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?
Bkmk