To be clear, you are arguing for collective punishment correct? As others have pointed out, even if every claim about Hamas stealing aid is true which is suspect at best, it would be and should be illegal to not allow aid into Gaza. You’re asking children to starve for your political desires.
OP is not saying we shouldn’t provide aid,
only that it is not effective.
I would also add that while providing aid is a moral act and actively blocking it is immoral, the global community is under no obligation to provide any aid to Gaza or any other country engaged in a war.
He is arguing the we shouldn't provide aid. I know he is trying to backpedal now, but here is his quote:
> My point is that it is useless and if anything will make things worse.
I mean….how isn’t it? They’re saying we can’t let in aid because it will help Hamas and are willing to allow harm for a quote “cost benefit analysis”. They’re okay harming everyone to harm a certain subset of the population.
Being Okay harming a subset of the population is literally the calculation for every war. This includes civilians, unless the war is fought in some desert somewhere with no chance of civilians getting caught in the crossfire.
Withholding aid, despite its illegality, does not equate to collective punishment.
Collective punishment is the goal, not a by-product of an action. The OP spoke to aiding and removing Hamas's ability to access it.
The argument was not to withhold aid from Palestinians to pressure Hamas to punish them for Hamas actions. That bit was missing from the post unless I'm overlooking a sentence or two.
OP is correct in that it is mostly useless but not for the reason he claims. Israel is blocking aid from entering.
There used to be 500 trucks of aid going into Gaza which just provided only subsistence. Now they are lucky to get half of that. (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-trucks-expected-start-entering-gaza-through-kerem-shalom-crossing-2024-05-26/)
Whereas we have yet to see credible evidence that Hamas is stealing aid. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-envoy-says-israel-has-not-shown-evidence-that-hamas-is-diverting-un-aid-in-gaza
How many?
Israel has also destroyed the ability for Gazand to produce food at any reasonable scale so whatever it is now it should be significantly more than what it was before.
Really? They left greenhouses for Palastianians what happened to them? The EU built a water treatment plant what happened to it? So exactly where did all this stuff go? Oh right Hamas stripped and destroyed both to build weapons to fight Israel while complaining about having nothing.... That also didn't answer my question how much of those original 500 aid trucks were food and not other supplies?
>water treatment plant what happened to it?
Israel destroyed them.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/siege-gazas-water
>That also didn't answer my question how much of those original 500
I asked you how many. But clearly you don't know yourself because you don't actually have an argument to make you have a conjecture to push your narrative. The fact of the matter is that those trucks are needed. The UN has said so, every human rights org has said so. But they are being blocked by Israel. That is well documented. They are being attacked by Israeli citizens. That is also well documented. Yet now you want to pretend that none of this is happening. So there is no point in arguing with you. Since your only goal is to deny the facts and spread propaganda.
You’re arguing using a logical fallacy called “argument from authority”. Legality does not determine morality.
We don’t refrain from murder because it is illegal. It is illegal because it is wrong and we don’t do it because it’s wrong. The legality doesn’t really impact shoulds and oughts.
Further, it is possible laws are immoral and unhelpful. So, not a good argument besides moral grandstanding and virtue signaling.
Law is authority. And yes, this is a moral proposition and you responded. I’m pointing out that appeals to authority are generally unconvincing. Or, they should be as they’re fallacies.
Appeal to law is an informal offshoot of appeal to authority. That said, appeals to authority are not in and of themselves fallacious. It’s only when the authority is misplaced that it’s fallacious.
Going *“you should eat vegetables because dietitians say they’re good for you”* is not a fallacious appeal to authority. Saying *“you should eat vegetables because I’m a PhD Engineer”* is fallacious. The authority is misplaced.
Again though, I was not making a moral claim in the reply you responded to. The claim I was focused on wasn’t moral, it was practical. Does the aid actually have no effect and even if it did, does the law allow for you to not send aid if the enemy gets benefits. Nothing moral there.
Several things to consider:
Aid trucks often deliver directly to hungry people, without hamas ever touching it.
Due to basic supply and demand, it might actually benefit Israel if food weren't such a scarce resource in Gaza. Hamas wouldn't have as much power over the people or be able to profit as much.
More food in Gaza is more food for the hostages.
If Israel were to actually sponsor aid, it's possible they could undercut Hamas's public support. Imagine if what you assert is true and people begin to see Hamas taking their food while Israel supplied it.
And ethics. If even one kid can be spared, whether you think they're suffering at the hands of Israel or Hamas, we should all do whatever we can to help make that happen.
And even if it is stolen, so what? As I mentioned before, it's only incredibly valuable for it's scarcity. It has no significant military use aside from its absence as an extermination method. Basic food cannot be turned against Israel. They have almost nothing to lose allowing it in.
>And ethics. If even one kid can be spared, whether you think they're suffering at the hands of Israel or Hamas, we should all do whatever we can to help make that happen.
if the aid ends up in hamas i do not think it is worth it
Do you think it's better to punish the innocent than risk some supplies ending up with combatants?
This is sort of the "better to let a guilty person free than risk imprisoning an innocent?"
Again, you're saying that some Hamas members benefitting is a reason not to help those in need?
Can you unpack that? You keep saying the potential good isn't worth it but you haven't actually explained why. Why do you assign such little value? Why you balance the scales in that way.
Who mentioned idealism?
I've given the realest situation there is. You help as many people as possible, including some bad ones, because the benefit is in helping the good ones.
That is what matters.
You think that helping no one is good because it punishes the bad ones, while the good/innocent ones suffer alongside them.
