undefined | Better HN

0 pointscypherpunks018mo ago0 comments

I think the most common string of arguments is that Hamas steals all the food being brought into Gaza, causing extreme food scarcity. Then Hamas corners the market on all food, raises food prices with its monopoly, and extracts big profits from the rest of the Gaza population. The claim, in conclusion, is that well-intentioned aid organizations bringing food into Gaza to feed starving people are actually funding Hamas.

The argument has proven totally wrong, because as every single humanitarian organization that operates in Gaza has repeatedly warned in recent months, famine conditions are the direct result of Israel generally disallowing food and other aid into Gaza since March. Had Hamas actually diverted billions of dollars into their food storage tunnels, then logically they would've continued selling it at market price when demand is high now. But actually in reality, there's nothing to buy. [1]

The market solution to prevent Hamas from profiting off food is to first allow in enough food to Gaza such that babies are no longer starving to death, and to then bring in so much food supply that prices decrease until it's no longer economically profitable to resell food, because it's widely available. That solution is never brought up for some reason.

[1] ‘There is nothing to buy’: Gaza’s descent into mass starvation https://www.ft.com/content/e5d7bcbb-4c9d-47b8-b716-6bd58ad57...

0 comments

LorenPechtel8mo ago

They keep warning. Israel cuts off supplies while changing strategies, nothing changes. That could not have happened if the original situation had been dire.

You claim there's nothing to buy but where's the evidence? They've managed to find another "starving" baby--once again, serious medical issues. As before, the relatives look fine.

And your "market" solution assumes there is a fair market. It can never work in the face of Hamas taking enough to cause scarcity.

actionfromafar8mo ago

I always wonder about these sorts of comments. If the people writing them found out the facts were different, would they feel dismay at how terribly wrong they were? Feel remorse?

Or would they just find another way to argue?

(This is of course, if they believed in it to begin with. Some just pretend.)

LorenPechtel7mo ago

I made a very simple, testable claim there.

1) The claim was the situation was dire, starvation imminent.

2) Israel cut off the supplies while restructuring the system.

3) That didn't result in a bunch of bodies.

#2 is undisputed. Just look at the news about #1, I can not see this as reasonably disputed. That leaves only #3. Hamas doesn't show any inability to get their claims out, thus why in the world should I think there's a bunch of people dead of starvation.

If I'm breaking it down wrong, show where. If you disagree with any of the subpoints, show where.

zahlman8mo ago

If you believe the facts to be different, the expected mode of discourse on HN is that you provide evidence that the facts are different.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse