Definitions matter. It's possible for an organization to redefine "acutely malnourished" as less than 4000 Cal/day, and then use that to make an accusation. Is that reasonable? No, because that does not match reality. It's unreasonable to criticize pushback on changing definitions because definitions should be pushed toward reality.
As you say definitions matter - so let's not invent hypothetical scenarios to dismiss points.
Israel was not arguing about the definition of 'acute malnourished'. The threshold for famine is 15%. The IPC said it had just hit 16% and was thus a famine. Israel was arguing that other data showed it was only 12.2-13.5% and therefore not a famine. When you get to the point of arguing "only 12% of the children are starving, not 16%" you probably shouldn't bother.
> When you get to the point of arguing "only 12% of the children are starving, not 16%" you probably shouldn't bother
Devil's advocate: we grow enough food to feed every human. What we lack is the logistics. War disrupts logistics. Food insecurity rising is thus, unfortunately, an expected (and probably unmitigatable) consequence of war.
That's why we have to define a line, based on history and capability, that sets what's a tolerable amount of starvation. And what is not.
Famine is not an inevitable outcome of war. It is the inevitable outcome of Israel's deliberate actions to limit access to food, which are well-documented.
Food insecurity is. Famine is not. The latter is statistically defined, which is why we have levels and people arguing about which side of that level they stand.
> Acute malnourishment going above 10% is not an inevitable outcome of war
I don't know enough about this topic to debate levels. I'd just point out that you're still specifying a level, and that level can't be zero if it's going to be taken seriously.
Not sure this is defined the same way but 10% seems pretty common even without war. Even India is apparently already worse than that [1]. Who would you blame for starving the Indians?
According to the IPC, "acute malnutrition is a form of malnutrition that occurs when an individual suffers from current, severe nutritional restrictions, a recent bout of illness, inappropriate childcare practices or, more often, a combination of these factors. It is characterised by extreme weight loss, resulting in low weight for height, and/or bilateral oedema, and, in its severe form, can lead to death." [1].
Your chart measures undernourishment, which the FAO defines relative to "how many calories [one] need[s] to maintain a healthy life" [2].
You've chosen a number there, conveniently lower than the one the Israelis picked. I must say, an argument that convenient is not persuasive.
To address it properly we must start with whether anything above zero is "acceptable" (in the sense of a level that would accord with the realities of increased food insecurity in a war zone, not morally).
If it is, then a level needs to be set, and if the level is met then I would expect the parties in question to argue about it, if only because of the propaganda value, let alone the truth of the claim.
The claims about mistakes in the data, or presentation of the data, are here[1], I am unable to tell if they are right or not, but that is not the point of this conversation. The point is, whether their should be stages at all, and if so, should the results of reports be scrutinised?
> You've chosen a number there, conveniently lower than the one the Israelis picked. I must say, an argument that convenient is not persuasive.
They're disputing whether the actual rate is 12% or 16%. So if I can make my argument without any numbers inside that range, of course I will do so.
Why is that less persuasive?
You could say that I'm giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Sure, let's say it's 12%. That's still bad.
> whether their should be stages at all
Sure, there are many levels of hunger issues.
> should the results of reports be scrutinised?
In general yes. But in this particular case we can be confident it's at least the number Israel is giving, plus or minus some fraction of a percent, so that's what I based my argument on.
You chose a number lower than either of the parties involved, one of them an agency tasked with deciding the numbers. Clearly, that is for convenience and hence, not persuasive.
I gave Israel the benefit of the doubt, plus extra. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is a common way to make arguments more persuasive by avoiding nitpicks.
So it's convenient for that specific reason. Why do you act like convenience is ipso facto bad?
How does it make my argument less persuasive?
I will point out that picking a number below both of them only works when I'm arguing that even my number is still too high. If I was arguing that something is sufficiently low, my "still sufficiently low" number would have to be above both of their numbers.
Let me make an analogy: Two people are arguing about whether a crashed car would take $3000 or $4000 to repair. I come in and point out that any number above $2500 would mean it's totaled, so the car is totaled and that's the important part. $2500 is not the exact threshold, but I'm confident that the exact threshold is less than or equal to $2500.
By introducing the convenient number of $2500, have I ruined the persuasiveness of my argument? If so, how? Please explain beyond just accusing it of being convenient.
If you didn't like the party claiming $4000 should be the limit, and the party claiming $3000 dollars were a subject matter expect - which you are not - then I would say that picking $2500 is convenient to your attempt to attack the first party, which makes your argument less persuasive.
A point so basic that only the person with the bias could fail to see it. Convenient arguments, in my experience, are a sign one needs to rethink, not double down. YMMV, obviously.
> If you didn't like the party claiming $4000 should be the limit
If that's what I was fighting, I would agree with you.
But it's not. By avoiding the word famine and loudly announcing that I am doing so, I am explicitly not picking that fight.
I'm accepting the expertise of both parties, and making an argument that doesn't disagree with the claims of either party.
Israel says it's not famine, I say that's not good enough. Simple.
> Convenient arguments, in my experience, are a sign one needs to rethink, not double down.