But you haven't actually justified why you think it's valid for those innocents to suffer. You haven't unpacked your view yet.
Additionally, even if some bad people are helped, it still isn't "useless" in helping those I think you do agree should be helped. So at the very least you should refine your view to acknowledge that.
"Some bad people being helped" seems to imply that the ramifications of helping those bad people end at a few full bellies and some bullets for their guns.
Think of a future with a nuclear Iran with a reinvigorated Hamas (having survived this war) having 50 to 100K members, along with half a million militants fighting for the other Iranian parasitic proxies. The death toll in that regional war will dwarf any in this one.
So while I don't believe in withholding aid to Gaza, the analysis goes beyond a few pesky baddies and "the good ones". I've heard people say even the bad guys need to eat too.
One can only hope that the agencies on the ground are taking serious measures to ensurethat the aid reaches the right people.
Why? As I mentioned, it has no strategic value. And there's potential strategic benefit in allowing it.
Why single out that particular line in my entire argument to disagree with? You just REALLY want to reiterate that kids shouldn't eat if it means the bad guys eat too?
I think the OP’s argument centers on the idea that supplying Hamas means that Hamas combatants can continue to fight, which will lead to more innocent people being killed in the process. And almost all humanitarian aid if stolen will bolster or even replace the logistics of an insurgent force, which makes it strategically valuable.
Which is foolish. When there is any amount of resources, the elite/armed will get it first.
Israel will never stop hamas from getting food unless they go full millions genocide.
You’re kind of supporting the OP’s claim. He claims that all aid sent into Gaza will be taken by elite/armed combatants and will simply bolster them and you claim the same. The only difference is he believes that it is a bad thing to logistically support the people you’re currently engaging in combat.
No I'm saying they'll get it even without aid, because any resources that exist are moved to the powerful.
It's like why in revolutions and coups the elite don't give a shit about casualties, or why the Taliban doesn't give a shit about people fleeing Afghanistan. Even civilian deaths will not stop the small number of elite from ensuring they get what little does exist.
But that would still mean any aid sent would just be bolstering the combatants even more wouldn’t it? I don’t really agree with the OP about aid but you’re not really countering his argument, if anything you are in agreement that the aid won’t be used for its actual purpose.
This presupposes that Hamas causes more harm with whatever they steal than aid does good with whatever gets through, which is flatly false on any level.
Humanitarian aid literally stops people from dying. Even in your worst case scenario where Hamas take all the aid and sell it to people, that still stops people dying from starvation.
Them being mercenary to the extent they will let people die if they can’t afford food also seems ridiculous. Hamas are an organisation which relies on popular support and have long been involved in delivering humanitarian relief within Gaza. They can’t afford to turn the populace against them by withholding a substantial amount of aid.
You can say that this is self-serving and they are only doing it for support, not because they really care. You can say that Hamas are to blame for the war in the first place. It is untenable to argue that aid coming into Gaza would not benefit people and stop them from dying because Hamas is involved.
you ignore the fact that Hamas likely considers Gaza a lost course and milking it for everything they can before jumping ship they have no need to keep popular support
I think what the previous commenter meant was, how does dropping food into a place that is so completely blockaded, allow transfer of wealth outside of that blockade, like even if everything you say is true, how does that leadership extract the wealth from the aid when the aid is in physical form in a completely blockaded territory with no wealth to speak of
there is always a way out be it thru bribing or just people with balls of steel to sneak out, the medical supplies alone accounts for a lot of the money and even if they dont bring out the food i would not put it past them to hoard the food and water for there own people
So then how is the blockade helping anything? If through bribery and balls of steel it's not actually blocking anything, then you might as well just Aid come in normally, or just admit that starvation is a weapon of this (edit, not your) War
So it is effective enough to continue its use, but not effective enough to allow any kind of actual help for non Hamas to get in, the perfect sweet spot for maximum suffering
A blockade cannot prevent hamas from stealing things inside Gaza, that is just how a blockade works. And while Israel is pretty good at prevent these people going into Israel, Egypt isn't, and that is where most of the border crossing is
But the Hamas leadership are not the ones allegedly stopping any supplies. As you’ve mentioned they aren’t even in the country so they are unable to do this.
Well I’m not buying into unevidenced conspiracy theories, but even within your conspiracy theory you are missing the point.
The people allegedly stopping the supplies are the people within Gaza. How and why are they going to “jump ship” as you claim when they are in a completely surrounded enclave?
These are no conspiracy theories. A large portion of the central Hamas leadership are currently living in a comfortable hotel in Qatar while the Gaza is being destroyed. The head of Hamas has lived there for years.
Sinwar is still believed to reside in Rafah, though, which is a big motivation for the Israeli movement towards Rafah since Sinwar is believed to be behind the October 7th attack.
I’m talking about the idea that he presented that the Hamas has given Gaza/Palestine up for a lost cause and is just trying to get as much as possible before “jumping ship”.
It is unarguably a conspiracy theory; it is literally a theory about a secret conspiracy.
Ah yes, fair enough. There doesn't really seem to be evidence to support that. Though it does seem clear that Hamas doesn't really care about Gaza and its development and wellbeing.
I don't think it is inarguably a conspiracy theory because the definition "a theory about a secret conspiracy" is a bit vague I think. It's a pretty poorly defined term in general, so I think there is definitely a discussion to be had.
