This seems a tad disingenous. First, “not supporting Israel’s military actions” doesn’t necessarily mean “supporting cutting off military aid to Israel”. I feel sure if that if pollsters were specifically asking “Would you be in favor of preventing Israel from defending its own civilian population, while leaving its capacity to carry out offensive operations against Palestinian civilians intact?”, a large majority would reply “What, are you fucking crazy?”
…it was in response to about how using the g-word may lose more support than it gains. That particular response was addressing that: not talking about cutting off military aid to Israel.
It’s not disingenuous at all.
OK, so you’re not trying to claim that only 32% of Americans would oppose the MTG amendment?
Well, if Israel were feeding starving children rather than slaughtering them with machine guns, their claims that kicking UNRWA out was about fighting Hamas would seem a lot more credible.
Something else about some of these polls, I heard a pretty pro-Israel pundit talk about how 'do you have more sympathy for Palestinians or Israelis’ is kind of a bad question. He pointed out that even for people on Israel’s side, aside from the Israelis still in captivity, it’s pretty obvious that Palestinians are in the situation that justifies more sympathy. Israel is winning the war, including smashing up Hamas’ allies Hezbollah, the Houthis, and even Iran.
But “who engenders more sympathy” is a different question than “which side in the war do you support”.
…if I were intending to claim this, I would have said this.
The GHF has delivered something like 100 million meals so far. They should continue to up their capacity, but the idea that Israel is just slaughtering people rather than feeding them is very clearly untrue.
Well, why did you post polling generically about “support for Israel’s military actions” in the context of a discussion specifically about the MTG amendment, then?
…it was in the context of the quote I was directly responding to, which was further in the context of something else we were discussing.
Just go read the exchange. The context is right there.
…the amount of meals the GHF have distributed is simply yet another unverified claim.
What matters is this:
Bolding mine.
It doesn’t matter if GHF have claimed to have delivered 100 million meals or 100 BILLION meals. It simply isn’t enough. It isn’t the right type of food. It isn’t being distributed efficiently or fairly. And hundreds of thousands of people are unable to access it.
“I ask myself: how did we get here?” the celebrated writer and peace activist told the Italian daily La Repubblica in an interview published on Friday.
“How did we come to be accused of genocide? Just uttering that word – ‘genocide’ – in reference to Israel, to the Jewish people, that alone, the fact that this association can even be made, should be enough to tell us that something very wrong is happening to us.”
Grossman said that for many years he had refused to use the term. “But now I can’t help myself – not after what I’ve read in the papers, not after the images I’ve seen, not after speaking with people who’ve been there. This word is an avalanche: once you say it, it just gets bigger, like an avalanche. And it adds even more destruction and suffering,” he said.
…the latest from Human Rights Watch:
This part seems important:
It lead me to wonder how the GHF were actually defining a meal.
From Wikipedia:
So when you hear GHF talk about “meals”, don’t imagine individual portions per person. It’s a calorie count.
And that lead me down a rabbit hole of just how long Israel have been counting calories as a means of control in Gaza.
From 2012:
The original calculations made “deductions” because of locally produced food. However, we can’t take that into account now though, because the farms have been razed, and Palestinians are forbidden from fishing from the ocean.
So using the original numbers, the IDF calculated they needed 850 trucks per week to feed Gaza.
If we assume the 60 trucks providing food happens seven days, the GHF is only providing 420 trucks. Not even half the amount needed to feed Gaza.
This doesn’t account for what other agencies are bringing in, which estimates suggests averages about 70 trucks per day.
How will Israel’s ‘humanitarian pauses’ affect Gaza’s starvation crisis? | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian.
But this is just calories. It doesn’t account for distribution. It doesn’t account for how much of the food provided by the GHF isn’t usable because it requires water: and the GHF doesn’t provide water.
The Humanitarian agencies say they need between 4-600 trucks daily at the very least. At the moment, it averages at only about 130 trucks per day. It’s woefully inefficient.
So when you hear numbers like “100 million meals”, remember that isn’t actual meals distributed or consumed. It’s a calorie count. Of things, that includes dried pasta. All very scientific. Just math.
It’s how Israel have manufactured consent for famine.
(Disclaimer: maths was never my strong point. If someone could check it for me, I would hate to spread misinformation)
The strategy of Iran/Hamas was to garner the support of Islamic countries.
And they succeeded.
Arab States Call for Hamas to Disarm Amid Push for a Palestinian State
the 22 member nations of the Arab League have united in their condemnation of Hamas for the Oct 7 attack. They’ve additionally called for Hamas to lay down its weapons, release all hostages and end its rule of the Gaza Strip,
None of this excuses Israel and the IDF for multiple atrocities, including shooting crowds of unarmed, starving civilians, including women and children, and disallowing enough food for Gaza, leading towards widespread starvation.
Man, that’s some system of accountability from The World’s Most Moral Army. Seven months for repeated assault - no, torture - of helpless bound prisoners. And that’s the only jail sentence.
Another prominent skeptic now considers the ongoing atrocities in Gaza genocide:
I think we’ve reached a tipping point in terms of international public opinion about the war. It’s more and more undeniable that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza are unconscionable.
How is the opinion of a UCLA Professor a tipping point on international public opinion?
It’s not. I think we’ve reached a tipping point based on a shift in opinion polling around the world, and governments (aside from the US and Israel, so far) are reacting to this public opinion shift with things that, previously, appeared impossible – like recognizing the Palestinian state.
Looks like Netanyahu has found a plan that he likes. Is it “keep the war going and in fact make it even bigger”? You guessed it!
But the IDF defenders in the thread have insisted that Netanyahu has no control over the military and the cooler heads in actual control would never allow such a strategy! Who are we to believe?