[basisword]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[istjohn]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Famine is not an inevitable outcome of war

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.

[Dylan16807]

Fine, remove the word famine.

Acute malnourishment going above 10% is not an inevitable outcome of war. This was deliberate action.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[Dylan16807]

I'm specifying a level that is clearly too high, and everyone agrees has been hit, and avoids semantic arguments.

This solves the problem you were devil's advocating. And we don't need to theorize about other numbers.

[brigandish]

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?

I would say yes to both.

[1] https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/gaza-famine-claim-based-o...

[Dylan16807]

> 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.

[Alupis]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[Alupis]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Aid did get in, and Hamas did steal it

We have no proof this was routinely happening [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un...

[db48x]

Hamas regularly brags in their recruitment videos about how much food they have, and how their fighters get to eat as much as they want.

[cyberpunk]

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.

[actionfromafar]

Now you believe them?

[tguvot]

according to published data above 80 percent of shipments are intercepted: https://app.un2720.org/tracking

[ipaddr]

There is enough food to feed the children but Israel won't let the food in. Not logistics someone trying to kill them and claiming to be the victim.