# UNRWA threatens to starve Gazans as an attempt to get Hamas to change. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832 "2009-02-07T20:32:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/1 "2009-02-07T20:32:19Z")
[Link.](http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062219.html) > [@](#): > > The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) on Friday said it is suspending humanitarian aid in Gaza until further notice, after Hamas seized control of its warehouses and stole 200 tons of food and supplies. > > The agency said it made the decision after Hamas personnel seized an aid shipment on Thursday. Earlier this week, Hamas police took thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents… > > … UNRWA said the suspension would remain in effect until the aid is returned and the agency receives credible assurances from the Hamas government that such thefts will end. There was no immediate reaction from Hamas… > > … “There is enough aid for days, not weeks,” he said. … Some 80 percent of Gaza’s 1.4 million people rely on the UN agency for food and other support … The UNRWA wants to be in control of food distribution and doesn’t want to let Hamas take the food and distribute it itself. Rather than let Hamas distribute the food they’ll prevent its coming in. This may or may not be a necessary action and may be the only way to get Hamas to stop commandeering the supplies but this _is_ the UNRWA holding needed food supplies hostage from rank and file Gazans in order to motivate change in Hamas’s behavior. Is that ethical behavior? Is it at its heart much different than Israel’s blocking supplies from rank and file Gazans to motivate changes in Hamas’s behavior? If so how? I honestly do not know the answer and look forward to being edified. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/2 "2009-02-07T20:41:00Z")
The article doesn’t say what Hamas has allegedly done with the supplies.If it’s a case of Hamas diverting them to their soldiers or selling them for weapons, then the civilians aren’t being helped by relief anyway and the UN can’t and won’t be a party to defacto keeping a belligerent army fed and supplied. I don’t know what the UNRWA’s standing policy is regarding direct relief vs. supplying government relief organizations, but I hadn’t heard that Gaza was being singled out. In any event, when food is a weapon or a propaganda tool, even the best intentioned humanitarian efforts sometimes can’t avoid politics. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/3 "2009-02-07T20:51:11Z")
Mised edit window, but to add: And when you have radical guerilla organizations that regard their populations as either loyal- and therefore willing to bear any burden the leadership deems necessary- or as counterrevolutionary collaborators who deserve death, then the presumption humanitarian aid is based on- that the leadership cares about it’s peoples’ welfare- isn’t a given anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/4 "2009-02-07T20:55:08Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The UNRWA wants to be in control of food distribution and doesn’t want to let Hamas take the food and distribute it itself. Rather than let Hamas distribute the food they’ll prevent its coming in. Did you fail to notice that Hamas sent armed men to take the aid by force? That is not a good way to persuade people to trust you. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/5 "2009-02-07T21:10:27Z")
**Grumman** what relevance does that have to the issue? Accepted that Hamas is bad and that letting them be in charge of supplies is undesirable. Accept that even without the armed men. Accept that from Israel’s POV in letting in supplies to a Hamas in control Gaza at all. (If true for the UN it is also of course also true for the Israelis.) The questions remain. Should the UN be condemned for holding these food supplies hostage from the Gazan people? If not why not? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/6 "2009-02-07T22:04:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > \ holding these food supplies hostage from the Gazan people? I repeat myself: **were** they getting to the Gazan people? If the answer is “no, Hamas was trading them to Egyptian smugglers for rockets”, then how is the Gazan peoples’ suffering the UN’s fault? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/7 "2009-02-07T22:33:23Z")
While I cannot prove that they were not trading large volumes of food across demolished tunnels into Egypt for small volumes of weapons I can state that such is highly improbable. The food is likely staying within Gaza even if it is being distributed, as perhaps all supplies have been by Hamas, somewhat capriciously. In general Hamas has made itself popular by doling out the goods to the people; it would boggle the imagination to think that they would not use this food for that purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/8 "2009-02-07T23:02:50Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The food is likely staying within Gaza even if it is being distributed, as perhaps all supplies have been by Hamas, somewhat capriciously. In general Hamas has made itself popular by doling out the goods to the people; it would boggle the imagination to think that they would not use this food for that purpose. Accepting that, then I moderate my previous stance, which still leaves a problem: If Hamas distributes the food to be “popular” in the sense of “obey Hamas or go hungry”. That’s the crux: the UNRWA has a mandate to see that all get fed, regardless of political affiliation. If Hamas is using relief food as a tool to regiment the population, and denying it to holdouts, then the UNRWA has a valid grievance. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/9 "2009-02-07T23:29:33Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > That’s the crux: the UNRWA has a mandate to see that all get fed, regardless of political affiliation. Of course, when the crux goes missing, _someone_ has got to pick up the slack. > [@](#): > > UN Webcast > > **UNRWA Pulls out of Gaza, UN Drivers Killed** > Mark Leon Goldberg - **January 8, 2009** - 6:47pm > > ``` > * Conflicts > > ``` > > More dispiriting news from Gaza. From the UN News Center. > > ``` > A United Nations agency that is a lifeline for 750,000 Palestinian refugees in Gaza suspended food delivery operations today after Israeli strikes killed two of its drivers and injured a third on the 13th day of an offensive launched with the stated aim of ending Hamas militant rocket attacks into Israel. > > ``` [http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2009/01/unrwa\_pulls\_out.php](http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2009/01/unrwa_pulls_out.php) Did anyone in the region besides Hamas volunteer for the job? