|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 07 2025 14:59 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2025 15:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"We’re now in the 22nd month since the UN warned of “alarming levels of hunger,” yet mass starvation hasn’t materialized, despite constant reports of famine being imminent."
That was precisely the point of the alarm. So that it wouldn't happen. And now it's happening anyway.
People weren't wrong for sounding the alarm, they were right. They tried to prevent it. The fact that the famine was delayed is not proof to the contrary. It's not proof that famine was never a real threat. This is a massive flaw in your reasoning. Or the UN made wrong assessments. Potentially a mix of wrong assessments and what you said. Back in December 2023 the reports said that famine thresholds had already been exceeded and 335k children are at risk of preventable death. To avoid this, an immediate and long-lasting humanitarian ceasefire would be needed. Did this immediate and long-lasting ceasefire occur back then? Or what exactly changed in all these reports that prevented the looming threat from actually occurring? Haven't the aid deliveries at times even worsened in comparison to December 2023? Then why did these estimates never occur? To be honest, I don't really care about this issue and I don't really want to defend Israel here, as the complete blockades are collective punishment which is utterly wrong. The whole humanitarian situation is absolutely dreadful and the sooner Hamas surrenders and/or releases the remaining hostages and Jewish bodies, the sooner this shitshow will be over. I'd be more than happy to go talk in detail about religious fundamentalism and its effect on the region as I pointed out before. Or potential solutions for that matter. Show nested quote +On September 06 2025 17:35 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2025 15:38 PremoBeats wrote:On August 27 2025 06:46 Jankisa wrote:So apparently the official line of reasoning for the attack at the hospital that killed 20 including healthcare workers and journalists was that it was a "Hamas camera" . Cool. I love how silent this thread is, from pages and pages of explaining how logical Israel's moves are and how they have no choice but to "defend themselves" to complete silence in the continued refusal to negotiate, listen to their own public, continued onslaught and terror bombing, because that's what double tapping a FUCKING HOSPITAL is. Fucking shameful. On August 27 2025 15:15 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2025 06:46 Jankisa wrote:So apparently the official line of reasoning for the attack at the hospital that killed 20 including healthcare workers and journalists was that it was a "Hamas camera" . Cool. I love how silent this thread is, from pages and pages of explaining how logical Israel's moves are and how they have no choice but to "defend themselves" to complete silence in the continued refusal to negotiate, listen to their own public, continued onslaught and terror bombing, because that's what double tapping a FUCKING HOSPITAL is. Fucking shameful. Add that to the list. I doubt it'll change minds (it's just a war crime and war is bad, that's all it is, there's no reason to call it anything worse than that), but it's good to have the receipts. I still stand by my initial observation. I’ve exchanged e-mails with scholars who were cited in earlier posts, but their reasoning hasn’t convinced me otherwise. Oh, there's a big surprise. That's an incredib... I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise. Redundancy at its finest... why litter the forum with such nonsense? Funny how you perfectly display the exact criticism from my post in regards to the forum culture around here. If you have an issue with my analysis, why not simply stay on topic instead of posting such superfluous jabs? We don't have to agree, but I don't see the value in such nonsensical comments.
Famine has recently been declared in one part of Gaza with a high likelihood of it spreading.
You're calling us wrong, but reality says you're wrong.
|
I don't call the ongoing events or you naming them wrong. I was questioning the notions from December 2023 and asked questions in regards to logical consistency.
"Back in December 2023 the reports said that famine thresholds had already been exceeded and 335k children are at risk of preventable death. To avoid this, an immediate and long-lasting humanitarian ceasefire would be needed. Did this immediate and long-lasting ceasefire occur back then? Or what exactly changed in all these reports that prevented the looming threat from actually occurring?
Haven't the aid deliveries at times even worsened in comparison to December 2023? Then why did these estimates never occur?"
Why is everything - even the most obvious of statements - in this forum always such a hassle, lol.
|
On September 07 2025 15:49 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't call the ongoing events or you naming them wrong. I was questioning the notions from December 2023 and asked questions in regards to logical consistency.