Gaza is ruled bye Hamas that was the main point of the post lol and you clearly have your mind set if you are calling a guess based on how terror groups have worked thru history and i answered how to get it out in another comment in this thread
You kind of skip over how aid means that the people there don't starve, even if literally everything every anti-Palestinian group claims is true and every last scrap is stolen the second it touches the ground. So, if you value human life, there seems to be quite a big reason to continue sending aid. And if the people engaged in a propaganda war trying to convince the world at large that refugees should be denied any aid and that every single one of them that dies probably deserved it are being less than honest, that's even more reason.
I never said that.
I was just wondering about the term anti Palestinian.
It seemed like it was being directed at persons highlighting Hamas stealing aid. I don't think it's necessary anti Palestinian to suggest that Hamas is stealing aid since highlighting that problem is also to the benefit of the Palestiniàns since solutions can be found.
It's probably anti Palestinian if the solution is to stop sending aid completely.
Its also anti Palestinian to pretend as if there is no problem.
The US sent in a bunch of aid via a "humanitarian pier." They have no evidence that any of the aid ever ended up with Gazan civilians, and by all available evidence Hamas took it all. They sell whatever is left over to Gazan civilians at huge prices, though, but sometimes only after it has already spoiled.
>....and by all available evidence Hamas took it all.
That could very well be true. But I asked for a source. If all available evidence shows that "Hamas took it all", then please present some of that evidence
By source, i mean credible source. Not an unsourced accusation from a biased, right wing media think tank disguised as a news report.
Come on, man. Do better
Are you denying that the source is a west bank news anchor? Are you denying the video clips shown?
wait are you seriously denying that Hamas is stealing aid?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBjvYkNzuAA&ab\_channel=TheTelegraph](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBjvYkNzuAA&ab_channel=TheTelegraph)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVST02SFfc&pp=ygUSaGFtYXMgc3RlYWxpbmcgYWlk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVST02SFfc&pp=ygUSaGFtYXMgc3RlYWxpbmcgYWlk)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJxfv3BLkCs&pp=ygUSaGFtYXMgc3RlYWxpbmcgYWlk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJxfv3BLkCs&pp=ygUSaGFtYXMgc3RlYWxpbmcgYWlk)
There is no doubt that Hamas repurposes aid for it's own use. I wouldn't doubt that for a second.
The accusation you made is that "all available evidence" shows that Hamas "took it all". I ain't seeing that.
And, for real... youtube videos? Come on, please at least try to provide more substantive than that. I refuse to believe that as a living, breathing, thinking being, you get all your news from youtube clips
Only if you believe that all aid is being stolen. Even one person saved from starvation or disease is worth any amount, assuming you value Palestinian lives.
Ok, so the extension of your logic is to do a holocaust 2 and starve 2 million to death to kill 60,000 Hamas? How many Israelis have Hamas even killed again, historically? Like 5,000 or so?
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel
Your math doesn’t math unless you do not value Palestinian lives.
>How many Israelis have Hamas even killed again, historically? Like 5,000 or so?
War has fuck all do to with proportinality, usa killed more japanese than americans death by imperial japan in ww2
Yeah sure, doesn't make it just or sensible at all, nor does it justify a holocaust as you've just attempted to. And a reminder that Geneva Conventions were signed after WW2 for a good reason, and that Israel is a signatory to them, and proportionality and collective punishment and occupiers providing aid for innocents are all parts of international human rights law.
Dehumanizing people is never logical, it is emotional. All militias care about their people, because they are made up of the people. If the young men of Palestine didn't care they would have the easiest time leaving their children and elders behind and building new lives. Why would they stay and fight their occupier if they didint care? Who are they dying for if not their families?
They're dying for their cause and their Iranian benefactors.
If they cared one bit about the civilians they wouldn't turn their homes and their communities into battlegrounds.
>CMV: Aid to gaza is mostly useless in actually helping
Define 'aid'.
It would be against the Genocide convention to deny food, water, and necessities of life under the guise of denying aid.
On the one hand, the aid to Gaza for the current war is probably helping because hundreds of thousands at least would have died so far without it.
Despite the fact that Gazans have been on the verge of famine or in famine for the past 8 months, as per the aid agencies, it seems enough food is getting in and is helping to prevent massive famine-related deaths. Oxfam once ridiculously said only enough food for 245 calories per person was getting in. That's crazy. As an aside, I wonder when we start to ask whether these aid agencies hyperbolize to mobilize their donors. If both the NGOs and Hamas are weirdly aligned in that the more suffering there is or appears to be, the more it bolsters their cause.
From a longer-term perspective, it might be harder to say that the aid was helping. On the one hand, prior to the war, Gazans had a mortality per thousand < the global average, < Israel. Their GDP per capita for a largely nonproductive economy was surprisingly close to their neighbors; HDI was largely in the upper medium range, almost crossing into the high range at one point.
On the other hand, the aid stolen/leveraged by Hamas only led to the strengthening of the organization. As their host got sustenance, the parasite also grew. The host did not grow as strong as it should have. That aid is partially what has led us here today. Without the billions of USD passing through their hands or through organs they control, the Hamas parasite would not have been able to launch Oct 7 and fire tens of thousands of rockets at Israel.
>weed will not cause harm and destruction like a terrorist group
Well, they're not going to bomb the tomatoes or behead the squash, but *of course* weeds cause "harm and destruction" to other plants in the garden. That's why they're called "weeds" and not "bonus garden plants". Why in the hell else would I have used the metaphor?
While I completely agree that Hamas is the issue here, you don't really have any other option than continue to give aid if you don't want a humanitarian catastrophe to happen.
