You are not supposed to destroy existing water resources of the population of the entity you are at war with, but you are under no obligation to provide them with water out of your own resources.
Regardless, this whole convo is a red herring because Israel turned water back on
I agree that it's mostly immaterial given that Israel was forced to turn the water back on. I do not agree that the supposed arms-length relationship between Israel and Gaza meant Israel wasn't obligated to supply water. For all practical purposes, Israel occupies Gaza; it is required to keep Gazan civilians supplied. If Israel wanted Gaza to be self-sufficient, it could allow them to build an airport, to receive ships on its shorefront, and to manage its own border with Egypt. It will not do those things, for a variety of practical reasons, and so it must accept its responsibility toward Gazan civilians.
"For all practical purposes, Israel occupies Gaza; it is required to keep Gazan civilians supplied, If Israel wanted Gaza to be self-sufficient, it could allow them to build an airport, to receive ships on its shorefront, and to manage its own border with Egypt"
This is besides the point. Israel did not stop Hamas, which is the governing authority in Gaza, from investing in water infrastructure. Hamas chose to invest in underground tunnels instead. That is tragic, but it's not the responsibility of Israel. Israel did not control what happened inside Gaza and blockade did not prevent Hamas from importing cement and other materials for tunnel building, this is because civilian imports were allowed, but Hamas used imports earmarked for civilian use to build tunnels and rockets.
We're veering towards a debate about competing values, and I'm deeply skeptical of the value of those kinds of conversations on HN, given how polarizing this topic is and how conditioned we are to pattern match to the worst possible interpretations of competing arguments. I'm doing my best to stay dry and neutral about the overall conflict, and to rebut only claims that are in the ballpark of factual.
Regarding the "governing" status of Hamas, I would observe that the overwhelming majority of Gazans are too young to have ever voted, and that Hamas seized and maintains power coercively, so we should be careful attributing ideas like rightful governing status to Hamas. Among the organizations that care less about the lives of Palestinians than Israel, one must clearly number Hamas.
I don't agree that this has anything to do with values really.
Hamas is the de facto governing authority of Gaza, or was as of October 7th
It could have chosen to build water infrastructure, desalination plants, etc.
Instead it chose to build tunnels and rockets.
As the de facto governing authority, it has the obligation to provide water, not Israel, if we are talking about strictly legal aspect of this situation.
We disagree sharply about these things are at likely at diminishing returns for conversation, one indication of that being that you didn't really respond to the point I raised, but rather reasserted your original claim as if I hadn't raised it at all. That's fine; some discussions are just hard to have on HN, and we shouldn't force it.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/96544/what-services-...
You are not supposed to destroy existing water resources of the population of the entity you are at war with, but you are under no obligation to provide them with water out of your own resources.
Regardless, this whole convo is a red herring because Israel turned water back on