"Back in December 2023 the reports said that famine thresholds had already been exceeded and 335k children are at risk of preventable death. To avoid this, an immediate and long-lasting humanitarian ceasefire would be needed. Did this immediate and long-lasting ceasefire occur back then? Or what exactly changed in all these reports that prevented the looming threat from actually occurring?
Haven't the aid deliveries at times even worsened in comparison to December 2023? Then why did these estimates never occur?"
Why is everything - even the most obvious of statements - in this forum always such a hassle, lol.
You do not understand how famine works. People are resilient, they find ways to not starve to death. That doesn't mean a famine wasn't right around the corner. Now we have a famine in one part. This proves the alarm right.
What is your argument?
|
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win.
|
On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win.
Already pre-October 7 thousands have died yearly from starvation and medical/health reasons. The question isn't "if", but "how many more".
It can't possibly have been only a few hundred who have died from starvation/lack of aid by this point. Firstly there's the issue of confirmed cases vs unconfirmed. And that further depends on the methodology, i.e. how the cause is being determined, but also who determines the cause (related to training). But unconfirmed cases can be much higher, and likely are.
Estimates are pretty high, arguing for up to several thousand total excess deaths from starvation/lack of aid post-October 7. And that was in late 2024.
Read this.
https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/how-many-people-have-died-of-starvation-in-gaza/
|
On September 07 2025 14:59 PremoBeats wrote:
If you have an issue with my analysis, why not simply stay on topic instead of posting such superfluous jabs? We don't have to agree, but I don't see the value in such nonsensical comments.
post like zeo, get treated like zeo. Skill issue imo.
|
On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win.
Not the hundreds of thousands that were predicted.
EDIT: I first wanted to agree that this is not a great win with an ongoing famine in Gaza City... but then I reconsidered: a couple of hundred deaths is by far better than the over 300k that were warned about.
On September 07 2025 18:56 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win. Already pre-October 7 thousands have died yearly from starvation and medical/health reasons. The question isn't "if", but "how many more". It can't possibly have been only a few hundred who have died from starvation/lack of aid by this point. Firstly there's the issue of confirmed cases vs unconfirmed. And that further depends on the methodology, i.e. how the cause is being determined, but also who determines the cause (related to training). But unconfirmed cases can be much higher, and likely are. Estimates are pretty high, arguing for up to several thousand total excess deaths from starvation/lack of aid post-October 7. And that was in late 2024. Read this. https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/how-many-people-have-died-of-starvation-in-gaza/
Pre-war thousands have died from starvation on a yearly basis? When the annual death toll in Gaza approximates 7 to 9k in non-war conditions, similar to Jordan or Saudi Arabia?
I am not even aware that prior to 2023 humanitarian reports included hunger-related mortality trackings nor that there were any declared famines. As far as I know, August 2025 marks the first time in history that a region in Gaza (Gaza city) is formally declared as famine struck.
So which reports, articles or sources are you basing that on?
|
On September 07 2025 23:13 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win. Not the hundreds of thousands that were predicted. EDIT: I first wanted to agree that this is not a great win with an ongoing famine in Gaza City... but then I reconsidered: a couple of hundred deaths is by far better than the over 300k that were warned about. Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 18:56 Magic Powers wrote:On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win. Already pre-October 7 thousands have died yearly from starvation and medical/health reasons. The question isn't "if", but "how many more". It can't possibly have been only a few hundred who have died from starvation/lack of aid by this point. Firstly there's the issue of confirmed cases vs unconfirmed. And that further depends on the methodology, i.e. how the cause is being determined, but also who determines the cause (related to training). But unconfirmed cases can be much higher, and likely are. Estimates are pretty high, arguing for up to several thousand total excess deaths from starvation/lack of aid post-October 7. And that was in late 2024. Read this. https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/how-many-people-have-died-of-starvation-in-gaza/ Pre-war thousands have died from starvation on a yearly basis? When the annual death toll in Gaza approximates 7 to 9k in non-war conditions, similar to Jordan or Saudi Arabia? I am not even aware that prior to 2023 humanitarian reports included hunger-related mortality trackings nor that there were any declared famines. As far as I know, August 2025 marks the first time in history that a region in Gaza (Gaza city) is formally declared as famine struck. So which reports, articles or sources are you basing that on?
