re: "The underlying fact that would lead one to mention mass starvation". I don't think the OP is questioning the cause of mass starvation, but the classification of an event in which 15 people died of malnutrition as "mass starvation". 9300 people died of malnutrition in the US in 2018. Adjusted for population and time period (320million over a year vs 2 million over 3 months), that's the same per capita rate of 3e-5.

The first quote in your response is what I was referring to. It suggests that the Israeli government intentionally bombs children when the reality is the exact opposite

As to the blockade I keep hearing about it, but I don't actually see it. Multiple points of entry exist and are open, not all under Israeli control. After all, If there was a real blockade - how would they have amassed so much weapons? The antisemites keep quoting Galant's speech from when the war started, and while the phrasing was unfortunate - it did not in fact become the reality.

@wrod: and how many were under 65 y.o. among those US deaths of malnutrition? And how many children--you probably can't answer the last bit since none are mentioned in the piece.

@wrod: and what counts as malnutrition deaths in the US [CDC data] can be a bit counterintuitive: "In the US, we often have overnutrition and malnutrition in the same person, which is something that’s a little bit unique to us. There can be an over nutrition of empty calories that leads to obesity, but the quality of diet that they have is low, so they’re malnourished when you look at the micronutrient content." edition.cnn.com/2023/12/21/health/…

@Dolphin613Motorboat that may have long-term health consequences but it wouldn't cause starvation or death in the short term. Btw, I took the low-end number for the US. If I wanted to cherry pick, I could have picked 2022 when the deaths were at 20,500 (rather than the 9,300 in 2018 that I used).

@Dolphin613Motorboat to be fair, this is reason for a legitimate debate. But given that the rates are so close to each other, classifying the event as "mass starvation" is clearly giving in to a moral panic.

@wrod: TBH a fairer comparison would be with Ethiopia given the relative levels of development etc., but I don't want to get into that here theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/09/…

@wrod The answer addresses that as well saying that mass starvation doesn't happen linear in time. The mathematics of over a million people not having access to food for a prolonged period of time can only lead to mass starvation. And an analogous more acute reasoning exists for drinking water. Clearly the US sees the urgency by making a deep sea port after failing to convince Israel to open more border crossings. Once starvation gets out of control it will be too late to act and then the political ramifications can't be overseen either.

@JJJ the only source of the claim that there is a shortage is a Hamas-linked UNRWA, which has a history of spreading anti-Israel propaganda. Without a better source, the only way to evaluate the validity of those claims is by looking at the outcomes.

@littleadv the quote doesn't say that children are targeted. It says that children die in mass quantities as a result of the bombings.

@wrod So are you seriously arguing that it's not true? Clearly they can't produce much food on their own in Gaza and Israel is severely limiting the the amount of aid getting in over land. That's why the US is going for the inefficient sea port option (that will still require local distribution which the US cannot do) and others opting for aerial food drops. As for other sources, see the reactions listed on Wikipedia. I don't think it's contestable because of the sheer numbers.

@JJJ a source which is not credible can be sometimes true and sometimes not. I don't care what UNRWA says. I don't care to debunk or to parse half truths. I'll look at the other sources and tell you what I think if you want.

Most of the extreme statements I see on Wikipedia were from the October of 2023, when the fighting had just began. The later statements, with the exception of 1, came from UNRWA, which as I said, I am not going to evaluate for its truthfulness because it is Hamas-linked organization with a history of anti-Israel propaganda.

The most dire prediction which deserves a look is from December 22, 2023 from UNICEF:"UNICEF estimates that in the coming weeks, at least 10,000 children under five years will suffer the most life-threatening form of malnutrition..." I think we are in, or past, the "a few weeks" timeline from Dec 22,2023. And this hasn't happened. So the prediction was either an overesitemate or the corrective measures have already been taken.

@wrod If you're interested in recent positions from different countries, see this summary of a UNSC meeting 2 weeks ago. I don' think there's much point in discussing it further here.

@JJJ I seem some predictions some accusations. I don't see anything explaining why after 4 months of war, there hasn't been a anything that can be called a "mass starvation". The only specific prediction I see is May of 2024, if nothing changes. I am not going to repeat the statement by the Israeli ambassador, which (if true) would undermine the whole premise. But OK, he is an interested party. The fact is that these are predictions. There is no evidence of a mass starvation which has already occurred. Claiming otherwise is inaccurate.

@wrod then there's no issue right? The question and answer mostly talk about starvation. The only mention of mass starvation in the answer talks about the possibility of that happening in the future. I somewhat address in this answer here on meta, though perhaps not carefully enough, that starvation is a result of the Israeli limitations on aid making its way to those who need it.

I don't think so. The question states it as a fact that mass starvation has happened. It says "malnutrition, famine and starvation are now all widespread in Gaza." And it's from a user known for pushing anti-Israeli rhetoric. That's a part of demonization. That's an issue.

