is not accurate. And that poll is shocking. however it is clear from the BBC video that there are people who are compassionate towards the Palestinians.

Of course there are some people who are feeling a level of compassion. I haven't denied that there are some. Do I believe that that is what drives the majority who want the conflict to end, no I don't. I mean if what the person from Standing Together said is to be believed the majority don't even know what is happening.

OK. Your feelings about Israeli's are pretty clear then.

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. I'd love for nothing more than to see the majority of the IDF refuse to continue enabling and committing war crimes. I'd love for nothing more than to see a mass movement of Israelis fighting their government to allow desperately needed aid to flow freely into Gaza now before it's too late. I'm am only commenting on what I have seen to date and being real that is very little, not nothing there are Israelis who are as horrified as the rest of us but over all very little.

Yes and the uk should be stepping up even if it means falling out with the arrogant Israelis.

So you want to see Hamas remain in power in Gaza then? Rearming and refunding for more Oct 7ths and perpetual conflict while their own children are used as human sacrifices?

I don’t think the majority of Israelis would agree with you there.

I hope not or they’d be chickens voting for KFC really wouldn’t they?

Would you, if you were Israeli?

Fighting in a war is not ‘ enabling and committing war crimes’ btw.

Would you be OK with the UK ((assuming you are in the UK) having no military to defend us?

So if we’re invaded and tens of thousands of us are slaughtered, thousands of women gang raped. tortured, thousands taken hostage etc, (your family even), you’d be perfectly fine with not fighting back?

If footage of thousands protesting, holding up photos of children in Gaza, carry sacks of flour and banners saying 'not in our name' isn't proof enough then I'm not sure what would be.
Everyone like you talk about the Israeli government and the Israeli people as one thing, yet if people lumped all Gazans in with Hamas and their desire to destroy all jews you'd rightly say that was incorrect.
I don't believe many mothers could look at what has happened (on either side) and not care. Obviously you do.

Starmer is more worried about falling out with Trump. I guess he's scared of losing his precious "deal" 🙄 personally I would tell Trump to fuck off and take his pathetic tariffs with him. UK should be stronger with Europe not dancing to Trump's tune!

The BBC is reporting that Keir Starmer has “suggested” that the UK will play a role in dropping aid into Gaza by air after the unrest amongst MPs.Lets hope those MPs are aware that “aid drops “ are a con and that the borders need to be open to allow ALL of the needed (and waiting) aid in.

Starmer will know about aid drops being a con. But he won’t care because it will make it look like they are doing something without actually doing something.

Your post has very little to do with what I actually wrote.

Fighting in a war isn’t war crimes, correct, but what about… “the starvation of Gaza's civilians, the failure to protect them during military operations in which Israeli forces killed tens of thousands of innocents, and the wanton destruction of entire towns in a manner that is not proportionate to the military risk Israel faces.

Netanyahu and his former defence minister are the subject of arrest warrants for war crimes issued by the International Criminal Court”

I’m quoting the BBC as it’s a decent news source.

And re your last paragraph, doesn’t a lot of that also ‘justify’ what Hamas are doing? Fighting back against people who have, at the very least, invaded their land and killed family, friends, neighbours, children and possibly ticked off more of the awful crimes you’ve listed both before and after the horrendous acts on 7th Oct. I’m not saying I support any of Hamas’s horrendous actions but I’m not sure why Israel should be able to use that reasoning and it not apply to the other side. With the same reasoning, I would suggest that Israel is creating many more terrorists by killing so many innocent people and starving a whole population. They are creating more hatred rather than reducing it and any country supporting their war crimes is likely going to become a terrorist target too.

No, Hamas should not be in power but the only alternative isn’t destroying all infrastructure and killing so many innocent people. As I’ve said before, Israel have shown great skill in targeting individuals from a distance and in war every decision has to be weighed up against how many innocent lives will be lost. Israel are making choices militarily that mean a lot of innocent lives have been lost. I’m still keen to understand how you can describe them as ‘good’ in this battle even if we agree Hamas are ‘evil’.

Here’s a view from the Arab world:

https://x.com/amjadt25/status/1949024867459776805

Stop posting bullshit propoganda from X. Amjad Taha does not represent the Arab world in any case.

X (like any social media) is it a good source for trustworthy information. Using it to make a point massively weakens your argument.

What ridiculous arguments. Complaining about content from X is like complaining about content from 'newspapers'. Perfectly decent intelligent reliable people post on X alongside absolute morons. A bit like mumsnet really. You still have to research the person and evaluate what they say regardless of what medium they are on.

On this one we actually agree! I typically get my official government statements from social media - as well as solid stuff on a wide range of topics.

The key is being able to tell the difference between ...

1. Serious person/org I generally agree with
2. Serious person/org I generally disagree with
3. Trolls, edgelords, conspiracy theorists, your neighbour with his hot takes

Who said he represents the Arab world?

Did he not say that then, because it was posted on X?

But if you have posted multiple times asserting ‘facts’ and the only source you eventually use to support your argument is an individual from X, it massively weakens your argument. If you are going to use X to access reliable news, fine, but quote directly from that reliable source.

I guess it depends who you consider trustworthy, depending if they fit in with your narrative, for a lot of people.

I consider this Palestinian very genuine with important things to say on behalf of Palestinian children but his speech in the European Parliament was posted on X so does that make the post untrustworthy?

https://x.com/Adi13/status/1948925391428522090

Its not X thats the issue then is it. If you have a problem with the quoted source, explain. He'll be right or wrong regardless of whether he wrote on the back of an envelope or posted on X.

But can you not see the difference between quoting a ‘media personality’ on X and suggesting they represent the ‘Arab World’ vs using it to connect you to clips like this one?

As you say - a real mix of people post on X so I would check anything on there against an actual credible source. I think quoting someone from X is much weaker than directly quoting or linking a proper source.

An important consideration for me though is the MSM are often not reporting stuff that I can see on X with quite a bit of fact checking already done, or they are reporting it from a one sided or distorted angle.

The recent reports on the incidents involving the Holy Family Church in Gaza and the village of Taybeh were cases in point IMO.

Social media literacy 101, regardless of topic and personal stance:

1. Is the person's identity verifiable?

1. If yes: what are their stances, affiliations, are they typical or untypical of the group(s) or perspective(s) they claim to represent? What are their qualifications/claims to expertise, and do those match how they frame the issue(s) they post about?

1. If no: assume unreliable unless they have a proven track record of posting things that turn out to be accurate and/or insightful analysis. There can be legitimate reasons why someone wants to remain anonymous.

1. Traditional media absolutely deserve the same scrutiny. It's not as though they're as impartial as they claim.

Edit: yay me - thoroughly fucked up the numbered list. Not fixing!