All of your questions are answered in the article. If you still have questions after reading it, shoot.
|
On September 07 2025 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 23:13 PremoBeats wrote:On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win. Not the hundreds of thousands that were predicted. EDIT: I first wanted to agree that this is not a great win with an ongoing famine in Gaza City... but then I reconsidered: a couple of hundred deaths is by far better than the over 300k that were warned about. On September 07 2025 18:56 Magic Powers wrote:On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win. Already pre-October 7 thousands have died yearly from starvation and medical/health reasons. The question isn't "if", but "how many more". It can't possibly have been only a few hundred who have died from starvation/lack of aid by this point. Firstly there's the issue of confirmed cases vs unconfirmed. And that further depends on the methodology, i.e. how the cause is being determined, but also who determines the cause (related to training). But unconfirmed cases can be much higher, and likely are. Estimates are pretty high, arguing for up to several thousand total excess deaths from starvation/lack of aid post-October 7. And that was in late 2024. Read this. https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/how-many-people-have-died-of-starvation-in-gaza/ Pre-war thousands have died from starvation on a yearly basis? When the annual death toll in Gaza approximates 7 to 9k in non-war conditions, similar to Jordan or Saudi Arabia? I am not even aware that prior to 2023 humanitarian reports included hunger-related mortality trackings nor that there were any declared famines. As far as I know, August 2025 marks the first time in history that a region in Gaza (Gaza city) is formally declared as famine struck. So which reports, articles or sources are you basing that on? All of your questions are answered in the article. If you still have questions after reading it, shoot.
It actually doesn’t answer several of my questions:
- It doesn’t show that thousands died of starvation per year pre-2023. In fact it says the data are poor and focuses on post-Oct 2023 excess (non-trauma) deaths
- It doesn’t document any pre-2023 famine in Gaza; the first formal famine determination is post-2023
- The 7-9k deaths/year I mentioned are baseline all-cause deaths from crude-death-rate demographics, not starvation deaths
- It doesn’t provide a database of pre-2023 ‘starvation deaths’... because such tracking wasn’t routinely reported
- one quote: "the available datapoints cannot be used to derive accurate estimates of mortality attributable to starvation (...)". Isn't that exactly what I pointed out when saying "I am not even aware that prior to 2023 humanitarian reports included hunger-related mortality trackings"?
If I missed a section that specifically quantifies pre-2023 starvation mortality or a pre-2023 famine declaration, please quote me that part.
|
On September 08 2025 00:29 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On September 07 2025 23:13 PremoBeats wrote:On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win. Not the hundreds of thousands that were predicted. EDIT: I first wanted to agree that this is not a great win with an ongoing famine in Gaza City... but then I reconsidered: a couple of hundred deaths is by far better than the over 300k that were warned about. On September 07 2025 18:56 Magic Powers wrote:On September 07 2025 18:41 pmp10 wrote:
Most likely that only a hundred or so were starved to death and not the many thousands predicted.
Which is fair enough as the numbers were always inflated for propaganda purposes.
