Look, if you have 50 starving families and you give them a Subway foot long roast beef sandwich, you shouldn’t be patting yourself on the back because it’s better than nothing and some dude on the internet asks Google and finds out that they get 8 calories each, which is enough for 30 seconds of metabolic activity, which is better than nothing.

And I am not addressing the morality of Hamas operational decisions or the veracity of their claims in any way. I suspect that the majority of their resources are occupied (no pun intended) with combat operations and are unavailable for civilian resupply efforts.

But the immorality of Hamas’ operations (if it is such) is not a justification for immorality on Israel’s part, except insofar as it has an operational impact on Israeli forces. Israel cannot say they are capable of supplying basic aid (or allowing the international community to do so) but the fact that Hamas is choosing not to themselves give up their food and fuel reserves justifies prevention of supply. I don’t know of any moral framework that would permit that.

You initiate an operation that you know will significantly disrupt civilian infrastructure including critical supplies. You know that the enemy organization you’re supposed to be concentrating your efforts against will be hoarding supplies to continue operations during lockdown. Therefore you know, before the first plane takes off, that you either need to take responsibility to maintain or create a supply line, or you’re doing what Israel is currently being accused of doing, which is starving out the civilian population indiscriminately. You can’t simply say “Someone else should do it” and have a morally defensible position, especially if your actions brought those conditions about.