Israel blocks the entry of Plumpy Nut into Gaza, a peanut-butter like paste meant for treating severe acute malnutrition. They say it is a luxury item Hamas might steal.[1] The amount of evidence Israel is committing genocide is embarrassing.
As a side note, that's the same stuff that just sat on shelves and went back instead of going to starving kids all over the world because Trump and Musk and Co. decided that USAID was a "waste of money".
He took a credible claim by the IPC and changed several things (~12 months -> 48 hours, 6mo-5yr children -> babies, acute malnutrition -> death), making it patently false. There's no excuse for that kind of deliberate disinformation.
Do you really believe that this have anything to do with the hostages? They want the land, that's it. It could be done little by little or it could be done like now, when they have an excuse. But the end goal is the same.
Do you think that what they are doing in the west-bank have anything to do with the hostages or Hamas?
> Do you really believe that this have anything to do with the hostages?
To a significant degree, yes. If Hamas turned over the hostages today, Israel's position would significantly weaken. Palestinians' would strength. But so would Hamas', which is why they haven't.
Man, in a scenario where all the hostages are freed, I can't image Netanyahu stopping the genocide... so far he's been "Well, what are you going to do about it?!" about all the war crimes and killings, I would bet my left nut he'd continue the bombings even if all the hostages are returned. It's too easy to say the terrorist want to annihilate Israel (and so, Israel being a rules-abiding civilized democracy, must annihilate the Palestinian state first - terrorists, civilians, all the same...).
> in a scenario where all the hostages are freed, I can't image Netanyahu stopping the genocide
Okay. Are you certain enough about your imagination that it's not worth attempting? Two, it may not end the war. But it reduces Israel's leverage. If you think any of the international pressure and opinions have any effect, then returning the hostages is a winning move.
Israel has rejected every peace offer from Hamas, including ones brokered by the US. They invited Hamas peace negotiators to Qatar and then bombed them. They have shown no indication that they are willing to agree to a peace deal in exchange for the hostages, it’s just a rationalization they use so that people like you can counter every anti-Israel argument with “well what about the hostages?”
> Israel has rejected every peace offer from Hamas, including ones brokered by the US
Which offer did Israel reject that was put forward by Hamas and endorsed by the U.S.?
> They have shown no indication that they are willing to agree to a peace deal in exchange for the hostages
Maybe you're right. The Palestinians' hand is significantly strengthened if this is shown to be true. If Hamas unilaterally turned over the hostages and sued for peace, I really don't think Israel could continue the war. If they did, they'd lose a massive amount of of international indifference.
Israel's ideal outcome with gaza is for egypt to take it and all the gazans. They do not care about controlling the region, they just want the gazans gone.
> they want the people that it's there now gone, and the control of that territory
Israel's actions so far have shown it doesn't want Gaza controlled by Hamas. Some elements want to annex it. But it seems they've been quelled given Netanyahu's agreement to Trump's 20-point plan, which does not grant Israel control.
Ah, let’s try your logic the opposite way around: if hamas and the middle east is so hostile, why do Israeli’s not move to some flyover state. What do you think?
You are shockingly uninformed. All major human rights organizations are saying the exact same thing: Israel is actively committing a genocide.
> All major human rights organizations are saying the exact same thing: Israel is actively committing a genocide
Your argument loses credibility when you overstep like this.
Human rights organisations (and credible third parties) agree that Gaza is in famine. The term genocide is not universally applied, though it is increasingly and increasingly credibly, albeit at the expense of the clarity of the term.
> Human rights organisations (and credible third parties) agree that Gaza is in famine. The term genocide is not universally applied, though it is increasingly and increasingly credibly, albeit at the expense of the clarity of the term.
UN commission uses word genocide [0].
ICJ used word "plausible" [1].
HRW has used the word genocide [2]
...actually the list of explicit accusation of genocide is quite big [3].
Is there some single, powerful organisation left that does not agree that there is genocide? All the big mentioned also [4].
Yes, that's the credible third party I referred to.
> ICJ used word "plausible"
Correct.
> HRW has used the word genocide
In the phrase "may amount to the crime of genocide" [1].
> the list of explicit accusation of genocide is quite big
Yet not amounting to "all big humanitarian organizations." Like, the two you chose to highlight stepped back from making that claim prematurely because they don't want to cry wolf with a word that should have a lot of meaning, but which activists have effectively neutered in American political culture.
Maybe you missed it but Hamas are terrorists, they don't care that much. Hamas mistake was believing that Israel would care more about civilians, turns out they care much less. And Israel is supposedly this western democracy.
> Hamas mistake was believing that Israel would care more about civilians, turns out they care much less. And Israel is supposedly this western democracy
Let's be honest, betting on civilian shields when attacking any country, including a democracy, has never been a winning move.
[1] https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/1971582137947295831