food deficiency is useful in producing conservative voting blocs for both countries. hungry people are an angry people,

I had the exact same thought. If you could really be banned for saying that ISRAEL is a scourge on the planet earth for starving an entire population of innocent people, I’d rather not be on .world anyway.

I didn't realize how small Israel was until now! Your comment definitely helped me find it though.

Afaiu having a brain and stating facts are only bannable offenses over at that Reddit shithole.
Nevertheless I wish you luck 😅

If im gonna call Israel a terrorist colony theres no fear of getting banned by me

Sir, this is a lemmy

Lmao same

Or make an educated guess - you'll be totally right.

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?

to my knowledge it obligates governments to provide food to people who can't get food for reasons outside of their control such as prisoners, prisoners of war, and victims of natural disasters

In most countries, if your rights are violated, you can sue the one violating them and get them restored.

If food is a right and you can't get food, then you should be able to sue the government to give you food. After the first won case, further similar cases would be handled by precedent, thus kind of necessiting the government to create a system to get food to people.

For water being a right, it also means the corporations and government can't restrict you from accessing water. For example in most places you are allowed to access beach front or lake front property to get to the water. Some landlords and people complain in various situations but they legally have to have public access to a water body. I imagine for food, since corporations and landowners have occupied land or have land titles that would preclude you from growing your own, so somebody has to provide it if you can't access land to make it.

Water is a human right, and there is a somewhat vague statement that, if you have access to a tap and someone asks you for drinking water you have to give it.

At least here in the US, there's a fair bit of public infrastructure around water being a human right. Every establishment you walk into likely has a publicly-accessible fountain.

I imagine something similar would have to happen around food, and I don't think it would be that hard in practice. All we'd have to do is make it illegal for food vendors to trash edible food at the end of the day, but it'll never ever happen. We care more about the civic religion of capitalism than we do about people being able to eat.

It wouldn't make a difference, it's just moralist masturbation to put it bluntly. Declaring something as a human right doesn't magically open up a portal where we can take an infinite amount of "human right" goods, especially not under capitalism where water, food and everything else produced and extracted are commodities to be produced for profit

Ironic countries to currently be the most like Nazi Germany, but here we are.

Eh, its just earth. Bunch of assholes running things here thats for sure.