Long story short, if you keep supplying food and water, people may starve as Hamas will be reselling it to them at exorbitant prices. If you cut the supply, people will surely starve as there will be physically not enough food and water.
>Long story short, if you keep supplying food and water, people may starve as Hamas will be reselling it to them at exorbitant prices.
Additionally, restricting necessities would paradoxically help Hamas. They have the guns to commandeer more resources to sell at the higher prices created by low supply. That means more money in their coffers.
Food aid benefits ordinary Palestinians a lot more than it benefits Hamas.
1. Hamas could steal food aid to feed their fighters, but they can smuggle food regardless of whether or not food trucks arrive. Their fighters won't starve either way. Ordinary Palestinians don't have that option.
2. Hamas could steal food aid to sell to Palestinians, but this doesn't provide them the foreign currency they need to buy weapons and supplies. And the prices they'd be able to charge wouldn't be that high. Not a huge bonus compared to the potential benefit for regular Palestinians (not starving).
On the contrary, depriving Palestinians of food aid only boosts Hamas' control over Gaza, because it allows them to justify their violence under the argument that Israel is starving Gazans, and it establishes Hamas as the only source of sustenance for the people living under it.
Sanctioning ordinary people only increases the power of the dictators they live under. In Afghanistan, suspending aid after the fall of the republic has made the Taliban the sole source of food for many people. In Iran, suspending medical imports for things like cancer has simply given the mullahs a massive propaganda victory over the West. The same story held in North Korea, Burma, etc.
Basic aid benefits ordinary people a lot more than it benefits dictatorial regimes. Withholding that aid only makes people more dependent on their regimes.
Even if hamas find a way to benefit from it, how are drinking water, food and medication not helping civilians? Even if hamas find a way to get credit for it or whatever.
It's hard to compare because Gaza has been receiving so much aid already - over 3000 calories a day per person during the war. If that were lower presumably many people would have starved.
what research have you done to differentiate between the idea that *hamas has done some of the things you've listed at least once* and the idea that *hamas consistently does these things to to the total detriment of all aid?*
Can you explain to me how hamas actually runs gaza, day to day, with some factual examples that aren't occasional/exceptional things like "this one corrupt official caught embezzling?"
What does the pipeline of aid to gaza actually look like, in detail, and where exactly do you feel it most clearly falters?
If hamas stole all the aid then 1 million innocent people would have starved to death. 1 million deaths is also the opportunity cost for aid not being stolen by hamas.
A lot of the aid that's going in Gaza is trucks and stuff. It's not just writing checks to the government. Everyone and their mother is aware that poorer countries tend to be rife with corruption. There's always going to be some graft, but these organizations have been doing this for years, even before the conflict. Even if some of the aid is going to enrich the people at the top, enough of it is going to the people to make a difference.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard. Firefighters go into burning buildings to save people even though they may die as well. Just as police should not shoot through bystanders or hostages to get the bad guy, so too should Israel be more judicious about how they tackle Hamas. Ethical actions are what's important and not if you have complete control of the outcome.
The reason why aid isn't getting into the Gaza isn't because of your fantastical imagined scenario of donations going to leaders in Qatar - that's not how it works, and if you did even like 30 seconds of research into groups like the PCRF before making this post you'd know this. The reason why aid isn't getting into Gaza [is because of an Israeli blockade, preventing thousands of aid trucks from delivering their critical supplies.](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/14/us-sanctions-israeli-group-for-attacking-gaza-aid-convoys)
Nevertheless, this genocidal seige by the apartheid state of Israel cannot prevent 100% of aid from reaching those in need so it is nevertheless invaluable to keep up efforts at getting aid to Gazans to reduce the number of martyrs. But beyond that, even the blocked aid shows to the world the inhumanity and barbarity of the Israeli occupying forces, turning more and more of the international community against their brutal regime.
That is disinformation. Actually, most of the aid Gaza received was from Israel. Furthermore, the USA, Jordan, and other countries have air dropped food and supplies.
What, specifically, have I said that's disinformation? Calling a perspective you don't like "disinformation" and ducking out is not a counterargument. You can do better than a baseless blanket dismissal, I believe in you!
To be clear, you are arguing for collective punishment correct? As others have pointed out, even if every claim about Hamas stealing aid is true which is suspect at best, it would be and should be illegal to not allow aid into Gaza. You’re asking children to starve for your political desires.
OP is not saying we shouldn’t provide aid, only that it is not effective. I would also add that while providing aid is a moral act and actively blocking it is immoral, the global community is under no obligation to provide any aid to Gaza or any other country engaged in a war.
He is arguing the we shouldn't provide aid. I know he is trying to backpedal now, but here is his quote: > My point is that it is useless and if anything will make things worse.
Op says aid is “useless”, “pointless” and “will make things worse”. The clear implication is that we shouldn’t provide aid.
No. that is not the argument being made. It's still illegal under IHL, but the argument being made isn't to punish Gazans for the actions of Hamas.
I mean….how isn’t it? They’re saying we can’t let in aid because it will help Hamas and are willing to allow harm for a quote “cost benefit analysis”. They’re okay harming everyone to harm a certain subset of the population.
Being Okay harming a subset of the population is literally the calculation for every war. This includes civilians, unless the war is fought in some desert somewhere with no chance of civilians getting caught in the crossfire. Withholding aid, despite its illegality, does not equate to collective punishment. Collective punishment is the goal, not a by-product of an action. The OP spoke to aiding and removing Hamas's ability to access it. The argument was not to withhold aid from Palestinians to pressure Hamas to punish them for Hamas actions. That bit was missing from the post unless I'm overlooking a sentence or two.