I'm just not sure if it's that great a win. Already pre-October 7 thousands have died yearly from starvation and medical/health reasons. The question isn't "if", but "how many more". It can't possibly have been only a few hundred who have died from starvation/lack of aid by this point. Firstly there's the issue of confirmed cases vs unconfirmed. And that further depends on the methodology, i.e. how the cause is being determined, but also who determines the cause (related to training). But unconfirmed cases can be much higher, and likely are. Estimates are pretty high, arguing for up to several thousand total excess deaths from starvation/lack of aid post-October 7. And that was in late 2024. Read this. https://worldpeacefoundation.org/blog/how-many-people-have-died-of-starvation-in-gaza/ Pre-war thousands have died from starvation on a yearly basis? When the annual death toll in Gaza approximates 7 to 9k in non-war conditions, similar to Jordan or Saudi Arabia? I am not even aware that prior to 2023 humanitarian reports included hunger-related mortality trackings nor that there were any declared famines. As far as I know, August 2025 marks the first time in history that a region in Gaza (Gaza city) is formally declared as famine struck. So which reports, articles or sources are you basing that on? All of your questions are answered in the article. If you still have questions after reading it, shoot. It actually doesn’t answer several of my questions: - It doesn’t show that thousands died of starvation per year pre-2023. In fact it says the data are poor and focuses on post-Oct 2023 excess (non-trauma) deaths - It doesn’t document any pre-2023 famine in Gaza; the first formal famine determination is post-2023 - The 7-9k deaths/year I mentioned are baseline all-cause deaths from crude-death-rate demographics, not starvation deaths - It doesn’t provide a database of pre-2023 ‘starvation deaths’... because such tracking wasn’t routinely reported - one quote: "the available datapoints cannot be used to derive accurate estimates of mortality attributable to starvation (...)". Isn't that exactly what I pointed out when saying "I am not even aware that prior to 2023 humanitarian reports included hunger-related mortality trackings"? If I missed a section that specifically quantifies pre-2023 starvation mortality or a pre-2023 famine declaration, please quote me that part.
If I falsely interpreted the pre-Oct 7 deaths as caused by starvation/other, then that would imply the post-Oct 7 count would look even worse, as the old base rate would be a lot lower.
Three conclusions can be drawn from this table. The first is that the range of estimates is remarkable. The second is that the low-end estimates can be discounted, and the high-end ones treated with extreme caution. However, figures of 10,000 or more deaths caused by starvation and health crisis/social disruption can be considered a credible estimate of what is occurring. The third is that there is an urgent and imperative need for better data.
10 000 or more is the post-Oct 7 estimate and would have to be compared to a low (unknown) base rate, meaning we're likely to have only learned of a fraction of deaths caused by starvation/other, and the true figure would be many times greater. It'd imply that famine should've been called back in 2024.
|
- Again, you are not addressing pre-2023 starvation deaths. You only made the statement that they were in the thousands yearly pre-2023. I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion and you have not answered this. I don't even know where you get this interpretation from.
- the first formal famine call was August 2025, not before. Your article does not say otherwise.
- The World Bank had 3.4 death per 1k in 2022. Meaning at 2 million population 7k natural deaths. That is the baseline. I am not aware of any sources that tell us that starvation deaths occurred.
- Your article itself admits poor data... which I also pointed out in my post.
- The 10k figure...
... is an estimate post war, not a yearly baseline
... is explicitly flagged as uncertain and needing better data
... is not talking about pure starvation; it is bundling starvation, health crisis and social disruption. It is a composite.
... does not show that thousands died of starvation every year pre-2023
So I still have no clue, how you arrived at the things you said.
|
On September 08 2025 01:28 PremoBeats wrote:
- Again, you are not addressing pre-2023 starvation deaths. You only made the statement that they were in the thousands yearly pre-2023. I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion and you have not answered this. I don't even know where you get this interpretation from.
- the first formal famine call was August 2025, not before. Your article does not say otherwise.
- The World Bank had 3.4 death per 1k in 2022. Meaning at 2 million population 7k natural deaths. That is the baseline. I am not aware of any sources that tell us that starvation deaths occurred.
- Your article itself admits poor data... which I also pointed out in my post.
- The 10k figure...
... is an estimate post war, not a yearly baseline
... is explicitly flagged as uncertain and needing better data
... is not talking about pure starvation; it is bundling starvation, health crisis and social disruption. It is a composite.
... does not show that thousands died of starvation every year pre-2023
So I still have no clue, how you arrived at the things you said.
Did you not read my comment? I mentioned that I may've misinterpreted the meaning of the deaths pre-Oct 7. Read my comment again, then respond properly.
The article doesn't admit its own poor data, it says other data is poor, and it states that the number of deaths from starvation/other is more likely within the thousands.
I also acknowledge the distinction between starvation and other, as you may notice I'm using the term "starvation/other" referring to various types of lacking aid causing deaths.
