Citing UN sources, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs says that the “wholly inadequate humanitarian access over the last 4 months” means that the population faces acute food insecurity, with a serious risk of famine developing. “This is unconscionable,” the statement says.
“Freezing or withdrawing funding to UNRWA further exacerbates these risks - States which have done so must urgently rescind this decision and resume funding.”
Sure I guess, but the other option is just continued use of civilian shields, bombing of civilian infrastructure, starvation, stuff like that. Its just all around bad and I don’t think there is a good solution. But still, humanitarian help is paramount.
Of course. But that doesn’t mean a ceasefire would help. Hamas needs to be removed. So not prolonging the war with a ceasefire might be the lesser evil.
This war is a huge recruiting campaign for Hamas. If you don’t know, Israel does for sure.
They need terrorists to be able to avoid negotiating with Palestinians and keeping the support of their allies in place.
Almost every young man who becomes 18 now is understandably full of hate against Israel. Every human being living in Gaza is traumatized now.
They’re being traumatized during the last 20 years. They lost grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, siblings, and parents in that time by Israeli bombs or snipers.
They have been going through six or seven “wars” that actually just have been Israel killing another several hundred or several thousand Palestinians. To keep Palestinian heads down Israel has been “mowing the lawn”, as the IDF calls it.
This time the foreseeable terrorist attack was so humiliating that they think they might even get away with throwing every single Palestinian out of Israel (and for Netanyahu’s government the state of Israel includes Gaza and Westbank).
Well, their big brother USA tells them he would prefer Israel not doing so. Not now. But Israel can be very sure that the USA will never really punish it just for breaking international laws. Neither will the rest of the Western world. And the rest of the world doesn’t have the power, so fuck’em.
The USA will politely ask Israel to let humanitarian aid go in. You know, just because the West doesn’t like to support genocide and ethnical cleansing – in the open.
Israel likes the world feeling pity for the Palestinians. Maybe that feeling might rise to the level that the West puts pressure on Egypt to let them go out of Gaza. Everybody knows from earlier experience that Israel would never let them return.
Alternatively they take a part of Gaza for new settlements leaving the Palestinians with even less space. While they’re doing the same in the Westbank. Without the world even noticing.
Why can’t they negotiate with terrorists? The world negotiated with Zionist terrorists in 1947 and every one of them became a well respected Israeli politician.
But they don’t want to negotiate. Never did. They just want to take it all. And as long as the West continues to grant them impunity they will get what they want.
So they will go down the moment the American empire goes down. Or the USA changes its politics. Which could mean the same.
No, then they’ll get desparate. And a desperate Isarel may indeed become genocidal. Simply killing all Palestinians is one of the options that remain if there’s no longer a sufficient supply of precision ammunition. Napalm is dirt cheap and if you use enough of it you start a firestorm that wipes out the rest of the city. Alternatively they could use their nuclear arsenal.
As bad as this is, the danger here is not Israel being too strong, but it being too weak. My guess is that could work in the other direction as well. If America or Nato did directly aid with their troops there’d likely be far fewer civilian casualties.
deleted by creator
This is not possible. There is no way to bomb away terrorist, many have tried, none have succeeded. And talking about “the only solution is killing” has a bad taste to it. There is no “only solution” for any problem and bombing sure isn’t solving anything. Hasn’t the past decades.
Be doesn’t want discussion, he wants a platform. I did this with him a few days ago, don’t engage.
Yeah, thanks for the heads up
They did and succeeded. Let’s face it: A main reason why there was pratically no resistance after the surrender in Germany and Japan is that the Allies did make it clear that they wouldn’t hesitate to use means that make what Israel is doing now look like a picknick if necessary. I’m not sure about Japan, but the Nazis had elaborate plans for guerilla warfare after invasion. But brutaltiy of their defeat dissuadeded their supporters from actually committing to that.
Now, Germany and Japan also experienced a second step that made them rather peaceful today and that was an economic revivial that provided opportunties for everoyne and made it possible to rebuild the countries in a new image and we most certainly must strive to make that happen in Gaza, but it all started with a people beaten so badly that it realized that violent resistance was futile.
Edit: There really is a long list of terrorists movements being wiped out with brutal force. In many cases that’s not morally acceptable (take what China is doing in Xinjiang for example), but places from Czechnia to Sri Lanka are reasonably calm nowadays because governmetns litterally bombed their enemies into submission. The question is just whether the end justifies the means.
in Germany it was not the brutality of the allies victory that dissuaded people, it was the totallity of it. The people weren’t stupid so when they saw the massive amount and types of material the alies carted through Germany they knew they lost. The German people were not well of at that point yet here come the US soldiers throwing chocoloate around like ti’s nothing. Stuff like that imprints really hard just how badly you lost.
But yeah with Japan the US had to first display that they were willing and cappable to turn the entire country to rubble before the leadership surrendered.
Yes, that was indeed part of the psychological effect. It’s also why I’d welcome it if Nato joined that war. Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan I read that you’d need about 1 occpying soldier for every 20 inhabitants to prevent any resistance gaining ground. Sending 100k soldiers to that place would work and would allow for tactics that lead to far fewer civilian deaths.
The giving chocolate is also something that works. If heard stories of aid from America from my grandparents more than 70 years after the war. When people are on the brink of starvation it’s quite cheap to buy their loyalty.
deleted by creator
Not wanting civilian infrastructure to be bombed is supporting terrorism? Wow are you absolutist.
deleted by creator
Says the one okay with bombing schools. Thats just not okay in any way shape or form.
deleted by creator
Nooe, right here seems fine. No but you basically said they need to be eradicated, please tell me his that’s different. And you could also elaborate on how you would combat the terrorists if you had it your way.
you, literally in the same comment chain
If you bomb all the schools then they can’t hide in them. And if you kill all the school children they won’t need schools. It makes perfect sense!
deleted by creator
It is your point exactly. Or do you honestly think that killing thousands wouldn’t led to more terrorists because of the hate these actions instilled? It happened multiple times you know. And bombing only ever made everything worse.
Well bombing civilians is the best way to produce new terrorists as everybody knows. So you have to bomb the civilians again. Which will recruit new terrorists again. But you’re right, at one day eventually there won’t be any terrorists anymore and no civilians. In the end. The solution. The “Endlösung” so to say. For the people that rightfully owns the land! Great idea. Are you German? Just asking.