> 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.
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.