You say Geneva only mentions “diversion,” not combat. Let’s read it plainly: diversion for enemy use. Food diverted to fighters is not legitimate cause to starve civilians. Fighters eating bread doesn’t nullify the obligation to keep civilians alive. You’re redefining diversion to mean any aid Hamas touches – that’s not law, it’s loophole hunting to justify siege.
Hamas was taking it, using it to control the people and selling it to get money for their payroll. That is clearly military use.
And you continue to not understand that Geneva imposes no obligation whatsoever on the besieging power to address misconduct by the sieged power.
You claim “there’s no doubt about diversion.” Funny how certainty only ever points toward collective punishment. Show the proof that bread and insulin are systematically rerouted to weapons stockpiles. Otherwise, you’re arguing civilians should die because you can’t separate them cleanly from their rulers. That’s exactly what collective punishment is.
You really need to get a dictionary. You still don't understand "punishment" in the context of Geneva.
You demand where Geneva imposes alternative arrangements. Start with Articles 23 and 59, then read the ICRC commentary: if direct passage fails, parties must negotiate means to ensure aid reaches civilians. That principle is embedded in customary IHL: humane treatment isn’t optional because distribution is complicated.
Must negotiate. Hamas isn't negotiating. They are simply killing people for not going through Hamas. Once again, Hamas commits evil and you blame Israel.
You say diversion was happening, as if that ends the discussion. No, it begins it. The question is whether that diversion justified mass starvation. “Some is stolen” has never been a legal basis to cut off all aid. That’s moral cowardice posing as pragmatism.
Geneva merely says probability of diversion, doesn't even require it to have happened.
You argue Israel gets “complete say.” Wrong. Israel has the right to regulate for security, not to weaponize starvation as leverage. Your reading turns international law into a dictatorship’s handbook.
Again, your magic words that you don't understand. They aren't weaponizing it, they're simply interfering with Hamas weaponizing it.
You call me diseased for believing there must be an answer. That’s your confession: you’ve given up. You think because it’s hard, we’re permitted to abandon decency. If you truly believed there’s no answer, you wouldn’t waste time defending cruelty as strategy. You’d just admit it’s all about punishment dressed up as realism.
I didn't say diseased. But it is a serious flaw. You grasp at straws to find answers and end up taking wildly wrong actions.
You blame Hamas for exploiting kids, so you wash your hands of the starvation those kids endure. That’s not analysis. That’s moral outsourcing.
It's not my job to take the food from Hamas and give it to the kid.
You keep citing “dual use” as a blank cheque for attacks. Dual use triggers proportionality analysis, not immunity from accountability. You collapse complexity into excuses because anything more honest would force you to grapple with these civilian lives as human.
Magic words again. You think proportionality automatically makes Israel wrong.
You demand proof that Israel struck civilian sites. Your own military acknowledged airstrikes that hit schools and hospitals later found not to contain Hamas infrastructure. You dismiss Israeli apologies as PR, but happily cite IDF claims when they suit you. That’s not skepticism. It’s selective trust to maintain your moral comfort.
Strawman.
You're saying "infrastructure". Note that that does not mean they did not contain Hamas.
The study showed radicalization correlates with oppression – not that oppression is the only factor. My point wasn’t that Palestinians radicalize because Israel oppresses them, but that oppression fuels radicalization. Your analogy to incels collapses because incels radicalize despite privilege, while Palestinians radicalize under siege and daily violence. That’s not the same psychology. That’s comparing loneliness to military occupation.
And you fail to understand.
There unquestionably is a relationship. That does not prove that it's the only path, nor does it prove the oppression is real.
Gazans radicalize because that's what their schools teach.