By John Q. Hosedrinker 
For 68 days, Israel has completely blocked all humanitarian aid to Gaza, resulting in a worsening humanitarian crisis with at least 57 deaths from malnutrition and lack of medical care. Senator Sanders decried this situation, highlighting that Israel’s stated policy of using aid as a weapon violates international law and basic human decency. He further criticized the US’s complicity, citing billions in military aid to Israel and discussions of a US-led post-war administration of Gaza. Sanders urged an immediate end to US support for Israel’s actions and a surge in humanitarian aid to prevent mass starvation and death.
Read the original article here
The assertion that “civilized people do not starve children to death” forms the stark centerpiece of a critical condemnation of the 68-day blockade imposed on Gaza. This prolonged denial of essential resources paints a grim picture, one where the slow, deliberate withholding of necessities is equated to a brutal process of mass starvation and death. It’s a deliberate policy, not an accident, and the scale of suffering is immense.
The outrage over this situation extends beyond the immediate humanitarian crisis. The blockade is not simply a matter of logistical difficulties; it is viewed as a calculated strategy designed to inflict suffering and death. The deliberate nature of this action is what fuels the condemnation. The deliberate choice to restrict access to food, water, and medical care is seen as a violation of basic human rights.
The complicity of other nations, particularly the United States, is a crucial element in this narrative. The ongoing support, whether in the form of arms sales or diplomatic cover, is viewed as enabling the blockade and thereby making other countries complicit in the resulting suffering. This shared responsibility raises questions of international law and morality, prompting calls for an immediate end to all forms of support for policies that cause such widespread human suffering.
The economic implications of the blockade amplify the moral outrage. The intentional restriction of resources forces a captive population into a desperate struggle for survival. This struggle inevitably pits neighbor against neighbor, exacerbating existing tensions and undermining any chance of long-term stability. The lack of basic necessities, like food, creates chaos and conflict, a deliberately created crisis designed to break the will of the people.
The long-term consequences of this action are seen as potentially catastrophic. The prolonged suffering and loss of life are not just immediate concerns; they create a legacy of trauma and instability that will hinder the region’s progress for generations. The destruction inflicted extends far beyond immediate mortality; it sears into the collective memory, leaving behind deep scars that will take years, even decades, to heal.
The argument that the current actions constitute a form of genocide fuels the call for international action. The systematic infliction of suffering, the deliberate targeting of a civilian population, and the long-term consequences of the blockade all point to a calculated attempt to destroy a population. This characterization necessitates a strong response from the global community.
The calls for change transcend partisan politics and national interests. This issue is presented as a matter of fundamental human rights, rising above political disagreements. It demands a response driven by universal moral principles, not political agendas. The underlying concern is not just political; it’s a deeply felt moral outrage at the scale of the suffering inflicted.
The failure to act decisively is framed as a moral failure of the highest order. Allowing such suffering to continue, particularly against children, is a stark indictment of the international community’s inaction. The condemnation of the blockade is presented as not simply a political statement; it’s a moral imperative to protect innocent lives.
Yet, even with strong condemnations, there are other perspectives. Some argue that the blockade is a necessary measure to prevent the flow of weapons and supplies to militant groups. Others point to the role of Hamas, suggesting the responsibility for the suffering in Gaza lies primarily with its leadership. But even amidst counterarguments, the core message remains: The suffering of the population, particularly children, is unconscionable and demands an immediate end to the blockade. The urgent need to alleviate this humanitarian crisis overrides all other considerations.