You're deflecting.
|
I'm deflecting? That's pretty rich after your complete false characterization of a highly Israel-critical source.
My point was and still is, that humanitarian organizations made false assessments in the sense that they talked about hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths if no immediate ceasefire was enacted. As there was no ceasefire enacted and the situation even worsened over the span of nearly two years, my question is, how these organizations could have made such blatant mistakes.
My impression (that I already got several times when talking to you) is that you try to counter-argue, look for articles that support your POV and then - without much thought or reflection - post them as a basis against a singular topic, while missing out on the bigger picture.
How else could you write such preposterous nonsense as there being thousands of starvation deaths pre-2023? This idea is so ridiculous , that there would be immediate disturbing feelings coming up, if you truly invested time in this conflict, analyzing it neutrally.
Ironically enough, you now argue with this most extreme version of the starvation topic at face value, although the sources of humanitarian organization that you relied on in earlier comments, are not even close to the estimate (!!) published in this article of one guy who is of that opinion.
And just to highlight one thing, that I didn't even want to discuss: Are you aware how the current classification came to pass? Do you even read the other side?
https://govextra.gov.il/mda/ipc/gaza/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21340511200&gbraid=0AAAAA9xqM_QjZe5cwsHz-NWvTsAVomWaL&gclid=CjwKCAjw2vTFBhAuEiwAFaScwiS4v7w9vWoLYoXAmChJfZNK8dYYooC50RsCAbf81a2a1edAEfmGJBoCZ7wQAvD_BwE
As I said, I don't even want to discuss this, as 5% would be more than enough of a humanitarian issue. But this echo chamber of a thread has reached such absurd levels that keeping it to some extent more neutral from time to time seems necessary.
Not one of you has even realized that the illogical data sets I mentioned - which get re-published by humanitarian organizations and in turn get re-published by other organizations - were actually corrected by the Gazan MoH (meaning that they all used wrong data).
Or how you were all wrong when pressing the argument of authority onto me, how it would be impossible that all these organizations could use wrong data. And yet here we are.
Amnesty, UNICEF, UN... they all relied on the Gazan MoH who corrected their numbers in the thousands. But none of this is discussed.
And now we are talking - again - about one part of my post, as you don't have any form of rebuttal for the others. That is why you don't hear Palestinian-critical voices here.
I still don't want to defend Israel as it also has committed atrocious things. But this cess pool of opinions simply is unbearable, as no slightly anti-Palestinian truths are allowed to be spoken here.
Ad hominems and rant over.
Happy to discuss religious fundamentalism or potential solutions.
|
My impression (that I already got several times when talking to you) is that you try to counter-argue, look for articles that support your POV and then - without much thought or reflection - post them as a basis against a singular topic, while missing out on the bigger picture.
I've read this article - in full, several times - before you started posting here again. That's why I had it ready to deliver, because it fit the matter perfectly. So please, quite frankly, shove your "impressions" elsewhere. You're not Columbo or whatever you think you are. Keep the discussion around facts, not personal attacks. Otherwise I'll have to resort to reporting your posts to keep things fact based.
How else could you write such preposterous nonsense as there being thousands of starvation deaths pre-2023?
Stop with this nonsense right now. I already said that this may've been a misinterpretation on my part. It regards only one part of the article and is irrelevant to the larger argument of post-Oct 7 starvation. If you're unwilling to consider that people make mistakes and to acknowledge that as part of an unfolding discussion, then you will never hear another formulated response from me ever again. I'll simply resort to 1) ignoring you and 2) one-lining you in the style of Kwark. If you want to create a deterioration of discourse like that, go ahead. I hope you'll feel great about yourself. Otherwise, if you want a normal discussion, then drop this nonsense and continue the discussion like a mature adult would.
And just to highlight one thing, that I didn't even want to discuss: Are you aware how the current classification came to pass? Do you even read the other side?
