Chef ANDRES : Yeah, this is probably written by somebody that doesn't have -- who has a lot of time on his hands (on Oxfam's objecting food airdrops in genocidal Hamas' Gaza)

'This Week' Transcript 3-3-24: Sen. Chris Murphy, KARL: I want to ask you about the airdrops, because there's been some in the humanitarian aid community who have questioned them. Oxfam put out a statement just -- just recently, saying "Oxfam does not support U.S. airdrops to Gaza, which would mostly serve" -- again, the Oxfam statement says -- "to relieve the guilty consciences of senior U.S. officials whose policies are contributing to the ongoing .. and the risk of famine in Gaza."

ANDRES: Yeah, this is probably written by somebody that doesn't have -- who has a lot of time on his hands. Listen, we need to bring food into Gaza any way we can. If the airdrops are happening, Jordan began -- the king of Jordan has been in some of those drops. They were doing it to bring food to their hospital. It's great that then they increased to four planes, seven planes, so the countries join, more massive. Then the U.S. follows suit. We should be bringing it by the sea, maritime. We should be putting boats in front of Gaza. I hope it's going to happen soon, where we can be bringing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of meals. Why are we doing the air? Why are people doing, thinking about coming by -- by the sea? Because the political situation is not allowing to bring safely enough trucks. Therefore we need to be bold. I don't think we need to be criticizing that Jordan, America are doing airdrops. If anything, we should be applauding any initiative that brings food into Gaza.

The more quickly Hamas is eliminated, the more quickly food delivery can resume.

Actually, there is no restoring Gaza to normal after the war, particularly not northern Gaza. Not in any short term. It’s former residents should probably be relocated to the West Bank and northern Gaza annexed by Israel.

Actually he probably got it right. The logic is too convoluted to be rationalized.

“The people are starving and it’s your fault”
“Ok, let’s get them food”
“You only want to feed them because you feel guilty”

It’s more about a larger assignment of blame than solving a problem.

You are not wrong, the sense of humanity is nearly devoid from the logic. The political ideological force is just overpowering everything else. They should be happy if starving people get food. But their motives are not all that pure. They really only point out these starving people because it suits these particular politics. There are people starving in many places there are wars in many places and it doesn’t make their radar because it’s not in their ideological realm. It’s the entire oppressed/oppressor narrative (or worse) taking precedence over what should otherwise be simple compassion. It’s a good thing for the hungry, but not good for these intellectual types who want a lot more and need hungry people to justify their other ideas. So to them the charity has to be tinged, impure, dirty, because it comes from the “oppressor” who is by nature bad.

If you want to go a level deeper on the political angle - say for example the images of hungry people make for good wartime PR to further other agendas you may have. Giving the people food takes away that PR weapon which you are using to advance your other agenda. So it’s not really about the people needing food, it’s the people needing food that justifies your other beliefs and aims. If you’re an ideologue, the good is always the enemy of your ideal. Hunger is a weapon - but for which side?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.