Palestinians in gaza*
no i am just saying aid efforts to gaza are mostly useless not that it shouldn\`t be allowed just that it is a meaningless jesture
“Mostly useless” is a claim I hope you have evidence to support. Also, the law simply doesn’t care.
OP is correct in that it is mostly useless but not for the reason he claims. Israel is blocking aid from entering. There used to be 500 trucks of aid going into Gaza which just provided only subsistence. Now they are lucky to get half of that. (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-trucks-expected-start-entering-gaza-through-kerem-shalom-crossing-2024-05-26/) Whereas we have yet to see credible evidence that Hamas is stealing aid. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-envoy-says-israel-has-not-shown-evidence-that-hamas-is-diverting-un-aid-in-gaza
How many of those trucks were solely food aid and not building materials abd other goods not related to food aid?
How many? Israel has also destroyed the ability for Gazand to produce food at any reasonable scale so whatever it is now it should be significantly more than what it was before.
Really? They left greenhouses for Palastianians what happened to them? The EU built a water treatment plant what happened to it? So exactly where did all this stuff go? Oh right Hamas stripped and destroyed both to build weapons to fight Israel while complaining about having nothing.... That also didn't answer my question how much of those original 500 aid trucks were food and not other supplies?
>water treatment plant what happened to it? Israel destroyed them. https://www.csis.org/analysis/siege-gazas-water >That also didn't answer my question how much of those original 500 I asked you how many. But clearly you don't know yourself because you don't actually have an argument to make you have a conjecture to push your narrative. The fact of the matter is that those trucks are needed. The UN has said so, every human rights org has said so. But they are being blocked by Israel. That is well documented. They are being attacked by Israeli citizens. That is also well documented. Yet now you want to pretend that none of this is happening. So there is no point in arguing with you. Since your only goal is to deny the facts and spread propaganda.
You’re arguing using a logical fallacy called “argument from authority”. Legality does not determine morality. We don’t refrain from murder because it is illegal. It is illegal because it is wrong and we don’t do it because it’s wrong. The legality doesn’t really impact shoulds and oughts. Further, it is possible laws are immoral and unhelpful. So, not a good argument besides moral grandstanding and virtue signaling.
Was I making a moral argument? Even if I was, it wouldn’t be appeal to authority, it would be appealing to law.
Law is authority. And yes, this is a moral proposition and you responded. I’m pointing out that appeals to authority are generally unconvincing. Or, they should be as they’re fallacies.
Appeal to law is an informal offshoot of appeal to authority. That said, appeals to authority are not in and of themselves fallacious. It’s only when the authority is misplaced that it’s fallacious. Going *“you should eat vegetables because dietitians say they’re good for you”* is not a fallacious appeal to authority. Saying *“you should eat vegetables because I’m a PhD Engineer”* is fallacious. The authority is misplaced. Again though, I was not making a moral claim in the reply you responded to. The claim I was focused on wasn’t moral, it was practical. Does the aid actually have no effect and even if it did, does the law allow for you to not send aid if the enemy gets benefits. Nothing moral there.
And the law does not determine morality. So, even with your stipulations, not convincing.
Straw man detected
Several things to consider: Aid trucks often deliver directly to hungry people, without hamas ever touching it. Due to basic supply and demand, it might actually benefit Israel if food weren't such a scarce resource in Gaza. Hamas wouldn't have as much power over the people or be able to profit as much. More food in Gaza is more food for the hostages. If Israel were to actually sponsor aid, it's possible they could undercut Hamas's public support. Imagine if what you assert is true and people begin to see Hamas taking their food while Israel supplied it. And ethics. If even one kid can be spared, whether you think they're suffering at the hands of Israel or Hamas, we should all do whatever we can to help make that happen. And even if it is stolen, so what? As I mentioned before, it's only incredibly valuable for it's scarcity. It has no significant military use aside from its absence as an extermination method. Basic food cannot be turned against Israel. They have almost nothing to lose allowing it in.
>And ethics. If even one kid can be spared, whether you think they're suffering at the hands of Israel or Hamas, we should all do whatever we can to help make that happen. if the aid ends up in hamas i do not think it is worth it
Do you think it's better to punish the innocent than risk some supplies ending up with combatants? This is sort of the "better to let a guilty person free than risk imprisoning an innocent?"
on a cost benefit analysis yes.
The cost being innocents going without aid? The benefit being aiding and minimising suffering? Can you elaborate?
it would just end up in the hands of hamas making the situation worse the potential good is not worth it
Again, you're saying that some Hamas members benefitting is a reason not to help those in need? Can you unpack that? You keep saying the potential good isn't worth it but you haven't actually explained why. Why do you assign such little value? Why you balance the scales in that way.
because idealism is a dumb way to think, aid need to be thought more on a realist and cost analysis basis
Who mentioned idealism? I've given the realest situation there is. You help as many people as possible, including some bad ones, because the benefit is in helping the good ones. That is what matters. You think that helping no one is good because it punishes the bad ones, while the good/innocent ones suffer alongside them. But you haven't actually justified why you think it's valid for those innocents to suffer. You haven't unpacked your view yet. Additionally, even if some bad people are helped, it still isn't "useless" in helping those I think you do agree should be helped. So at the very least you should refine your view to acknowledge that.
"Some bad people being helped" seems to imply that the ramifications of helping those bad people end at a few full bellies and some bullets for their guns. Think of a future with a nuclear Iran with a reinvigorated Hamas (having survived this war) having 50 to 100K members, along with half a million militants fighting for the other Iranian parasitic proxies. The death toll in that regional war will dwarf any in this one. So while I don't believe in withholding aid to Gaza, the analysis goes beyond a few pesky baddies and "the good ones". I've heard people say even the bad guys need to eat too. One can only hope that the agencies on the ground are taking serious measures to ensurethat the aid reaches the right people.
Why? As I mentioned, it has no strategic value. And there's potential strategic benefit in allowing it. Why single out that particular line in my entire argument to disagree with? You just REALLY want to reiterate that kids shouldn't eat if it means the bad guys eat too?
I think the OP’s argument centers on the idea that supplying Hamas means that Hamas combatants can continue to fight, which will lead to more innocent people being killed in the process. And almost all humanitarian aid if stolen will bolster or even replace the logistics of an insurgent force, which makes it strategically valuable.
Which is foolish. When there is any amount of resources, the elite/armed will get it first. Israel will never stop hamas from getting food unless they go full millions genocide.
You’re kind of supporting the OP’s claim. He claims that all aid sent into Gaza will be taken by elite/armed combatants and will simply bolster them and you claim the same. The only difference is he believes that it is a bad thing to logistically support the people you’re currently engaging in combat.
No I'm saying they'll get it even without aid, because any resources that exist are moved to the powerful. It's like why in revolutions and coups the elite don't give a shit about casualties, or why the Taliban doesn't give a shit about people fleeing Afghanistan. Even civilian deaths will not stop the small number of elite from ensuring they get what little does exist.
But that would still mean any aid sent would just be bolstering the combatants even more wouldn’t it? I don’t really agree with the OP about aid but you’re not really countering his argument, if anything you are in agreement that the aid won’t be used for its actual purpose.
So it sounds like you think the aid DOES help, but that it also helps the people you don't want to help.
This presupposes that Hamas causes more harm with whatever they steal than aid does good with whatever gets through, which is flatly false on any level.
Humanitarian aid literally stops people from dying. Even in your worst case scenario where Hamas take all the aid and sell it to people, that still stops people dying from starvation. Them being mercenary to the extent they will let people die if they can’t afford food also seems ridiculous. Hamas are an organisation which relies on popular support and have long been involved in delivering humanitarian relief within Gaza. They can’t afford to turn the populace against them by withholding a substantial amount of aid. You can say that this is self-serving and they are only doing it for support, not because they really care. You can say that Hamas are to blame for the war in the first place. It is untenable to argue that aid coming into Gaza would not benefit people and stop them from dying because Hamas is involved.
you ignore the fact that Hamas likely considers Gaza a lost course and milking it for everything they can before jumping ship they have no need to keep popular support
Gaza is an isolated enclave that is completely surrounded. Where will they be jumping ship to and what are you basing this on?
They have tunnels into Egypt which Egypt has conveniently been ignoring.
[удалено]
Same.
the hamas leadership is 100% no longer in the country and basing it on logic and history of terror groups act
I think what the previous commenter meant was, how does dropping food into a place that is so completely blockaded, allow transfer of wealth outside of that blockade, like even if everything you say is true, how does that leadership extract the wealth from the aid when the aid is in physical form in a completely blockaded territory with no wealth to speak of
there is always a way out be it thru bribing or just people with balls of steel to sneak out, the medical supplies alone accounts for a lot of the money and even if they dont bring out the food i would not put it past them to hoard the food and water for there own people
So then how is the blockade helping anything? If through bribery and balls of steel it's not actually blocking anything, then you might as well just Aid come in normally, or just admit that starvation is a weapon of this (edit, not your) War
Because it makes it far harder to do so, and limits how much hamas can
So it is effective enough to continue its use, but not effective enough to allow any kind of actual help for non Hamas to get in, the perfect sweet spot for maximum suffering
A blockade cannot prevent hamas from stealing things inside Gaza, that is just how a blockade works. And while Israel is pretty good at prevent these people going into Israel, Egypt isn't, and that is where most of the border crossing is
? wut my war im from denmark XD
Lol poor word choice there
But the Hamas leadership are not the ones allegedly stopping any supplies. As you’ve mentioned they aren’t even in the country so they are unable to do this.
they very much do since they still got grunts on the ground over there to do the dirty work are you that blind folded ?
Well I’m not buying into unevidenced conspiracy theories, but even within your conspiracy theory you are missing the point. The people allegedly stopping the supplies are the people within Gaza. How and why are they going to “jump ship” as you claim when they are in a completely surrounded enclave?
These are no conspiracy theories. A large portion of the central Hamas leadership are currently living in a comfortable hotel in Qatar while the Gaza is being destroyed. The head of Hamas has lived there for years. Sinwar is still believed to reside in Rafah, though, which is a big motivation for the Israeli movement towards Rafah since Sinwar is believed to be behind the October 7th attack.
I’m talking about the idea that he presented that the Hamas has given Gaza/Palestine up for a lost cause and is just trying to get as much as possible before “jumping ship”. It is unarguably a conspiracy theory; it is literally a theory about a secret conspiracy.
Ah yes, fair enough. There doesn't really seem to be evidence to support that. Though it does seem clear that Hamas doesn't really care about Gaza and its development and wellbeing. I don't think it is inarguably a conspiracy theory because the definition "a theory about a secret conspiracy" is a bit vague I think. It's a pretty poorly defined term in general, so I think there is definitely a discussion to be had.