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/10 "2009-02-07T23:34:16Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Grumman** what relevance does that have to the issue? Accepted that Hamas is bad and that letting them be in charge of supplies is undesirable. Accept that even without the armed men. Accept that from Israel’s POV in letting in supplies to a Hamas in control Gaza at all. (If true for the UN it is also of course also true for the Israelis.) The questions remain. Should the UN be condemned for holding these food supplies hostage from the Gazan people? If not why not? **DSeid** , you’re working backwards. It doesn’t matter whether Hamas is the ‘bad guy’ or not in this scenario. The fact that the supplies are being forcibly commondeered is the topic at hand, and why they’re not going to continue aiding. It could be Vatican City that commondeers the supplies, and you’ll have the same reaction. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/11 "2009-02-08T03:02:38Z")
UNRWA threatens to starve Gazans as an attempt to get Hamas to change. The title of the thread should be **Hamas’s armed robbery of UNRWA threatens future deliverie of aid.** UNRWA is not a support group for terrorist organizations nor are it’s people the object of armed aggression. Any perception of it will reduce aid donations. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/12 "2009-02-08T03:11:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > UNRWA … nor are it’s people the object of armed aggression. The dead ones mentioned in post nine weren’t the object of armed aggression? How so? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/13 "2009-02-08T05:51:12Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > The dead ones mentioned in post nine weren’t the object of armed aggression? How so? I suppose it depends on how one defines “object.” If “object” is used to indicate “target,” then the answer is that they were not the object/target of armed aggression, because they were actually “collateral damage” from an attack that targeted someone else. If “object” indicates anyone who is harmed by an attack, then they clearly were. At any rate, that event is not part of the current discussion. During the period when Israel first fired on and then invaded Gaza with the intent to stop the rocket attacks, the UNRWA suspended relif shipments for some period to prevent the drivers being harmed. Then the Israelis withdrew and another tenuous truce was establisheed, at which point UNRWA went back in with relief supplies. At that point, Hamas accused the UNRWA of not abiding by some rule that Hamas had cooked up and seized the blankets and food. After a repeat of that incident, the UNRWA suspended relief supplies for a second time. It is this second suspension that is under discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/14 "2009-02-08T06:47:31Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > The dead ones mentioned in post nine weren’t the object of armed aggression? How so? If someone take something from you at the point of a gun, that is armed aggression. If the person holding a gun is a terrorist group, then contributions go down. Where is your argument? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/15 "2009-02-08T07:11:02Z")
**Todderbob** no I am not working it backwards at all. Let’s make it very hypothetical and abstract: Is it acceptable to threaten a consequence to an entire population, such as cutting off food supplies, in order to motivate a change of behavior in the ruling entity of that population? Israel did that (by preventing full deliveries of supplies across its borders in order to pressure Hamas) and many of us, including myself and including many UN representatives, objected to it on the basis that it was group punishment. Now the UN is also doing that (refusing to deliver any more food supplies as a means of pressuring Hamas to stop hijacking some of it for them to distribute themselves). I am less sure about condemning that and obviously the UN does not. Whether the motivation for the threatened cut off of food deliveries is armed robbery, or kidnapping, or rocket attacks, or whatever is immaterial. The fact that the UN would do the same to other groups or otherwise approves other blockades by groups other than Israel is also immaterial. The people who suffer from a cut off are the rank and file Gazans and that eventuality is being used to try to force a change in Hamas behavior. I fail to see any ethical distinction between the UNRWA’s action in this regard and Israel’s on and off again partial blockade. Both cases are preventing food supplies from getting into the hands of a group who would use it to reward and punish and to gain political support. Both cases keep the food from getting to those who need it. Holding back food supplies from a population in need is either an ethical tactic or it isn’t. I am therefore left with two choices if I am to be consistent - Either I condemn the UN’s actions or I reconsider my condemnation of Israel’s blockade. I am uncomfortable with either choice but I am even more uncomfortable with the hypocrisy of condemning an action done by Israel and not the same sort of action if done by the UN. **Squink** , of course **Tom** ’s points are cogent but to directly answer your question: yes, the UN, the PA, among others have volunteered for the job. Meanwhile it [appears](http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062219.html) that the UN threat of group punishment has been effective. Hamas is spinning it as a mistake, > [@](#): > > that the UN trucks involved were not marked and Hamas officials believed the goods were sent by Egyptian charities, meant to be given straight to Hamas. … UNRWA said the suspension would remain in effect until the aid is returned and the agency receives credible assurances from the Hamas government that such thefts will end. … “Hamas policemen stormed into an aid warehouse in Gaza City