I would argue that it's quite easy to judge, at any distance, the collective punishment of civilians through the withholding of the essentials of life.

We've a referendum this weekend largely on whether we're ready to confront uncomfortable and complex consequences of a history of colonial violence. What's more difficult is reconciling these sorts of statements from a government that says it is.

Well, looking at the Geneva convention and Article 8 "War Crimes" of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, "Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions."

And one committing a crime doesn't allow the other to do the same. So either get pissed at both sides for war crimes or get pissed at none. But trying to excuse war crimes for one side in a war is a disgustingly hypocritical thing to do.

That is a polite way of saying the optics of the situation are awful and you want to admonish your ally but not openly criticize them.

In practical terms how do you organise aid for a state you're at war with? How do you ensure the safety of your aid workers in a way that doesn't involve your military, but also doesn't just provide new hostages? How do you stop your own aid workers from getting in the way of military operations?

I guarantee you Israel wouldn't do this if they had a better option, this will only radicalise the normal people who start to go hungry and thirsty.

There is no reason to supply the means of sustenance to an active enemy you are at war with.