The article I posted is not from the IPC, in fact it is itself not relying on the IPC but rather on a number of other sources such as this one, which concludes:
Conclusions
Israel, as occupying power, did not ensure sufficient food availability throughout the analysis period, and its data appear unreliable. Existing stocks probably mitigated caloric deficits resulting from insufficient deliveries, but air and sea routes added little. Strengthened coordination of food deliveries may be warranted to optimise caloric quantity and dietary diversity despite aid restrictions.
https://gaza-projections.org/docs/report3/wartime_food_availability_in_the_gaza_strip.pdf
From the WPF article:
A group of Israeli physicians used estimates for food deliveries to challenge the IPC findings in 2024.[18] This was challenged on analytical, empirical and methodological grounds and cannot be considered credible.[19] Better figures for food availability have been calculated.[20]
The criticism of the IPC findings is considered "not credible". Explain that, please. How can it at the same time not be credible and yet also useful? Why are you relying on a source/methodology that isn't strictly considered credible and useful? Why should it be considered credible and useful?
govextra works for the Israeli government. This is the source you consider credible? Many consider it a source of propaganda. Their use of language confirms that allegation.
|
Sometimes I just ask myself what kind of a person spends their time providing hardcore defense of starvation as a tactic, which has been admitted by Israel officials on the basis that "there is not enough starvation to call it famine".
Like, what has to happen in your life that this is what you spend your time on.
I get it for ghouls like AIPAC or Free Press who's sole propose of existence is to defend Israel's actions no matter how fucked up they are, but someone on an internet forum emailing genocide scholars or spending inordinate amounts of time arguing over wording of articles and comments when it's obvious to anyone with eyes that there are people dying form lack of food and given that there is an abundance of food waiting to enter Gaza which Israel is preventing that is absolutely fucking unacceptable.
What has to happen in ones life to make them this heartless.
|
On September 08 2025 22:05 Jankisa wrote:
Sometimes I just ask myself what kind of a person spends their time providing hardcore defense of starvation as a tactic, which has been admitted by Israel officials on the basis that "there is not enough starvation to call it famine".
Like, what has to happen in your life that this is what you spend your time on.
I get it for ghouls like AIPAC or Free Press who's sole propose of existence is to defend Israel's actions no matter how fucked up they are, but someone on an internet forum emailing genocide scholars or spending inordinate amounts of time arguing over wording of articles and comments when it's obvious to anyone with eyes that there are people dying form lack of food and given that there is an abundance of food waiting to enter Gaza which Israel is preventing that is absolutely fucking unacceptable.
What has to happen in ones life to make them this heartless.
I also looked into Martin Griffith, former UN Under-Secretary-General, who made the statement that initiated this discussion. He made the explosive statement about the imminent danger on June 12 in 2024, just ahead of the G7 summit (June 13-15). He announced his resignation almost eleven weeks earlier on March 25, citing health reasons. He left office on July 1, with Thomas Fletcher replacing him.
When he published the statement he was still part of the UN. But does it count as an official statement from the UN? Did he ask anyone to approve it or did he publish it all by himself? I don't know how they do things.
Here's the statement:
https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/g7-leaders-can-and-must-prevent-manmade-famine-statement-martin-griffiths-under-secretary-general-humanitarian-affairs-and-emergency-relief-coordinator
I don't think anybody else came out to back his statement, it's just... there. It's like it just exists and nobody has addressed it. Or am I mistaken? Who else supported his statement?
|
Honestly, I don't care too much what UN officials or scholars from far away have to say about genocide or famine.
I heard enough interviews with healthcare workers who volunteer over there who have been describing hellish situations, their colleagues fainting because they can't get enough food, I've seen enough pictures of children with every bone visible in their face, just look at the videos of the lines for food where extremely desperate people come despite knowing that they are very likely to be shoot at.
Guys like PremoBeats can circlejerk about definitions and reports as much as their hollow souls allow them, to me, it's extremely obvious that what Israel has been doing is fucking monstrous, and just as with previous discussions with these guys who link to definitions of "hospitals can be shot at if they are being used by enemy combatants" or "well only about a 1000 died from lack of nutrition so akshualy it's not famine" can go fuck themselves.
|
On September 09 2025 01:22 Jankisa wrote:
Honestly, I don't care too much what UN officials or scholars from far away have to say about genocide or famine.
