The only redeeming quality of the new young "right" (conservatives under 30) is they have seen the genocide happen in real life and are all anti bibi/zionist. When you MAGA boomers die off there will be no more brainwashed conservatives who think shooting kids waiting in line is somehow Hamas fault.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/gaza-ai...ion-united-nations-d79096c9?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Gaza’s Aid Crisis Helps Only Hamas The U.N. and Israel can drop the recriminations and get food on tables. By The Editorial Board July 25, 2025 6:00 pm ET The food shortage in northern Gaza really is dire this time, which spells opportunity for Hamas. Not to accept a cease-fire that would ease the distribution of aid, but to reject one and blame Israel. U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff wrote Thursday that Hamas’s latest response to mediators “clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza.” He withdrew the U.S. negotiating team from Qatar. Hamas saw the rising international pressure on Israel, U.S. officials believe, and went back on previous concessions. The work of Hebrew University Prof. Yannay Spitzer is instructive about Gaza’s lack of supplies. He has tracked a steep rise in the price of flour in Gaza these past few months, reportedly reaching 80 times the prewar level in recent days. In an unremarked scandal, Gazans largely have had to pay merchants for United Nations aid, with Hamas taking a cut. Israel says the aggravating problem this month hasn’t been the entry of aid, but what has happened after it lets the aid in—a sharp drop in its collection for distribution by the U.N. and others. A senior U.S. official agrees: “Huge amounts of aid, purchased by U.S. taxpayers, are sitting in Gaza or less than 2.5 miles away. Rotting. The aid-industrial complex has been refusing to distribute it,” he told us. Until, that is, the past few days, after Israel shared videos of truckloads of aid waiting in Gaza for the U.N. and World Food Program. There were “entire days with zero (!) trucks of aid collected by international organizations,” an Israeli military spokesman wrote Friday. Only under pressure have the U.N. et al. dropped their excuses and collected 480 trucks’ worth since Monday, Israel said Friday. That’s good news, as Gazans have suffered for what the U.S. official calls the “my-way-or-the-highway approach” of the traditional aid groups. Israeli military stubbornness has also been to blame, including an unwillingness to divert assets that would help expand aid efforts. It’s notable that shutting down the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the new U.S.- and Israel-backed aid group, was the no. 2 item on Hamas’s list of demands in cease-fire negotiations on Thursday, according to a U.S. official who viewed them. Another U.S. official adds that the GHF has “caused Hamas more fear than anything else has in the past two years.” Whatever its flaws, the new aid group usually provides some two million meals a day directly to Gazans free of charge. That’s a threat to Hamas, which fired a rocket at a GHF aid site on Thursday. Instead of working with the GHF to make its sites safer for Gazans to access, the U.N. and other aid groups want it gone. Were the pressure to shut down the GHF to succeed, a U.S. official adds, “say goodbye to the hostages.” Hamas will have all the aid and control it needs and won’t make a deal. “The answer is more aid, not less,” a GHF spokesman said Friday. Aid also needs to get to the weak, not only the strong, which is difficult when aid sites are rushed and trucks are looted. Opening an aid site to women only, as the GHF did Thursday, is one promising idea. Israel is running out of time to ensure more aid gets through to Gazans. Blaming the U.N., though fair, doesn’t suffice. In a good sign on Friday, Israel allowed Arab states to resume aid airdrops. Jerusalem will also have to prove to its allies that the GHF can work and scale up operations, or risk losing their support. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior Minister Ron Dermer appreciate the urgency, a U.S. official says, “the dips— around them are oblivious and don’t care.” They need to, but as Israeli writer Haviv Rettig Gur notes, “It’s hard to convince Israelis of that because literally everything said to them for 22 months on this topic has been a fiction.” Appeared in the July 26, 2025, print edition as 'Gaza’s Aid Crisis Helps Only Hamas'.
WSJ is complicit in peddling genocidal propaganda. They recently published an op-ed by an actual ISIS member who is collaborating with the genocidal state on the GHF project that has lead to the death of thousands of aid-seeking Palestinians. It's also quite interesting to see the contrast in narrative between American and israeli media. The former continues to push the narrative that Hamas is responsible for any and everything, whereas the latter makes it clear its netanyahu who continues to sabotage peace deals and the IOF terrorist army who has debilitated the aid distribution infrastructure in Gaza.
