As millions of Americans are about to go hungry due to the US government refusing to fund SNAP, just remember that only two countries voted against making food a basic human right. The US and the terrorist colony of Israel
As millions of Americans are about to go hungry due to the US government refusing to fund SNAP, just remember that only two countries voted against making food a basic human right. The US and the terrorist colony of Israel
they should have their own logistics, and if surrendered/captured then yes, 100% we should feed them
Illegal settlers likely already get plenty of assistance and welfare. But if there was justice, they would be captured as invaders and deported back to Israel borders, and fed during custody
I lost track, but if captured, then yes, otherwise as long as you aren’t actively blocking food from entering (a literal war crime) then it is acceptable.
“Everyone has a right to eat, but not everyone should have the right to the logistical supply chain that they need to receive the food” is UN doublespeak in a nutshell.
I am pretty sure if you have a military invading another country, it should be your responsibility to feed them.
And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law, the that is good.
Also, there are programs to feed starving people, but it is often blocked by malicious states (like Israel). There is no demand for Israel to feed Gaza, but there is demand for them to not block existing aid from coming in.
If its international law to guarantee everyone gets fed and you are able to defeat an military by starving out the host population (a technique the Israelis are claiming is being used to defeat Hamas) then how are you following international law?
How’s that working out?
Well, Israel is breaching international law, and way too many western nations are complicit in that genocide.
There’s a difference between attacking enemy supply lines and blocking food from entering a civilian urban area.
Sure. And you can know the difference. And I can know the difference.
And the UN Security Council can pretend not to know the difference.
isn’t it being vetoed by the US?
despite how much good the UN has done. it is an incredibly flawed institution, and the US having veto powers is a massive problem.
The US is vetoing and the rest of the member states are shrugging and announcing “Guess there’s nothing we can do”.
Europe has doubled its weapons trade with Israel since the genocide began. Arab States are expanding their trade with Israel despite internal domestic calls for boycott. The so-called ceasefire is only furthering cover for Israel’s largest partners to get back to business as usual.
Honestly I don’t know how to even process the fact that this is a globally endorsed genocide. Very few states are doing the bare minimum about it, like Spain which made an embargo on weapons sold to Israel (still trading with Israel though, just not weapons).
At least in the Holocaust you could point to a few countries being openly evil. but here? how the fuck is the whole world sponsoring a genocide???
I think it’s about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace. Surely this doesn’t mean you are not allowed to attack the supply lines of an invading army inside your own borders?
Or… does it?
A quick google yields the resolution: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf#files
Starting to read it…
It… starts with six pages of “recalling this”, “acknowledging that”? Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful? Maybe I should find a guide for reading them first…
Found one: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/31493
So… I need to look at the first word of each paragraph, determine whether or not it’s operative, and if it is it’s worth reading the rest of the paragraph?
Only “of a political and economic nature”. Are military actions considered as “political”?
Finished reading. Paragraph (is that the right name for these things?) number 30 was the only thing even remotely related to the question of an invading army. And even that relation was very, very remote.
Then again - I could have missed it. This is my first time reading a UN resolution, and man… these things are obfuscated. Why are they so obfuscated? Not as obfuscated as patents, but at least there there is a (nefarious) reason for the obfuscation. Why does the UN want to obstruct people from understanding its resolutions?
Shy of magic, that’s not a policy you can implement. Either people in a region have access to food or they don’t. You can’t just put a stamp on a loaf of bread that makes it inedible to anyone carrying a gun.
:-/
A lot of it is legalese that matters much more to an actual court system than a random layman picking through the fine print. But yes, broadly speaking a central critique of the UN has been its habit of going out and announcing “Bad Thing Is Bad” and then failing to do much to back that statement up.
At the same time, when the UN has intervened… well… look at the horror show that was the Korean War. Nevermind the intervention and occupation of Yugoslavia or Somalia. Or the Oil for Food Scandal with regard to Iraq.
I mean, the fundamental problem with the UN is that its still composed of many of the countries that are actively participating or tangentially benefiting in whatever horrible thing they’re supposed to be preventing. Much like any republican institution, you’re stuck with people who were put there by the corrupt institutions they’re supposed to police. How do you untangle that web? Ask Alexander the Great, maybe.
Again - I believe Albert was specifically talking about denying food from the soldiers of the invading enemy army.
Unless the enemy is in there long enough to start farming your land, their only have two options to get food - they can bring it from their home country (or some other country they control, or one that’s friendly enough to sell it to them) or they can try to get it from your country. You can sabotage their first option by attacking their supply lines, and as for the second option - hopefully your own citizens won’t give them food, either because they don’t want to be invaded or because they are afraid of their own government. Or both. Either way, you’ll have to protect them, of course, because the invading army may try to steal food from them.
Even if you do everything right you probably won’t be able to hermetically block their food supply - but you may be able to dwindle it enough to starve them. It takes a lot of food to feed an army.
Regardless - never underestimate the human ingenuity when it comes to inflicting harm on other human beings.
How do you deliver food to a local population so an invading army can’t get it?
Who is going to starve first? The folks with guns or the folks without?
Right. I guess the UN teasing the idea of famine relief and pulling back on it is part of that.