I don't agree that those allowances constitute respect for human rights. At least, not full respect.
If that is so, it follows that, for instance, kidnappers respect human rights because they provide food, water and any needed medical care. Kidnappers respect human rights only to the extent to which their actions up to any point in time have not shown them to be complete savages.
Using phrases like "human rights" is obviously not applicable in this situation. We must acknowledge that the rights of people who are forcibly confined in a cordoned are are in fact being trampled on (separately from whether or not we agree with the justification for doing so.)
Pretending that human rights are not trampled on if food, water and medicine are provided into the cordoned doesn't help anything.
The question is: can you agree with it, while properly acknowledging that it involves violation of rights. That's my angle, not "boolean thinking".
If that is so, it follows that, for instance, kidnappers respect human rights because they provide food, water and any needed medical care. Kidnappers respect human rights only to the extent to which their actions up to any point in time have not shown them to be complete savages.
Using phrases like "human rights" is obviously not applicable in this situation. We must acknowledge that the rights of people who are forcibly confined in a cordoned are are in fact being trampled on (separately from whether or not we agree with the justification for doing so.)
Pretending that human rights are not trampled on if food, water and medicine are provided into the cordoned doesn't help anything.
The question is: can you agree with it, while properly acknowledging that it involves violation of rights. That's my angle, not "boolean thinking".