Grok evaluation of arguments in this piece critical of the UN, weighed against counter-arguments from UN and aid groups: 1. Failure to Collect and Distribute Aid • WSJ Argument: The WSJ’s claim that aid is rotting due to UN inaction is partially supported by Israeli reports of uncollected trucks and the eventual collection of 480 trucks after public pressure. This suggests some UN delays or inefficiencies. The reliance on U.S. and Israeli sources strengthens the case for specific instances of inaction but risks bias by omitting the UN’s perspective. • UN Counterargument: The UN’s response is compelling, emphasizing Israel’s blockade since March 2, 2025, as the primary barrier. The reduction from 400 to four distribution points, coupled with reports of looting and unsafe routes, supports the UN’s claim that external constraints, not internal failures, are the main issue. The UN’s proven success during the ceasefire (400+ sites, door-to-door delivery) undermines the WSJ’s focus on UN negligence. • Assessment: The WSJ’s evidence of uncollected aid is concerning but lacks context about Israel’s restrictions and the collapse of the UN-led system. The UN provides a stronger case by detailing specific barriers (blockade, limited routes, looting) and its prior effectiveness. The truth likely lies in a combination: some UN logistical issues may exist, but Israel’s policies are the dominant factor. 2. Opposition to the GHF • WSJ Argument: The WSJ portrays the UN’s opposition as self-serving, aligning with Hamas’s interests to maintain control over aid. The claim that the GHF’s success (2 million meals/day) threatens Hamas and the UN is provocative but lacks evidence of UN-Hamas collusion. The WSJ’s reliance on U.S. officials’ views of Hamas’s demands is speculative without documentation. • UN Counterargument: The UN’s rejection of the GHF is well-documented and rooted in humanitarian principles, supported by reports of over 1,054 deaths near GHF sites due to militarized distribution. The UN’s argument that the GHF’s limited hubs (four vs. 400) and reliance on Israeli security make it inadequate and dangerous is backed by health ministry data and NGO reports (e.g., MSF, ICRC). The UN’s emphasis on its own capacity (116,000 tons ready) is credible given past performance. • Assessment: The UN’s critique of the GHF is more substantiated, with data on casualties and logistical shortcomings. The WSJ’s claim of UN-Hamas alignment is unsupported and inflammatory, while the UN’s concerns about politicized aid align with international humanitarian law. The WSJ’s focus on GHF’s meal output overlooks its risks and limited scale. 3. Enabling Profiteering by Hamas • WSJ Argument: The WSJ’s claim that Gazans pay for UN aid, with Hamas taking a cut, is supported by Prof. Yannay Spitzer’s data on flour prices (80x prewar levels), suggesting a distorted aid market. However, it lacks direct evidence of UN complicity, relying on inference. An X post from @UNWatch (2024) claims UNRWA staff steal and sell aid, but this is outdated and unverified. • UN Counterargument: The UN denies large-scale diversion, citing monitoring systems and attributing looting to armed gangs and scarcity caused by Israel’s blockade. The reduction in distribution points and blockade since March 2025 created conditions for profiteering, which the UN frames as beyond its control. The lack of a direct response to Hamas’s cut suggests a gap in addressing local corruption. • Assessment: The WSJ’s point about profiteering is plausible given price data, but it overstates UN culpability without evidence of complicity. The UN’s explanation of external factors (blockade, looting) is more convincing, as it aligns with reports of systemic constraints. However, the UN’s silence on Hamas’s role in profiteering weakens its response, as localized corruption is a known issue in conflict zones. 4. “My-Way-or-the-Highway” Approach • WSJ Argument: The WSJ’s accusation of UN rigidity is vague, citing a U.S. official’s opinion without specifics. It implies the UN refuses to adapt to the GHF or new realities, but it doesn’t detail what flexibility is needed. • UN Counterargument: The UN’s insistence on humanitarian principles is principled, not rigid, and supported by international law. Its rejection of the GHF is based on concrete risks (casualties, inadequacy) and a proven alternative (UN-led system). The UN’s readiness to deliver 116,000 tons of aid if allowed entry refutes claims of inflexibility. • Assessment: The WSJ’s critique is weak, lacking evidence of what the UN should do differently beyond accepting the GHF, which the UN convincingly argues is flawed. The UN’s stance is grounded in legal and practical concerns, making it more robust. Conclusion The WSJ’s critiques of the UN’s role in Gaza’s aid distribution highlight real issues—uncollected aid, profiteering, and opposition to the GHF—but overstate UN culpability and lack sufficient evidence for claims like Hamas-UN alignment. The UN’s responses are more compelling, supported by data on Israel’s blockade, GHF-related casualties (1,054+ deaths), and the UN’s proven capacity during the ceasefire (400+ sites). Israel’s restrictions since March 2025, reducing distribution points to four and limiting aid entry, are the primary drivers of the crisis, exacerbated by Hamas’s looting and profiteering. The UN’s rejection of the GHF is justified by its risks and violation of humanitarian principles, though its silence on local corruption (Hamas’s cut) is a gap. Final Conclusion: The UN bears some responsibility for logistical delays, as evidenced by uncollected trucks, but its culpability is minor compared to Israel’s blockade and the GHF’s flawed system, which have caused far greater harm. The WSJ’s narrative unfairly shifts blame from systemic issues (Israeli restrictions, Hamas interference) to the UN, ignoring the broader context. The UN’s call for unrestricted access and a return to its proven system is the most viable path to address Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, provided it strengthens local oversight to curb profiteering.
1 . Why would anyone agree to a ceasefire with Israel... They will break it 2. We have eyewitness accounts from our own troops saying how US and Israel are shooting people that go to collect the aid 3. **** Hamas 4. **** netanyahu 5. **** anyone who thinks that the right answer is to commit genocide, no matter the logic.
