Did Israel deliberately target the aid workers?

José Andrés, the boss of World Kitchen finds it implausible that this could have been an accident.

"This was not just a bad luck situation where, 'Oops, we dropped a bomb in the wrong place,'" Andrés told the Reuters news agency, stressing that his team's vehicles were clearly marked and "it's very clear who we are and what we do."

"They were targeting us in a deconflicting zone, in an area controlled by IDF. They, knowing that it was our teams moving on that road... with three cars," he said, adding that he believed the seven aid workers killed by the strike in Gaza were targeted "systematically, car by car."

"The airstrikes on our convoy I don't think were an unfortunate mistake," he told Israel's Channel 12 in a separate interview. "It was really a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by everybody at the IDF."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-world-central-kitchen-strike-jose-andres-direct-attack-aid-workers/

But wait: this makes no sense, right? Israel is doing all of this to get Hamas. Israel is an ally and cares about human rights?

It would make no sense at all if those were actually the war aims. However, if you think (as I have since the start) that Israel's aim is the full depopulation of Gaza, then targeting aid workers is entirely consistent with that. The diplomatic pressure put in Egypt to take refugees, the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, the destruction of hospitals, the restriction on even the American military's relief efforts... It all points to one thing: making life in the Gaza Strip so intolerable that none of the two million people can live there.

Most people in Gaza are close to starvation and now less food is getting in because civilian aid workers are terrified of being taken out by and IDF missile strike. Sure, targeting people who are citizens of allied countries gives you a diplomatic hit but they have got away with everything else so far, so why not push things a little further? Some people will still believe them and Western politicians can go on pretending.

Our governments are still giving Israel, money, arms and diplomatic cover. How many more people will die before that changes?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

> How many more people will die before that changes?

Considering that the result of this was Biden saying "maybe we won't sell you as many weapons in the future" after approving a mass arms sale to Israel, the answer is a lot more.

MethDozer · M

@CountScrofula exactly. And in the same breath the federal government is admitting that it is far too dangerous for aid workers to continue delivering aid in the current state. That just stinks of admitting they are targeting without saying they are targeting.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@MethDozer Well what possible information exists to the contrary that Israel isn't deliberately targeting aid workers.

Like it's entirely possible that there were orders not to kill them which were contravened, but that says a LOT about the aura of invincibility amidst indiscriminate slaughter that's going on.

The IDF and Bibi think they're invincible and that the money and arms will keep coming no matter what they do, and they're behaving accordingly.

MethDozer · M

@CountScrofula That's my feeling exactly.

JSul3 · 70-79

@MethDozer And that stops the flow of aid, which is the goal.

Elessar · 26-30, M

@CountScrofula Correct me if I'm wrong but Biden alone couldn't do shìt when the aid was passed by Congress; or better he could at most not sign it and get impeached (exactly like Trump got impeached for doing the same thing with Ukraine in 2019).

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Elessar To be impeached you have to have done something illegal.

The Biden administration keeps writing the bills that fund Israel. He could stop or threaten to stop doing this. If a pro-Israel bill came from Congress, the President has the power of veto.

So, absolutely Biden could stop this.

Elessar · 26-30, M

@Burnley123 Yeah but it doesn't mean they wouldn't try, maybe with something generic like abuse of power. Also technically that's only required for conviction, to be impeached you just need the House to accept the charge, no? Similarly, Trump was impeached and then acquitted.

Even if eventually he's found not guilty, that alone would potentially cause a fracture that would be picked up and amplified out of proportion by the media, that is something he wouldn't risk in an election year, or at least not this far from the election month, or even anytime before the election day.