Redundancy Evaluation
Are the following arguments (essentially) making the same point?
Argument A

Israel cut off electricity and water supplies to Gaza soon after October 7th. Additionally, food supplies to Gaza have been significantly reduced, with aid groups citing difficulty coordinating with the Israeli military as the primary reason. Evidence indicates civilians deliberately denied access to Food and water. Several humanitarian and government officials have indicated that the IDF has denied certain key items. Some Israeli citizens have also attempted to block aid trucks. These limited food supplies have led to the starvation and deaths of many innocent people, particularly vulnerable children.

These policies clearly constitute "collective punishment", which is strictly prohibited under international law. It is important to note that the popular Israeli argument of "collateral damage" does not even apply in this case.

Notably, all reports claiming that Gazans have received sufficient food come from Israeli sources, not independent ones.

Source: Middle East Eye/AFP/Omar al-Qattaa

Argument B

October 7 would have never happened if it weren't for the deeply oppressive policies undertaken by the Israeli government over the past decades. This includes unlawful settlements in the West Bank despite the recommendations of the U.S. and regular provocations at Masjid Al-Aqsa, a site sacred to Muslims. These places are part of Palestine, and Gazans consider them their homeland, as reflected in the name of the operation, “Al-Aqsa Storm.”

Israelis often cite security concerns to justify their actions. However, seizing other people's land is blatantly illegal (also see this) and is not self-defense. It will make bad precedent if countries start to occupy other countries and start making settlements there in the name of self-defense.

Finally, such violations undermine even Israel’s security, as demonstrated on Oct 7.

Which one should we keep?

Overview