Among the many accusations hurled at Israel is that its blockade of Gaza constitutes “collective punishment,” whose use against residents of an area under military occupation is forbidden by international law. Not only, however, is the claim that Israel occupies Gaza dubious at best, writes Justus Reid Weiner, but Israel has more than fulfilled the legal requirements that a sanctioning state allow for the free passage of food, medical supplies, and other necessities. Furthermore, argues Weiner, Gaza is not suffering from the humanitarian crisis often invoked by the media:

Despite the poverty that Hamas imposes on its citizens, the population of Gaza is comparatively healthy and well educated. In fact . . . Gaza is a reasonably healthy place to live. Life expectancy in the Strip is 74.64 years, higher than Jordan (74.10 years), Russia (70.16 years), India (67.80 years), Iran (70.89 years), and Brazil (73.28 years). Gaza also has a maternal death rate that is surprisingly low for an area that claims to be undergoing a humanitarian crisis. . . .

These discrepancies lead to two conclusions. The first is that the people of Gaza do not suffer from a “humanitarian crisis” as the international media and human-rights groups claim. Second, Gaza has the proper means, and receives the vital and essential goods it should, for survival and even more. . . .

There is no question that people living in Gaza suffer constant hardships and deprivations. Their conditions, though, are the fault of Hamas rather than Israel. The international community, including Israel, provides billions of dollars of support to the Palestinians each year, little of which reaches the hands of its intended recipients. Instead, Hamas uses the money and supplies to further its “struggle.” It then portrays the people that it oppresses as victims of Israel’s malevolence in order to gain sympathy and further pecuniary assistance. The people and organizations that accuse Israel of committing collective punishment enable Hamas to continue its duplicitous methods.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.