5 ms·

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 1y ago
> 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 1y ago
  Fine, remove the word famine. Acute malnourishment going above 10% is not an inevitable outcome of war. This was deliberate action.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > 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 1y ago
      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.
      - foxglacier 1y ago
        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? [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrition-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrit... and "in 2019, the global rate of malnutrition was estimated to be approximately 9 percent." [1].
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Not sure this is defined the same way It's not. 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]. [1] https://www.nutritioncluster.net/sites/nutritioncluster.com/files/2020-03/IPC-for-Acute-Malnutriton-Concepts-and-Tools-Cleared-by-TAG-and-Endorsed-by-SC.pdf https://www.nutritioncluster.net/sites/nutritioncluster.com/... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/undernourishment-definition https://ourworldindata.org/undernourishment-definition
  - brigandish 1y ago
    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-on-fabricated-data/ https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/gaza-famine-claim-based-o...
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      > 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.
      - brigandish 1y ago
        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.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        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.
Alupis 1y ago
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 1y ago
  > 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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      > 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-aid-theft.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un...
      - Alupis 1y ago
        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. [1] - https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percent-of-aid-trucks-slated-for-delivery-in-gaza-since-may-looted-along-routes/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percen...

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> 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 1y ago
Fine, remove the word famine. Acute malnourishment going above 10% is not an inevitable outcome of war. This was deliberate action.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > 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 1y ago
    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.
    - foxglacier 1y ago
      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? [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrition-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrit... and "in 2019, the global rate of malnutrition was estimated to be approximately 9 percent." [1].
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Not sure this is defined the same way It's not. 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]. [1] https://www.nutritioncluster.net/sites/nutritioncluster.com/files/2020-03/IPC-for-Acute-Malnutriton-Concepts-and-Tools-Cleared-by-TAG-and-Endorsed-by-SC.pdf https://www.nutritioncluster.net/sites/nutritioncluster.com/... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/undernourishment-definition https://ourworldindata.org/undernourishment-definition
- brigandish 1y ago
  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-on-fabricated-data/ https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/gaza-famine-claim-based-o...
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    > 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.
    - brigandish 1y ago
      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.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        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.

Alupis 1y ago

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 1y ago
> 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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    > 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-aid-theft.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un...
    - Alupis 1y ago
      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. [1] - https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percent-of-aid-trucks-slated-for-delivery-in-gaza-since-may-looted-along-routes/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percen...