It is not a matter of artifically separating events into distant and recent past. It is a matter of distinguishing specific events, with their causes and ramifications. Note that I gave two possible interpretations of the word “object,” each of which provided a different answer to your question. All you need to do is clarify your question and I have provided an answer to your cryptic post that appeared to challenge Magiver’s statement while being rather vague on what information or logic you actually sought.
The war is officially in a ceasefire state; Hamas is no more and no less an active combat force now than it was through out the ceasefire period that Israel had its on and off again blockade in place.
Again, not a significant distinction from an ethical analysis POV: should Israel have allowed deliveries across the border if doing so facilitates Hamas’s eventual attacks against it? No UN staff were injured in the raids against them by Hamas. Israel also believed itself to have no alternative.
Todderbob yes you are consistent: both may be equally ethical. I on the other hand somehow feel that the UN’s action’s are less objectionable but have no logical reason for feeling so. Coming to your conclusion may be unavoidable but I am wondering if I have a way out.
Consistency suggests that if Hamas were merely distributing the food themselves then the reason for the aid has not changed and it should be continued. But, as the saying goes, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Is this a foolish consistency? Ends are only partial justification for social action. We are not cold utilitarians, even if we often bring up utilitarian justifications for action. Someone is stealing this food. It seems aid should stop for this reason. But then, is that a matter of using people’s suffering as leverage for international political gain?
The whole situation is depressing.
That is a huge assumption you’re making about Hamas’ intentions. I think it’s a lot more likely Hamas took the aid because it helps keep them in control of their government.
Mosier, yeah and controlling the food distribution helps them do that. What’s your point?
Any comments about the issues of the thread?
Yeah, stealing what is essentially the only food in the country for what might last less then a week is a really really strong signal of desperation to maintain control. Whatever it accomplishes, it will be a very short term success. It leaves Hamas in a very weak negotiating position moving forward, not untenable completely, but very weak. This is where governments become totalitarian and brutal and turn against their own people in order to stay in power instead of realizing their position relative to the outside world and making rational compromises. They could choose to lay Robin Hood, but if there is no food to be had, that is not going to work. A hungry population might not wait long before it revolts.
Hamas robbed UNRWA at gunpoint during a ceasefire so that statement is completely false.
Armed robbery equals active combat? What a … novel … definition of combat.
Hamas is terrorist group that engages in armed conflict. There is no way that UNRWA is going to give them supplies.
When it’s soldiers doing it under the command of the government, yeah.