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

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    1·
    16 hours ago

    And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law

    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?

    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…

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      1·
      16 hours ago

      Found one: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/31493

      What’s actually important about these italicized words is the division between the preambulary and operative clauses as a whole. Whereas the preamble uses gerunds such as “Reaffirming” and “Recalling” and similar terms, the operative clauses, which are binding, use terms such as “Decides” “Appeals” and “Approves”.

      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?

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        1·
        16 hours ago
        1. Stresses that all States should make all efforts to ensure that their international policies of a political and economic nature, including international trade agreements, do not have a negative impact on the right to food in other countries;

        Only “of a political and economic nature”. Are military actions considered as “political”?

        • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
          1·
          15 hours ago

          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?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      16 hours ago

      I think it’s about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace.

      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.

      Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful?

      :-/

      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.

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        1·
        15 hours ago

        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.

        1. 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.

        2. Regardless - never underestimate the human ingenuity when it comes to inflicting harm on other human beings.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          14 hours ago

          denying food from the soldiers of the invading enemy army.

          How do you deliver food to a local population so an invading army can’t get it?

          you may be able to dwindle it enough to starve them

          Who is going to starve first? The folks with guns or the folks without?

          never underestimate the human ingenuity when it comes to inflicting harm on other human beings.

          Right. I guess the UN teasing the idea of famine relief and pulling back on it is part of that.