This article from the BBC corroprates the claims in the parent article, and also talks about why there are so many civilian casualties at these food distribution centers:
The most obvious problems are that the food distribution centers are placed deep inside military red zones (which is not common practice), and that Israeli soldiers have been ordered to fire at civilians in those zones, even if they obviously pose no threat (which is clearly a war crime).
The sections "Troops describe firing at crowds of aid seekers" and "Aid workers and medics call for end to GHF distribution plan" explain in more detail.
The article you link from NPR seems to mostly cite the Haaretz article. The only possible corroboration are the claims from Adil Husain, but I am hesitant to take his words as corroboration.
The Haaretz article states it is unclear how many died from IDF fire vs the Abu Shabab group. Husain was not at the aid site and so can't state how they were wounded.
If the soldiers truly fired on those who were only running away, not advancing, this should be investigated and charged as a war crime. However, at this point the evidence is not clear aside from a handful of anonymous sources from a single press release.
There have been many many aid trucks refused entry. The famine has been manufactured by Israel. "normal procedure" might have some weight if there weren't 100s of trucks refused entry.
Then they run out of food and their families are starving.
Then you distribute a limited amount of food that will run out long before most get any food.
If your family is starving to death, you can't leave the area and someone is dangling food in front of your face, are you saying you wouldn't risk it for your family and try to get SOME food regardless of the threat of death?
It's just not true that this is "normal procedure". It's just not. It didn't happen before either, and now it's happened how many times? Once or twice, I can believe. This many times? Not so much.
And this line of reasoning:
> If you don't shoot them they will take a sack by force, and then everybody will take a sack by force. Usually they coordinate themselves into bands or gangs to steal the food.
Are we supposed to just accept that because something is status quo, it’s permissible? The consequence for “stealing” food should never be death, ever, in any scenario. It’s also interesting that people taking and distributing food are characterised as “gangs”, this suggests that taking a vital resource and redistributing it is somehow criminal.
You either have not read the article or are deliberately being obtuse.
The article has multiple IDF officers say that this isn't, in fact, normal warzone procedure for distributing food. That they witnessed crowds being dispersed with artillery fire, which isn't normal procedure anywhere.
Like, I don't know what world you live in, but I don't know any other conflict where dozens of civilians get fired upon during food aid distribution every day.
But it's not a warzone, it's a slaughterhouse. The intention isn't to feed people, it's to remove Palestinians from Gaza, by attrition or violence.
Once you understand the motive, you understand why these deliberately concentrated, artificially limited aid delivery systems are used. They make remaining in Gaza the worst option.
>...fought primarily by trying to erode international support for Israel
Agreed.
>Are you suggesting that it is right...
Thank you for the opportunity to further clarify my comment. If this is happening I believe that it is deeply immoral.
My comment posed a hypothetical about the incentives which may be driving these events. As you observed above, it does fit with existing knowledge of Hamas strategy. Examples would include pop-up rocket attacks near schools or hospitals.
Here is a source which some have alleged to be sympathetic to Hamas. I have selected this source not because I prefer it, but to avoid allegations of bias.
>UNRWA condemns placement of rockets, for a second time, in one of its schools
>UNRWA strongly and unequivocally condemns the group or groups responsible for this flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law