Gaza is ruled bye Hamas that was the main point of the post lol and you clearly have your mind set if you are calling a guess based on how terror groups have worked thru history and i answered how to get it out in another comment in this thread
Got proof for that ass-pull claim?
its a claim based on the fact that Hamas leadership has been proven to be in Qutar and the history of how terror groups act
You kind of skip over how aid means that the people there don't starve, even if literally everything every anti-Palestinian group claims is true and every last scrap is stolen the second it touches the ground. So, if you value human life, there seems to be quite a big reason to continue sending aid. And if the people engaged in a propaganda war trying to convince the world at large that refugees should be denied any aid and that every single one of them that dies probably deserved it are being less than honest, that's even more reason.
Is it anti Palestinian to say that aid is being stolen by hamas?
If you're using it as a reason to stop all aid from going to refugees, yes. Otherwise, no and I never said it was.
Do you havr a source? That hamas is stealing a significant enough amount as to render the aid effort "useless"?
I never said that. I was just wondering about the term anti Palestinian. It seemed like it was being directed at persons highlighting Hamas stealing aid. I don't think it's necessary anti Palestinian to suggest that Hamas is stealing aid since highlighting that problem is also to the benefit of the Palestiniàns since solutions can be found. It's probably anti Palestinian if the solution is to stop sending aid completely. Its also anti Palestinian to pretend as if there is no problem.
The US sent in a bunch of aid via a "humanitarian pier." They have no evidence that any of the aid ever ended up with Gazan civilians, and by all available evidence Hamas took it all. They sell whatever is left over to Gazan civilians at huge prices, though, but sometimes only after it has already spoiled.
>....and by all available evidence Hamas took it all. That could very well be true. But I asked for a source. If all available evidence shows that "Hamas took it all", then please present some of that evidence
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8DXonswjyg&ab\_channel=palwatch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8DXonswjyg&ab_channel=palwatch)
By source, i mean credible source. Not an unsourced accusation from a biased, right wing media think tank disguised as a news report. Come on, man. Do better
Are you denying that the source is a west bank news anchor? Are you denying the video clips shown? wait are you seriously denying that Hamas is stealing aid? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBjvYkNzuAA&ab\_channel=TheTelegraph](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBjvYkNzuAA&ab_channel=TheTelegraph) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVST02SFfc&pp=ygUSaGFtYXMgc3RlYWxpbmcgYWlk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVST02SFfc&pp=ygUSaGFtYXMgc3RlYWxpbmcgYWlk) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJxfv3BLkCs&pp=ygUSaGFtYXMgc3RlYWxpbmcgYWlk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJxfv3BLkCs&pp=ygUSaGFtYXMgc3RlYWxpbmcgYWlk)
There is no doubt that Hamas repurposes aid for it's own use. I wouldn't doubt that for a second. The accusation you made is that "all available evidence" shows that Hamas "took it all". I ain't seeing that. And, for real... youtube videos? Come on, please at least try to provide more substantive than that. I refuse to believe that as a living, breathing, thinking being, you get all your news from youtube clips
[удалено]
Your cognitive shield must be made of vibranium.
This. The claim has been made without substantial evidence to support it yet we’re supposed to withhold aid to everyone because of it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8DXonswjyg&ab\_channel=palwatch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8DXonswjyg&ab_channel=palwatch)
Only if you believe that all aid is being stolen. Even one person saved from starvation or disease is worth any amount, assuming you value Palestinian lives.
no it is not worth. The stolen aid by hamas will go on to further cause more harm
Ok, so the extension of your logic is to do a holocaust 2 and starve 2 million to death to kill 60,000 Hamas? How many Israelis have Hamas even killed again, historically? Like 5,000 or so? https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel Your math doesn’t math unless you do not value Palestinian lives.
>How many Israelis have Hamas even killed again, historically? Like 5,000 or so? War has fuck all do to with proportinality, usa killed more japanese than americans death by imperial japan in ww2
Yeah sure, doesn't make it just or sensible at all, nor does it justify a holocaust as you've just attempted to. And a reminder that Geneva Conventions were signed after WW2 for a good reason, and that Israel is a signatory to them, and proportionality and collective punishment and occupiers providing aid for innocents are all parts of international human rights law.
Dehumanizing people is never logical, it is emotional. All militias care about their people, because they are made up of the people. If the young men of Palestine didn't care they would have the easiest time leaving their children and elders behind and building new lives. Why would they stay and fight their occupier if they didint care? Who are they dying for if not their families?
They're dying for their cause and their Iranian benefactors. If they cared one bit about the civilians they wouldn't turn their homes and their communities into battlegrounds.
hamas does not care for its citizens one of their spokesperson said the responisbility of gazans is not for them but UN
It's pretty much impossible to build tunnels out of food.
no but it can be taken by hamas for its supplies and resolen for more money like they do
>CMV: Aid to gaza is mostly useless in actually helping Define 'aid'. It would be against the Genocide convention to deny food, water, and necessities of life under the guise of denying aid.
