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.
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.
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.
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. This was deliberate action.
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.
This solves the problem you were devil's advocating. And we don't need to theorize about other numbers.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/malnutrit...
and "in 2019, the global rate of malnutrition was estimated to be approximately 9 percent." [1].
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/...
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...
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
We have no proof this was routinely happening [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un...
[1] - https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percen...
Yes. I think a shop in San Francisco also had some candy bars stolen this AM. Doesn't mean Hamas did it.
So explain to us who is armed and can loot a moving UN convoy in the Gaza region???
This is some insane, wild, political nonsense.
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.")
[1] https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-aid-tru...
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.
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.
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.
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].)
[1] https://apnews.com/article/eu-israel-sanctions-tariffs-gaza-...
[2] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025...
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.
...this is a really good idea. And American farmers are over a barrel due to tariffs...
And the definition does matter, because 'famine' has the meaning of a certain level of bad thing happening. If we do not preserve the meaning, then the word will not have a meaning, then we have no more word to talk about that bad thing, so we will pay no attention to averting or fixing the bad thing because we don't have the literal ability to talk about it.
I'm in favor of being able to have a productive discussion about famines and how to avoid them, so I'm in favor of having a word for 'famine' with a clearly defined meaning.
PS Do you really think the number “15%” is some natural value that nature or the Bible or teams of scientists chose to define “famine”? It’s an arbitrary threshold that someone picked because it’s a bit larger than 10% and less than 20% and divisible by the number of digits on the human hand.
But it’s a threshold. Remove the threshold and we lose accountability. Any level is simultaneously abhorrent and unavoidable.
A village of 100 people where 50% are starving is better than a country of 1,000,000 where 10% are.
Who cares?
We just watched this nonsense happen with the word genocide. Both sides were careless with it. Now, it's lost meaning. Famine is still a hard line in the sand. All the evidence points to Israel having breached that line. The solution isn't to get rid of the line, it's to point to the line, point to the ground and say you're past the fucking line.