Tuesday evening and confiscated 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels ready for distribution to 500 families,” said UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness on Wednesday. > > “They were armed, they seized this, they took it by force,” Gunness said, terming the incident absolutely unacceptable. > > Police seized the aid after UNRWA officials refused to voluntarily hand it over to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs, he said. Similar aid packages were distributed to 70,000 residents over the past two weeks, Gunness said. > > Ahmad Kurd, the Hamas official in charge of the ministry, did not deny the aid was seized. Other Hamas officials defended their actions. > > Hamas spokesman Taher Nunu demanded an apology and said UNRWA was spreading false news. So the tactic may be an effective one as used by the UN in this circumstance even if the same tactic was ineffective when used by the Israeli government. Does that change the ethical analysis? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/16 "2009-02-08T07:17:28Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Is it acceptable to threaten a consequence to an entire population, such as cutting off food supplies, in order to motivate a change of behavior in the ruling entity of that population? It’s a loaded question: You assume they’re withholding aid as a political action to motivate change within Hamas. They’re only hope to motivate change is to prevent their convoys from being robbed at gun point. In this particular instance; yes, it’s perfectly acceptable. > [@DSeid](#): > > The people who suffer from a cut off are the rank and file Gazans and that eventuality is being used to try to force a change in Hamas behavior. Perhaps that’s what’s necessary. > [@DSeid](#): > > I fail to see any ethical distinction between the UNRWA’s action in this regard and Israel’s on and off again partial blockade. Both cases are preventing food supplies from getting into the hands of a group who would use it to reward and punish and to gain political support. Both cases keep the food from getting to those who need it. Holding back food supplies from a population in need is either an ethical tactic or it isn’t. I think it’s a perfectly ethical tactic. > [@DSeid](#): > > I am therefore left with two choices if I am to be consistent - Either I condemn the UN’s actions or I reconsider my condemnation of Israel’s blockade. I’ve been in support of Israel’s blockade the whole time, so I’m not faced with an ethical or moral dilemma. > [@DSeid](#): > > I am uncomfortable with either choice but I am even more uncomfortable with the hypocrisy of condemning an action done by Israel and not the same sort of action if done by the UN. Why are you uncomfortable with either choice? > [@DSeid](#): > > **Squink** , of course **Tom** ’s points are cogent but to directly answer your question: yes, the UN, the PA, among others have volunteered for the job. > > Meanwhile it [appears](http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062219.html) that the UN threat of group punishment has been effective. Hamas is spinning it as a mistake, > So the tactic may be an effective one as used by the UN in this circumstance even if the same tactic was ineffective when used by the Israeli government. Does that change the ethical analysis? Not for me. But it’s good to hear. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/17 "2009-02-08T07:30:07Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > In general Hamas has made itself popular by doling out the goods to the people; it would boggle the imagination to think that they would not use this food for that purpose. Currently studying agricultural distribution channels in the US so take this however you want… Seizing control of the channel is not a good strategy for long term popularity if you don’t have a steady supply. Just saying… Also consider if what Hamas, UN, and you consider fair and equitable distribution methods are likely to be the same. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/18 "2009-02-08T07:34:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Is it acceptable to threaten a consequence to an entire population, such as cutting off food supplies, in order to motivate a change of behavior in the ruling entity of that population? Consider the alternative: should the UNRWA continue to _try_ to distribute aid, if doing so makes them the victims of Hamas raids? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/19 "2009-02-08T07:36:42Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > [ > > Now the UN is also doing that (refusing to deliver any more food supplies as a means of pressuring Hamas to stop hijacking some of it for them to distribute themselves). I am less sure about condemning that and obviously the UN does not. > > Whether the motivation for the threatened cut off of food deliveries is armed robbery, or kidnapping, or rocket attacks, or whatever is immaterial. The fact that the UN would do the same to other groups or otherwise approves other blockades by groups other than Israel is also immaterial. The people who suffer from a cut off are the rank and file Gazans and that eventuality is being used to try to force a change in Hamas behavior. > > I fail to see any ethical distinction between the UNRWA’s action in this regard and Israel’s on and off again partial blockade. The distinction is that one is fighting a war, and the other is not. UNRWA is an international relief organization and their job is not to support armies fighting a war. Delivering aid to a combat force puts them in the role of actively supporting those forces. So yes, it’s material if one of the armies steals the food. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832/20 "2009-02-08T07:47:58Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > At any rate, that event is not part of the current discussion. Three weeks back is suddenly the distant past? I’d bet the people who didn’t get food after Jan 9 still have that memory fresh in their minds. If that event is not part of the current discussion it should be, else we’re just targeting our discussions to the point of deciding what conclusions we _should_ have before the first word is even said. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unrwa-threatens-to-starve-gazans-as-an-attempt-to-get-hamas-to-change/484832.md?page=2)