@wrod well, mass starvation hasn't happened yet. Malnutrition and famine are definitely widespread and starvation is starting to happen. This is the relevant Wikipedia article with a lot more recent quotes. It's not demonization to criticize state actions.

@JJJ excuse me, but what's the difference between "mass starvation" and "famine"?

@littleadv Per Wikipedia: "According to the United Nations World Food Programme, famine is declared when malnutrition is widespread, and when people have started dying of starvation through lack of access to sufficient, nutritious food." I don't think 'mass starvation' is an official term but the words indicate a more advanced stage of famine in which people have died in large numbers due to famine. See the 3rd paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Gaza famine to see what classification that's at.

Even from your own attempt of differentiation I can't tell what the difference is. "Famine is when ... malnutrition is spread" and "mass starvation" is.... malnutrition widely spread? And even from the biased wikipedia article, it's also pretty clear that Israel, to say the least, is not the only responsible party here.

@JJJ re: "well, mass starvation hasn't happened yet." But the question (linked in the meta OP) claims that there is. And since this meta is about loaded anti-Israeli questions, that's the relevant point here.

@JJJ As for your assertion that "malnutrition and famine are definitely widespread," no, there is no famine. From "Is there famine in Gaza?": "For famine to be declared, ..., and two people out of every 10,000 dying daily from starvation or from malnutrition and disease." 2/10,000*2mil=400. Do 400 Gazans die every day from lack of food or from disease? No, not even close. But you keep repeating these accusation. I am sure you mean well, but you are not immune to moral panics.

@wrod No, the whole population of Gaza is not at level 5. But according to IPC, 25% of the population was at level 5 in February. This is also the source referenced on the Wikipedia page I referenced earlier btw.

@JJJ that begs the question - if it's Israeli fault, then why just 25%? These claims of blockade, genocide, mass-whatever - they make claims against Israel, but never quite explain why Israel is so bad at that. Palestinians killed more than a thousand Israelis in just one morning and it took now almost half a year for Israelis to kill 30k of them. So who's genocidal here?

@littleadv Those are two separate matters. Hamas is responsible for the terrorist attack and Israel has a legitimate case to retaliate against the terrorists and their support network. On the other hand, Israel is not allowed to use siege tactics against the whole of Gaza because its civilian population enjoys certain protections in IHL. It also doesn't help Israel's case because their siege tactics are hurting their support among allies. I'm also not saying there's an easy alternative. Anyway, this discussion is kind of getting off-topic, probably better for the chat room on this conflict.

Israel is not allowed to use siege tactics against the whole of Gaza - and it doesn't! This whole discussion hinges on the claim that Israel does that - but that claim is false, and verifiably so, which is exactly my point!

@littleadv well, they evacuated half of Gaza forcing many people into refugee camps. Then they control what goes in and out (e.g. food) limiting the amount that can get in even if it's provided by externally funded aid organizations. The most efficient way would be to get food in by truck. That's option is limited to the point where other countries are airdropping rations and the US is building a temporary port. By taking control of the area Israel has a duty of care. See e.g. ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-55

@JJJ the evacuation is actually mandated by the Geneva convention, so let's start with that, and is intended specifically and explicitly to reduce civilian casualties in the theater of war. As to trucks... This is in fact the most efficient way, but the problem is less bringing the trucks, more distributing the food. That's where the main issue is: Hamas taking over it and refusing to distribute, or maraudeurs taking over it and price gouging. politico.eu/article/…

Here's one example of what happens to these trucks before distribution, and even with this - imagine that, Israelis are still at fault because how dare they shoot at stampeding crowd trying to kill them and prevent the trucks from reaching their destination! So they are not allowed to secure these convoys, and the convoys are not secure, and damned if you do and damned if you don't. Fun!

@JJJ no, that's not true. 25% of 2mil = 500,000. 2/10,000*500,000 = 100. 100 people a day were not dying from starvation or disease at any point during the conflict. The Wikipedia article is bunk. It's main source is ipcinfo publication which cites FRC Projection from Dec 21, 2024 as if it were fata accompli.

There are 3 problems with it. (1) The report is a ballpark estimate based because "the available data on mortality does not provide sufficient disaggregation by cause of death." (2) It's using Oct7-Oct26 excess mortality, provided by UNRWA. Israel's operation began on October 27th, which completely changed the situation. (3) By December 1, 80% of the population already evacuated to the South of Gaza (so they were not subject of the total blockade which the report talked about).

To sum up, it stated as a certainty a projection based on data collected under conditions which no longer existed and which, when they did exist, were reported by the unreliable UNRWA. When you have this much questionable a report, again the only way to judge the quality of the reporting is by looking at the outcomes and the quality of the predictions they made. 100people/day were not dying. 400people/day are not dying. So the estimates they made had some bad data somewhere down the line (I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they are doing when they make estimates).