Again, every argument that gives the benefit of the doubt would fall under "convenient". Including many arguments you have no problem with. If you took the car example as a completely standalone argument, unchanged from how I originally stated it (so there would be nobody claiming "$4000 should be the limit"), would you have any problems with it?
It has also been well-documented that the controlling interest within Gaza also limits access to food - of it's own citizens/people.
While it seems undeniable the people of Gaza are experiencing food scarcity - we cannot lay blame soley at the foot of Israel here. That would be grossly disengenous and an outright falsehood.
> we cannot lay blame soley at the foot of Israel here
For the famine, yes we can. Let the aid in. Let Hamas steal it. Now you can blame Hamas. The fact that we have zero evidence of Hamas stealing the current aid makes it entirely one side's fault.
Aid did get in, and Hamas did steal it. The media ignored it, so the narrative continues status-quo.
Israel has no reason to support Hamas and their efforts here. If Hamas wasn't stealing all of the aid earlier in this conflict, perhaps aid would still be flowing into Gaza.
It doesn't seem so absolute/cut-and-dry like you try to make it.
The UN's own data does not support your claim or article[1]. The UN's data showed 88% of trucks delivering aid to Gaza were looted along their routes - failing to reach their intended destination.
> explain to us who is armed and can loot a moving UN convoy in the Gaza region
That's not what the data say! "Intercepted" means what in retail one calls "shrinkage." It was there before. It isn't now.
A staffer could have stolen it. A security guard or driver could have been bribed. It could have been dropped off at the wrong location, or not tracked. It could have been ripped off a moving truck by unarmed, hungry people [1]. It could be non-militants who picked a gun off a dead combatant. Or it could be armed militants. Concluding that all shrinkage is the result of armed robbery is sort of like figuring everything a store's inventory system says was delivered to the store that isn't on the shelves and hasn't been sold was obviously robbed at gunpoint.
(I'm also not sure where you're getting the idea that these are armed convoys of UN assets being run through Gaza. Aid provisioning is generally much more rinky dink. And the "U.N. does not accept protection from Israeli forces, saying it would violate its rules of neutrality.")
Ah then cut off the whole region entirely. Makes perfect sense.
Here's a crazy idea. If hamas steal even 90% of the food, why not flood the area with so much fucking food it becomes worthless instead of letting humans starve as terrible collateral against your war goals?
Which approach do you think better serves the stated goals of defeating the terrorists?
Nah, isolation and cruelty it is. Israel has created generations of enemies.
> The damage to the Israeli state is incalculable.
Is it? Because not even the Arab countries that have recently recognized Israel don’t seem to particularly care about what Israel does in Gaza. Aside from a press release or a vote at the UN. All empty words.
Not a single Arab country that recognizes Israel has suspended (or even lowered) diplomatic relations with Israel.
I’m pretty sure that once the war in Gaza ends, everyone will be all too happy to forget that it even happened. Even if they won’t say it out loud.
> once the war in Gaza ends, everyone will all too be happy to forget that it even happened. Even if they won’t say it out loud.
It may have a lasting effect in America. Which would mean Israel finding friends in Russia, China and/or India, the latter two which would probably be fully on board with an actual ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
> whole EU is debating putting sanctions on Israel
Not really. It's debating applying "tariffs on some Israeli goods and impos[ing] sanctions on Israeli settlers, and two members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet" [1].
(The EC has also endorsed Trump's 20-point plan [2].)
Eh. Just about everyone is doing the absolute best they can to give an impression that they are doing something about it, without actually doing anything meaningful at all.
Even the recent recognition of the Palestinian state from Canada, UK and France. They know full and well that it’s basically a meaningless gesture.
> why not flood the area with so much fucking food it becomes worthless instead of letting humans starve as terrible collateral against your war goals?
...this is a really good idea. And American farmers are over a barrel due to tariffs...
Sure, I believe them when they say that they’ve got all the food. I believe them when they say that if the residents of Gaza don’t want to starve then they should send their sons to sign up as a soldier. I believe them when they say that they want to kill all Jews between the River and the Sea. They may not be very trustworthy in most respects, but when they say these things then I believe them. Not much reason not to.
Does this particular (supposed) definition change matter here? Because if it doesn't, pushback by the aggressor is heinous and obviously disingenuous even if your abstract love of accuracy means you happen to agree with the objection.
From my understanding there is an argument about whether 12% or 16% of children meet a certain threshold of food availability, which affects whether or not it is called a famine. One is regarded as not a famine, one is regarded as a famine, and there is argument over what data to use.
And the definition does matter, because 'famine' has the meaning of a certain level of bad thing happening. If we do not preserve the meaning, then the word will not have a meaning, then we have no more word to talk about that bad thing, so we will pay no attention to averting or fixing the bad thing because we don't have the literal ability to talk about it.
I'm in favor of being able to have a productive discussion about famines and how to avoid them, so I'm in favor of having a word for 'famine' with a clearly defined meaning.
