As millions of Americans are about to go hungry due to the US government refusing to fund SNAP, just remember that only two countries voted against making food a basic human right. The US and the terrorist colony of Israel
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
966 points (97.9% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
2286 readers
6 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
to people saying the resolution is useless theatrics and just symbolic. then if there were no consequences, why the fuck would the US and Israel vote against it?
Because they're assholes on principle.
These resolutions are toothless without the materials and logistics to implement them. Food should be a right and it's an easy thing to vocally support (unless you're manufacturing a famine in Gaza).
But how do you relieve the famine in Sudan if you're unwilling to export agricultural surplus at below market rates from Southern Europe? How do you meet global human demand for fresh produce if you're dedicating enormous qualities of arable land to high profit, low yield livestock? These generic statements of principle don't actually change how and why food is distributed.
And those are just the "capitalism bad" dumb lefty critiques.
What about in a war zone? Should we be feeding Russians occupying Ukraine? What about Israel settlers in the West Bank or Han Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet or illegal Hamas ISIS Haitian Cartel MS-13 terrorists attacking people's dogs in Cleveland, Ohio?
Shouldn't we be killing these people instead?
they should have their own logistics, and if surrendered/captured then yes, 100% we should feed them
Illegal settlers likely already get plenty of assistance and welfare. But if there was justice, they would be captured as invaders and deported back to Israel borders, and fed during custody
I lost track, but if captured, then yes, otherwise as long as you aren't actively blocking food from entering (a literal war crime) then it is acceptable.
"Everyone has a right to eat, but not everyone should have the right to the logistical supply chain that they need to receive the food" is UN doublespeak in a nutshell.
I am pretty sure if you have a military invading another country, it should be your responsibility to feed them.
And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the "enemy" is following international law, the that is good.
Also, there are programs to feed starving people, but it is often blocked by malicious states (like Israel). There is no demand for Israel to feed Gaza, but there is demand for them to not block existing aid from coming in.
If its international law to guarantee everyone gets fed and you are able to defeat an military by starving out the host population (a technique the Israelis are claiming is being used to defeat Hamas) then how are you following international law?
How's that working out?
Well, Israel is breaching international law, and way too many western nations are complicit in that genocide.
There's a difference between attacking enemy supply lines and blocking food from entering a civilian urban area.
Sure. And you can know the difference. And I can know the difference.
And the UN Security Council can pretend not to know the difference.
isn't it being vetoed by the US?
despite how much good the UN has done. it is an incredibly flawed institution, and the US having veto powers is a massive problem.
The US is vetoing and the rest of the member states are shrugging and announcing "Guess there's nothing we can do".
Europe has doubled its weapons trade with Israel since the genocide began. Arab States are expanding their trade with Israel despite internal domestic calls for boycott. The so-called ceasefire is only furthering cover for Israel's largest partners to get back to business as usual.
Honestly I don't know how to even process the fact that this is a globally endorsed genocide. Very few states are doing the bare minimum about it, like Spain which made an embargo on weapons sold to Israel (still trading with Israel though, just not weapons).
At least in the Holocaust you could point to a few countries being openly evil. but here? how the fuck is the whole world sponsoring a genocide???
I think it's about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace. Surely this doesn't mean you are not allowed to attack the supply lines of an invading army inside your own borders?
Or... does it?
A quick google yields the resolution: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf#files
Starting to read it...
It... starts with six pages of "recalling this", "acknowledging that"? Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful? Maybe I should find a guide for reading them first...
Shy of magic, that's not a policy you can implement. Either people in a region have access to food or they don't. You can't just put a stamp on a loaf of bread that makes it inedible to anyone carrying a gun.
:-/
A lot of it is legalese that matters much more to an actual court system than a random layman picking through the fine print. But yes, broadly speaking a central critique of the UN has been its habit of going out and announcing "Bad Thing Is Bad" and then failing to do much to back that statement up.
At the same time, when the UN has intervened... well... look at the horror show that was the Korean War. Nevermind the intervention and occupation of Yugoslavia or Somalia. Or the Oil for Food Scandal with regard to Iraq.
I mean, the fundamental problem with the UN is that its still composed of many of the countries that are actively participating or tangentially benefiting in whatever horrible thing they're supposed to be preventing. Much like any republican institution, you're stuck with people who were put there by the corrupt institutions they're supposed to police. How do you untangle that web? Ask Alexander the Great, maybe.
Again - I believe Albert was specifically talking about denying food from the soldiers of the invading enemy army.
Unless the enemy is in there long enough to start farming your land, their only have two options to get food - they can bring it from their home country (or some other country they control, or one that's friendly enough to sell it to them) or they can try to get it from your country. You can sabotage their first option by attacking their supply lines, and as for the second option - hopefully your own citizens won't give them food, either because they don't want to be invaded or because they are afraid of their own government. Or both. Either way, you'll have to protect them, of course, because the invading army may try to steal food from them.
Even if you do everything right you probably won't be able to hermetically block their food supply - but you may be able to dwindle it enough to starve them. It takes a lot of food to feed an army.
Regardless - never underestimate the human ingenuity when it comes to inflicting harm on other human beings.
How do you deliver food to a local population so an invading army can't get it?
Who is going to starve first? The folks with guns or the folks without?
Right. I guess the UN teasing the idea of famine relief and pulling back on it is part of that.
You'll need to send your own army anyway to protect your people from the invading enemy, and one of the duties of the troops stated there is to make sure your resources are not stolen by the enemy.
UN "Peacekeepers" have their own historical baggage to carry, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. If food distribution is predicated on foreign military occupation, its not a human right.
I'm not sure we are on the same page here. I'm claiming that since the invaded country needs to send its own troops (not UN troops) to protect its land and its people from the invading army, then the soldiers of the invaded country are positioned to make sure the resources of the invaded country reach to the citizens of the invaded country and not get stolen by the invading army.
At no point in this process any country needs to sends forces to another country to protect the nutritional rights of the citizens of that other country.
That's never been how military operations function in practice. The primary goal of a military advance is to seize and hold the most defensible territory, not to secure supplies to a civilian population caught in the no-man's land between fronts.
Again, this goes back to the Israel/Gaza conflict. Palestinian anti-IDF insurgents were in no position to attack Israeli border guards at Rafa to open up aid from Egypt. Or secure fishing along the Mediterranean coast, much less to launch a naval war and open aid from Turkiye or mainland Europe. Their primary mission was survival and countersurveillance against Israeli strikes. Their secondary goal was decapitation of Israeli military and seizure of Israeli military assets. Trying to open up trade wasn't something they could begin to consider in their current depleted state.
If one country has the ability to lay siege to another and starve its people, and no other country has an obligation to break the siege and deliver food to the civilian population, then there is no "human right to food" in any tangible sense.
You might as well tell Eric Garner "You have a right to breath, but I have no obligation to get that boot off your neck". Its exactly the kind of meaningless faux-humanitarian double-speak that defines the modern UN.
Found one: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/31493
So... I need to look at the first word of each paragraph, determine whether or not it's operative, and if it is it's worth reading the rest of the paragraph?
Only "of a political and economic nature". Are military actions considered as "political"?
Finished reading. Paragraph (is that the right name for these things?) number 30 was the only thing even remotely related to the question of an invading army. And even that relation was very, very remote.
Then again - I could have missed it. This is my first time reading a UN resolution, and man... these things are obfuscated. Why are they so obfuscated? Not as obfuscated as patents, but at least there there is a (nefarious) reason for the obfuscation. Why does the UN want to obstruct people from understanding its resolutions?