9 ms·

"Israel accused the IPC of lowering the second threshold of acutely malnourished children for a famine declaration, which the IPC has denied." Damn, Israel is

by glonq 1y ago

"Israel accused the IPC of lowering the second threshold of acutely malnourished children for a famine declaration, which the IPC has denied." 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.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago
[flagged]
- throwup238 1y ago
  > 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.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- potatototoo99 1y ago
  If we were to believe Israel, why did they ban foreign media from Gaza? I'm sure the "most moral" army in the world has nothing to hide?
  - mk89 1y ago
    ...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.
    - pydry 1y ago
      >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.
    - protocolture 1y ago
      >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.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    > why did they ban foreign media from Gaza 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.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Probably because it also helps enforce the Israeli Military Censor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor
BJones12 1y ago
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.
- basisword 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    > 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 1y ago
      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.
moogly 1y ago
[flagged]
- phgn 1y ago
  Sent by whom? Also, the Israeli government cannot be trusted. Their whole strategy since 1948 has been about distracting the Palestinians with fake peace processes that were never meant to lead to anything. (see the book "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine")
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > 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. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_the...
    - phgn 1y ago
      From the Wikipedia article you linked: > 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"
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        The first two are suppositions. The last...I don't know what to make of it. Isn't the whole point of delineating Israel and Palestine demography?
- Braxton1980 1y ago

by glonq 1y ago

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

[flagged]

throwup238 1y ago
> 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.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
potatototoo99 1y ago
If we were to believe Israel, why did they ban foreign media from Gaza? I'm sure the "most moral" army in the world has nothing to hide?
- mk89 1y ago
  ...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.
  - pydry 1y ago
    >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.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    >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.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  > why did they ban foreign media from Gaza 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.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Probably because it also helps enforce the Israeli Military Censor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor

BJones12 1y ago

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.

basisword 1y ago
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 1y ago
  > 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 1y ago
    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.

moogly 1y ago

[flagged]

phgn 1y ago
Sent by whom? Also, the Israeli government cannot be trusted. Their whole strategy since 1948 has been about distracting the Palestinians with fake peace processes that were never meant to lead to anything. (see the book "The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine")
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > 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. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_the...
  - phgn 1y ago
    From the Wikipedia article you linked: > 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"
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      The first two are suppositions. The last...I don't know what to make of it. Isn't the whole point of delineating Israel and Palestine demography?
Braxton1980 1y ago