I heard enough interviews with healthcare workers who volunteer over there who have been describing hellish situations, their colleagues fainting because they can't get enough food, I've seen enough pictures of children with every bone visible in their face, just look at the videos of the lines for food where extremely desperate people come despite knowing that they are very likely to be shoot at.
Guys like PremoBeats can circlejerk about definitions and reports as much as their hollow souls allow them, to me, it's extremely obvious that what Israel has been doing is fucking monstrous, and just as with previous discussions with these guys who link to definitions of "hospitals can be shot at if they are being used by enemy combatants" or "well only about a 1000 died from lack of nutrition so akshualy it's not famine" can go fuck themselves.
Thinking up intellectual/religious/academic justifications for brutalizing entire populations is a long Western tradition, its appropriate that it should be carried out on behalf of Israel tbh.
|
On September 09 2025 01:22 Jankisa wrote:
Honestly, I don't care too much what UN officials or scholars from far away have to say about genocide or famine.
I heard enough interviews with healthcare workers who volunteer over there who have been describing hellish situations, their colleagues fainting because they can't get enough food, I've seen enough pictures of children with every bone visible in their face, just look at the videos of the lines for food where extremely desperate people come despite knowing that they are very likely to be shoot at.
Guys like PremoBeats can circlejerk about definitions and reports as much as their hollow souls allow them, to me, it's extremely obvious that what Israel has been doing is fucking monstrous, and just as with previous discussions with these guys who link to definitions of "hospitals can be shot at if they are being used by enemy combatants" or "well only about a 1000 died from lack of nutrition so akshualy it's not famine" can go fuck themselves.
Agreed. The terms themselves are fairly meaningless. Its easy to relate to laws not dictating ethics. Something being legal doesn't make it ethical. Something being illegal doesn't make it unethical. Similarly, pointing to some definition some organization or think tank published and slapped a sticker on does not matter in any moral/ethical discussion. It is lazy and unproductive to point to definitions. Always better to examine specifics and details.
|
On September 08 2025 16:13 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +My impression (that I already got several times when talking to you) is that you try to counter-argue, look for articles that support your POV and then - without much thought or reflection - post them as a basis against a singular topic, while missing out on the bigger picture. I've read this article - in full, several times - before you started posting here again. That's why I had it ready to deliver, because it fit the matter perfectly. So please, quite frankly, shove your "impressions" elsewhere. You're not Columbo or whatever you think you are. Keep the discussion around facts, not personal attacks. Otherwise I'll have to resort to reporting your posts to keep things fact based. Show nested quote +How else could you write such preposterous nonsense as there being thousands of starvation deaths pre-2023? Stop with this nonsense right now. I already said that this may've been a misinterpretation on my part. It regards only one part of the article and is irrelevant to the larger argument of post-Oct 7 starvation. If you're unwilling to consider that people make mistakes and to acknowledge that as part of an unfolding discussion, then you will never hear another formulated response from me ever again. I'll simply resort to 1) ignoring you and 2) one-lining you in the style of Kwark. If you want to create a deterioration of discourse like that, go ahead. I hope you'll feel great about yourself. Otherwise, if you want a normal discussion, then drop this nonsense and continue the discussion like a mature adult would. Show nested quote +And just to highlight one thing, that I didn't even want to discuss: Are you aware how the current classification came to pass? Do you even read the other side? The article I posted is not from the IPC, in fact it is itself not relying on the IPC but rather on a number of other sources such as this one, which concludes: Show nested quote +Conclusions
Israel, as occupying power, did not ensure sufficient food availability throughout the analysis period, and its data appear unreliable. Existing stocks probably mitigated caloric deficits resulting from insufficient deliveries, but air and sea routes added little. Strengthened coordination of food deliveries may be warranted to optimise caloric quantity and dietary diversity despite aid restrictions. https://gaza-projections.org/docs/report3/wartime_food_availability_in_the_gaza_strip.pdfFrom the WPF article: Show nested quote +A group of Israeli physicians used estimates for food deliveries to challenge the IPC findings in 2024.[18] This was challenged on analytical, empirical and methodological grounds and cannot be considered credible.[19] Better figures for food availability have been calculated.[20] The criticism of the IPC findings is considered "not credible". Explain that, please. How can it at the same time not be credible and yet also useful? Why are you relying on a source/methodology that isn't strictly considered credible and useful? Why should it be considered credible and useful? govextra works for the Israeli government. This is the source you consider credible? Many consider it a source of propaganda. Their use of language confirms that allegation.