@wrod They say from the outset: "Even though the levels of acute malnutrition and non-trauma related mortality might not have yet crossed famine thresholds, these are typically the outcomes of prolonged and extreme food consumption gaps." You're welcome to dispute their analysis, but the statement made in the question is not unreasonable to the point that it violates the code of conduct.

@JJJ my concern was not with the statement as much as with baseless accusations that Israelis are the ones to blame. I'm sorry to keep trying to focus this conversation but it seems like it's a bit uncomfortable for everyone to confront head on.

@littleadv no, those concerns have been addressed. As the occupying power of Gaza Israel has incurred certain responsibilities under IHL. I don't think this is the place to have a long discussion about the specifics, but those would probably be good questions for the main site or Law.SE.

They are unambiguously stating Nov 24th-Dec 7th and Dec 8th-Feb7 "data" as facts. But they are basing it on assessment which doesn't do that. The assessment called Nov 24th-Dec7th data "plausible" (but unverified) and Dec 8th-Feb 7th was a "plausible" projection (so obviously unverified). And because they stated it as fact, this statement continues to perpetuate. You yourself repeated it. But it clearly hasn't materialized and it doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.

@wrod I don't have the knowledge or the time to fully review their methodology. I would expect them to make an assessment based on the best data they have available. You say it doesn't stand up to scrutiny because not enough people are dying for that classification to apply. They seem to say not that many people are dying yet because that takes time. Nevertheless, for a part of the population they estimate their food insecurity to be at the highest classification level. If you want to dispute it, maybe ask it on Skeptics.SE?

@JJJ I already linked to it for you before. They link to that assessment is at the bottom of the link you posted (under resources). Here it is again (the table on page 3). And pg 9 has the statement "the available data on mortality does not provide sufficient disaggregation by cause of death." They are overstating the statement made by their reference.

And a question like that would get closed on Skeptics.SE. Skeptics.SE does not allow skepticism. It only allows fact checking. So if you bring something there which doesn't stand up to scrutiny, they close it. They only allow content where you can show something is counterfactual (by showing facts which disprove assertions).

@wrod Let me say it more clearly. I am not interested in debating with you their assessment. As a moderator, that report and other (more recent) statements on this Wikipedia page are sufficient for me to allow the statements on famine as made in the question on main. If you wish to dispute it to the point where we should remove such statements as misinformation you will have to be more convincing. You can also escalate it to the CM team using the contact form or I can ask another mod to have a look at it.

@JJJ here's another example. The OP claimed something not actually written in the article linked, and on top of that misdated it (the article shows a picture of a building on its side from long before the war in October even started).

@littleadv please don't ping individual mods when new issues need attention. Just use the flag system so it will show up for all the mods.

@JJJ ok, as a moderator, you can take that position wrt to moderator decisions. But, as a user, when you repeat an inaccurate assessment, you should not be surprised at being challenged. Although, if I am going to be honest, lack of curiosity about an inaccurate representation of events on Wikipedia about something that you actively have to be involved in moderating... It's not a good sign. If the goal of the site is to be a repository of knowledge, then wanting to suppress spread of inaccurate information should be a natural extension of that.

BTW, I did predict the "not caring about the details" stage in my answer to this question. I guess we are there.

@wrod it's not that I'm not interested. It's that I don't have the time to go in depth on the report & what data they used to draw their conclusion, etc. Without that, I have two competing reasonings in front of me. First is your disputing the report within three hours of my posting it. Second is the experts who wrote the report and the general vibe among others (such as Israel's allies) that food has to reach Gaza now to avert the worst. In that comparison the 'they interpreted their estimate as fact' and 'everyone who claims otherwise is biased and as are most on this site' is unconvincing.

@JJJ I don't dispute the fact that there is probably a food shortage. But famine is a very dire situation. And claiming it has happened, or has effected a large portion of any population, requires certain conditions to be met. The fact that IPC posted as fact estimates, and worse projections, made by FRC is clear as day. The fact that you don't care about evidence directly showing it is not you not trusting me. It's you not caring about the direct evidence on which these claims are made. Ignoring evidence, after it's presented to you, is not an optimal moderator strategy.

@wrod Famine is a very dire situation and the downplaying on your part gets rather close to the code of conduct prohibition on denying newsworthy events. News reports about starving in Gaza date back to as early as December last year. And yes, you are not showing yourself to be very trustworthy because you outright dismiss a lot of evidence claiming that its source is biased. I don't see much point to this discussion either. If you think there's a moderation issue I suggest you use the contact form.

@JJJ you are the one ignoring evidence. I haven't ignored any evidence presented. I've done the opposite, in fact. I delved in and read it.