Ok, so the aggressor is saying “it’s not a famine, we’re only starving 12% of the children.” You do understand that this is not a good faith argument, right? You might care about preserving the meaning of the word but they don’t give the slightest shit about it. They are not trying to preserve the meaning of the word so that we have the ability to talk about it. They are trying to muddy the waters of the actual facts of what is happening so that people talk about whether there is actually a famine or not rather than the fact that a large number of children are starving. Stop being a patsy and doing their work for them.
We just watched this nonsense happen with the word genocide. Both sides were careless with it. Now, it's lost meaning. Famine is still a hard line in the sand. All the evidence points to Israel having breached that line. The solution isn't to get rid of the line, it's to point to the line, point to the ground and say you're past the fucking line.
If "genocide" lost meaning, it's because people got pulled into a debate around the word rather than focusing on the fact that innocent people are being killed in large numbers. Whether "genocide" or "famine" or any other atrocity, the response to "this doesn't actually meet the definition" should be "you're trying to deflect from the atrocities you're committing and I'm not going to fall for it."
The word “famine” does not have a clearly-defined statistical meaning outside of some very specific circumstances. We abhor the idea of famine whether it occurs at 12% or 14% or 23% of children because we see all of these things to be very bad circumstances. One particular organization chose a 15% threshold for a legalistic definition in their framework, and the government is lawyering this because they can lawyer an arbitrary threshold and they think that will help them win some PR points. Thats all this is.
PS Do you really think the number “15%” is some natural value that nature or the Bible or teams of scientists chose to define “famine”? It’s an arbitrary threshold that someone picked because it’s a bit larger than 10% and less than 20% and divisible by the number of digits on the human hand.
> Their whole strategy since 1948 has been about distracting the Palestinians with fake peace processes that were never meant to lead to anything
Totally untrue. Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005 [1]. The current divides aren't as entrenched as the belligerents would have us believe.
> Bernard Avishai states that the Gaza withdrawal was designed to obviate rather than facilitate peace negotiations [...]
> Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weissglass, explained the meaning of Sharon's statement further: The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state [...]
> Shimon Peres, then Vice Prime Minister, stated in an interview that: "We are disengaging from Gaza because of demography"
For the same various reasons (safety, opsec, etc) every modern military does. Ukraine for example only allows invited, escorted media in "red" zones. Most people seem to understand and accept such restrictions, except when it's Israel.
...if foreign media was banned from Gaza, how would you get your propaganda from Hamas now?
How did Hamas get UK/Australia/Canada/France etc to recognise Palestine?
Or do you think that Israel has control over every inch in Gaza...? The truth is that Israel from the media standpoint has lost this war already 2 years ago, on the 8th of October. The world was very sad for just 1 day. The moment Israel decided to go to war, that's when the machine started. They knew, Hamas knew it, they did it on purpose. And they are reaching their goal. So tell me, who is the winner?
Everyone claiming Israel is the worst of the worst - just put yourselves in their shoes, and imagine for a moment that your friend/your husband/wife/baby/kids are still kept hostage by brutal people. Hostage. Not prisoner because they had done something. Hostage - grabbed in the night while sleeping or whatever.
>Everyone claiming Israel is the worst of the worst - just put yourselves in their shoes, and imagine for a moment that your friend/your husband/wife/baby/kids are still kept hostage by brutal people. Hostage. Not prisoner because they had done something. Hostage - grabbed in the night while sleeping or whatever.
Ok, so I have systematically erased a people, and colonised their land in full view of the worlds media. I built my community right up against the wall of their open air prison while ignoring their rights and supporting a blockade of their country. Heck, the foundations of their original homes are probably still somewhat visible in my back yard.
They fought back and took hostages and am sad now HOW DID THIS HAPPEN TO ME!!!!! I could have stayed in Europe and not built my house on land that people in the adjacent prison have a reaffirmed right to return to.
Pretending that zionist colonists are civilians instead of a militia is crazy. Talk about human shields. Building a farm on land cleared of palestinians less than 50 years ago, right next to where those palestinians are imprisoned, is the biggest case of FAFO you could possibly imagine.
Is it bad to kill unarmed people and take them hostage? Yes. Can I empathise with a single person living next to the imprisoned refugees whose land they occupy? Never.
>Everyone claiming Israel is the worst of the worst - just put yourselves in their shoes, and imagine for a moment that your friend/your husband/wife/baby/kids are still kept hostage by brutal people. Hostage. Not prisoner because they had done something. Hostage - grabbed in the night while sleeping or whatever.
This happened routinely to Palestinians for decades (detained without charge is a kidnapping), but since those detainees (often kids) are considered subhuman by zionists it never mattered to them.
Oct 7th didnt just come out of nowhere. It came from people who were exactly as furious as you are now for identical reasons.
> Yet Israel is the baddies and America/the Allies are sited as doing the correct thing even though they had equal or less food going in.
If Israel institutes a Marshall Plan equivalent that rebuilds Gaza/West Bank to the NEMA equivalent of West Germany and Japan, then maybe decades from now their actions will receive the same deference that the historical actions of the Allies have now.
Damn, Israel is really arguing about how much child starvation they are allowed to inflict before it becomes egregious?
That might be another one of those "are we the baddies?" moments right there.