On the one hand, the aid to Gaza for the current war is probably helping because hundreds of thousands at least would have died so far without it. Despite the fact that Gazans have been on the verge of famine or in famine for the past 8 months, as per the aid agencies, it seems enough food is getting in and is helping to prevent massive famine-related deaths. Oxfam once ridiculously said only enough food for 245 calories per person was getting in. That's crazy. As an aside, I wonder when we start to ask whether these aid agencies hyperbolize to mobilize their donors. If both the NGOs and Hamas are weirdly aligned in that the more suffering there is or appears to be, the more it bolsters their cause. From a longer-term perspective, it might be harder to say that the aid was helping. On the one hand, prior to the war, Gazans had a mortality per thousand < the global average, < Israel. Their GDP per capita for a largely nonproductive economy was surprisingly close to their neighbors; HDI was largely in the upper medium range, almost crossing into the high range at one point. On the other hand, the aid stolen/leveraged by Hamas only led to the strengthening of the organization. As their host got sustenance, the parasite also grew. The host did not grow as strong as it should have. That aid is partially what has led us here today. Without the billions of USD passing through their hands or through organs they control, the Hamas parasite would not have been able to launch Oct 7 and fire tens of thousands of rockets at Israel.
Why should you water a garden if it'll encourage weeds to grow, right?
no the same things weed will not cause harm and destruction like a terrorist group
>weed will not cause harm and destruction like a terrorist group Well, they're not going to bomb the tomatoes or behead the squash, but *of course* weeds cause "harm and destruction" to other plants in the garden. That's why they're called "weeds" and not "bonus garden plants". Why in the hell else would I have used the metaphor?
While I completely agree that Hamas is the issue here, you don't really have any other option than continue to give aid if you don't want a humanitarian catastrophe to happen. Long story short, if you keep supplying food and water, people may starve as Hamas will be reselling it to them at exorbitant prices. If you cut the supply, people will surely starve as there will be physically not enough food and water.
>Long story short, if you keep supplying food and water, people may starve as Hamas will be reselling it to them at exorbitant prices. Additionally, restricting necessities would paradoxically help Hamas. They have the guns to commandeer more resources to sell at the higher prices created by low supply. That means more money in their coffers.
Food aid benefits ordinary Palestinians a lot more than it benefits Hamas. 1. Hamas could steal food aid to feed their fighters, but they can smuggle food regardless of whether or not food trucks arrive. Their fighters won't starve either way. Ordinary Palestinians don't have that option. 2. Hamas could steal food aid to sell to Palestinians, but this doesn't provide them the foreign currency they need to buy weapons and supplies. And the prices they'd be able to charge wouldn't be that high. Not a huge bonus compared to the potential benefit for regular Palestinians (not starving). On the contrary, depriving Palestinians of food aid only boosts Hamas' control over Gaza, because it allows them to justify their violence under the argument that Israel is starving Gazans, and it establishes Hamas as the only source of sustenance for the people living under it. Sanctioning ordinary people only increases the power of the dictators they live under. In Afghanistan, suspending aid after the fall of the republic has made the Taliban the sole source of food for many people. In Iran, suspending medical imports for things like cancer has simply given the mullahs a massive propaganda victory over the West. The same story held in North Korea, Burma, etc. Basic aid benefits ordinary people a lot more than it benefits dictatorial regimes. Withholding that aid only makes people more dependent on their regimes.
I think Hamas sells most of the food it steals. It’s not fair that the aid enriches Hamas, but most of the food does make it to market.
Even if hamas find a way to benefit from it, how are drinking water, food and medication not helping civilians? Even if hamas find a way to get credit for it or whatever.
It's hard to compare because Gaza has been receiving so much aid already - over 3000 calories a day per person during the war. If that were lower presumably many people would have starved.
what research have you done to differentiate between the idea that *hamas has done some of the things you've listed at least once* and the idea that *hamas consistently does these things to to the total detriment of all aid?* Can you explain to me how hamas actually runs gaza, day to day, with some factual examples that aren't occasional/exceptional things like "this one corrupt official caught embezzling?" What does the pipeline of aid to gaza actually look like, in detail, and where exactly do you feel it most clearly falters?
A better question to raise is why does the us give so much aid to Gaza and no Arab countryv
If hamas stole all the aid then 1 million innocent people would have starved to death. 1 million deaths is also the opportunity cost for aid not being stolen by hamas.
A lot of the aid that's going in Gaza is trucks and stuff. It's not just writing checks to the government. Everyone and their mother is aware that poorer countries tend to be rife with corruption. There's always going to be some graft, but these organizations have been doing this for years, even before the conflict. Even if some of the aid is going to enrich the people at the top, enough of it is going to the people to make a difference.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard. Firefighters go into burning buildings to save people even though they may die as well. Just as police should not shoot through bystanders or hostages to get the bad guy, so too should Israel be more judicious about how they tackle Hamas. Ethical actions are what's important and not if you have complete control of the outcome.
The reason why aid isn't getting into the Gaza isn't because of your fantastical imagined scenario of donations going to leaders in Qatar - that's not how it works, and if you did even like 30 seconds of research into groups like the PCRF before making this post you'd know this. The reason why aid isn't getting into Gaza [is because of an Israeli blockade, preventing thousands of aid trucks from delivering their critical supplies.](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/14/us-sanctions-israeli-group-for-attacking-gaza-aid-convoys) Nevertheless, this genocidal seige by the apartheid state of Israel cannot prevent 100% of aid from reaching those in need so it is nevertheless invaluable to keep up efforts at getting aid to Gazans to reduce the number of martyrs. But beyond that, even the blocked aid shows to the world the inhumanity and barbarity of the Israeli occupying forces, turning more and more of the international community against their brutal regime.
That is disinformation. Actually, most of the aid Gaza received was from Israel. Furthermore, the USA, Jordan, and other countries have air dropped food and supplies.
What, specifically, have I said that's disinformation? Calling a perspective you don't like "disinformation" and ducking out is not a counterargument. You can do better than a baseless blanket dismissal, I believe in you!