Ok, then you read and misinterpreted it several times. Fair enough, that can happen. My issue is not you misinterpreting something wrong. My issue is that you misinterpret an article and have no feel of discomfort about the misinterpretation.
You have been posting here for months, maybe years and you simply should know that a couple of thousands yearly starvation deaths pre-2023 is absolutely nuts. There should be enough surrounding knowledge that should trigger you to double-check if that number could actually be accurate.
It would be the same, if a pro-Israel user would read an article saying that the actual total death count is 10k and post that information here. That is the scope of how wrong your statement was.
And if mods here actually police a personal opinion when straight up insults, unfounded accusations or litter posts are fine would be interesting to see. To be honest, I am still not quite sure, how you managed to get temp banned some time ago, given how nearly anything flies here.
But sure, let's keep it fact based and if you wish, you can call me Columbo.
So as you - out of the several topics I raised - chose to engage in me criticizing health organizations' assessments form December 2023 and I haven't seen any real points invalidating my opinion, where do we stand here?
Again, my point is:
- It was said that over 300k children are at high risk of preventable death
- It was said that there needs to be something happening now (not in 1 months, not in 6 months, not in nearly 2 years... now)
- It was said that an immediate and long-lasting humanitarian ceasefire is what is needed
I challenge this assessment as,
- this long-lasting ceasefire did not occur and the situation, as a matter of fact, even worsened at times
- a ceasefire was only established in January 2025, meaning over a year has passed between the call for it and the enactment
- there was no immediate ceasefire and the situation, especially in northern Gaza worsened dramatically and we don't even have 500 confirmed starvation deaths (and yes, I will say it again: even one would be too many, so all of you reading this: safe your cynicism... it is a fucking war and bad things happen).
So I only bring this up to reality check humanitarian organizations or journals like the Lancet that are known for making insane overestimations in this conflict.
It is a simple comparison between an assessment and reality. And if you think that 330k and 500 are in any way shape or form relatable when the situation has worsened and nothing was done for 1 year, when immediate action was pushed for, then we won't agree here.
And I wouldn't even understand why it should be hard for anyone to agree on this observation. It wouldn't invalidate the 500 too many starvation deaths. Or the potentially even higher unofficial/unconfirmed number. Israel's collective punishment would still be a warcrime and utterly wrong... so why are we even arguing about this? I don't understand...
On September 08 2025 22:05 Jankisa wrote:
Sometimes I just ask myself what kind of a person spends their time providing hardcore defense of starvation as a tactic, which has been admitted by Israel officials on the basis that "there is not enough starvation to call it famine".
Like, what has to happen in your life that this is what you spend your time on.
I get it for ghouls like AIPAC or Free Press who's sole propose of existence is to defend Israel's actions no matter how fucked up they are, but someone on an internet forum emailing genocide scholars or spending inordinate amounts of time arguing over wording of articles and comments when it's obvious to anyone with eyes that there are people dying form lack of food and given that there is an abundance of food waiting to enter Gaza which Israel is preventing that is absolutely fucking unacceptable.
What has to happen in ones life to make them this heartless.
Ultra-strawman.
Because I never defended starvation as a tactic. I called it a warcrime, called out Israel for it several times and wrote that Israel itself and singular officials and soldiers complicit in this warcrime and others should be held accountable. This has nothing to do with being heartless, but with misinterpretations.
This isn't even about any kind of defense for Israel but about preposterously wrong statements regarding this conflict being called out for what they are.
Seriously, this is exactly what I called out in my rant on the previous page. This is why no one critical of what is spread here is posting regularly... you guys simply are not able to distinguish between facts and emotion and make emotional appeals instead of addressing what is actually written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
