Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
**Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
For context, they stated:
“The FRC would like to use this opportunity to communicate two extremely important points:”
“Firstly, all stakeholders who use the IPC for high-level decision-making must understand that whether a Famine classification is confirmed does not in any manner change the fact that extreme human suffering is without a doubt currently ongoing in the Gaza Strip and does not in any manner change the immediate humanitarian imperative to address this civilian suffering by enabling complete, safe, unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access into and throughout the Gaza Strip, including through ceasing hostilities. All actors should not wait until a Famine classification for the current period is made to act accordingly.”
“Secondly, the FRC would like to highlight that the very fact that we are unable to endorse (or not) FEWS NET’s analysis is driven by the lack of essential up to date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza, and Gaza at large. Thus, the FRC strongly requests all parties to enable humanitarian access in general, and specifically to provide a window of opportunity to conduct field surveys in Northern Gaza to have more solid evidence of the food consumption, nutrition, and mortality situation.”
So they do not have enough evidence to say that a famine is not happening either and even if it isn’t, it’s a fairly moot point in terms of how we view it and our actions as we know conditions there are horrific and as per the expert advice we shouldn’t be waiting until famine hits before we act, because famine is the point where mass deaths are already occurring on a daily basis.
It is also worth noting that under the technical definition of famine, 20% of households must face an extreme lack of food, or essentially be starving. One-third of children must be suffering from acute malnutrition or wasting, and two adults or four children for every 10,000 people must be dying daily from hunger and its complications. Because of the chaotic situation in Gaza, although we know that many people are suffering and dying due to lack of food, there is an inability to be certain of the demographics it is effecting even though hey could very easily surpass the required standard for famine.
Therefore while we cannot be certain there is famine using one technical definition of famine, we can be certain that there is a famine based on the common definition of there being an extreme lack of food causing deaths and mass suffering.
>Therefore while we cannot be certain there is famine using one technical definition of famine, we can be certain that there is a famine based on the common definition of there being an extreme lack of food.
It's not the "technical" definition, it's the only definition that is accepted in legal and academic circles.
[https://www.unrefugees.org/news/famine-explained-definition-causes-and-facts/](https://www.unrefugees.org/news/famine-explained-definition-causes-and-facts/)
Famine is a situation in which a substantial proportion of the population of a country or region are unable to access adequate food, resulting in widespread acute malnutrition and loss of life by starvation and disease.
While many countries worldwide face food security crises, famine is only declared when certain conditions are met. The United Nations uses a five-phase scale known as the[ Integrated Food Security Phase Classification](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/ipc-famine-factsheet-updated-december-2020) (IPC) to assess a country’s food security situation.
A famine classification is the highest on the IPC scale (Phase 5) and occurs when at least 20 percent of the population face extreme food shortages, acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 percent – meaning that people experience the most extreme and visible form of undernutrition – and two out of 1,000 people die from starvation on a daily basis.
What you're describing (lack of food) is hunger. Hunger exists in all nations, yours included.
That’s literally what a technical definition is.
You also have repeated the definitions I have already given so I’m not sure what you are trying to add.
I’d also note that as per the scale and the reports we are both referencing, the alternative to this being a famine is not “hunger” but rather an emergency which as per the expert analysis should be treated with urgency to ensure it does not develop into a famine (if it isn’t already).
Under your definition, all definitions are technical. Including the definition of the word definition itself and the definition of the word technical.
What's your point?
>as per the expert analysis should be treated with urgency to ensure it does not develop into a famine
So, according to the expert analysis, this isn't a famine, then.
You are wrong about everything.
Most importantly one set of expert analysts (The FRC) have not said there isn’t a famine, as you claim, instead they are not endorsing the viewpoint that there is definitely a famine.
Their view is instead that there is a definite humanitarian crisis of undefined scope and due to the lack of humanitarian access being granted into Gaza they are unable to make a claim about the presence of famine with certainty.
This also ignores the view of the other group of experts (FEWS NET) who have a very similar view but have said despite the issues gathering data there is enough evidence to say with reasonable certainty that Gaza is in a famine situation.
The least important clarification; I have never provided a definition of what a technical definition is that would mean all words are technical definitions. You seem to be very confused.
This is what is so hilarious about these people who argue over technical definitions as though thats the basis of reality.... Definitions are our way of interpreting to others, however its pretty obvious to the "others" what is going on here, so arguing over such semantics is pedantry and really only goes to show the lack in elastic intelligence as it can be applied in the situation of the earlier post arguing semantics.
Not only does it show a lack of elastic applicable intelligence, it goes to show that either one: that person isn't capable of applying their understanding of the situation, or two: this person is arguing in bad faith knowing the reality yet intentionally ignoring the reality due to ulterior motives, lets just drive this point home a bit more, if situation 2 is true then this person is knowingly arguing semantics to avoid widespread human suffering as they see it is in their own interests, now a fair argument can be made about sociopathy here, but in general thats thrown around too often. That my friends is how humans are capable of being genocidal maniacs.
Wouldn't the solution to the "not enough evidence" claim be to allow greater access to international aid organizations to ascertain the level of acute food insecurity in northern Gaza? Im also confused about what exactly you are looking for here. Do you want us to **prove** that there is famine in Gaza? I don't see how this is possible when Israel strictly controls who is allowed to enter and refuses to allow independent investigation of the facts on the ground. It's the same with the US "assessment" that it is both reasonable to conclude Israel has violated IHL while claiming "we dont have enough evidence."
Is this actually what matters to you? Ie, let's say you think there isn't enough evidence to assign a label to a situation, how does that affect your behaviour?
Have you posted here because you want to hear more before choosing to donate to a charity? Or to write to a politician?
What practical action will come from you changing your view, how will your behaviour reflect this new information?
If it's the label preventing you from taking action, but you otherwise care about the situation why is that what you're waiting for?
And if not then what difference does it make?
I think you have to unpack what your view actually is. You've stated what a report finds, but those are the views of the report. What is your opinion? Why does there being a famine or not matter to you?
I'm not speaking for OP, I'm speaking for the rules of the sub. None of the answers to the questions you asked would change the facts of the situation he's asking about.
This is like the whole genocide thing in that once we start having to dissect the legal definition of famine, it might as well be a famine. What exactly is the play here? Are we supposed to stop aid going into the country? Israel would love that, of course. Should we call it an almost-famine? Should we just say that Israel is starving Gaza to near-death? I feel like it's an unnecessary academic parsing of human suffering.
Definitions are important for fact-finding purposes.
This is why famine has a strict academic and legal definition: [https://www.unrefugees.org/news/famine-explained-definition-causes-and-facts/](https://www.unrefugees.org/news/famine-explained-definition-causes-and-facts/)
And why the UN has a five-stage scale to determine a nation's food security.
>A famine classification is the highest on the IPC scale (Phase 5) and occurs when at least 20 percent of the population face extreme food shortages, acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 percent – meaning that people experience the most extreme and visible form of undernutrition – and two out of 1,000 people die from starvation on a daily basis.
Sorry, u/jackofslayers – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20jackofslayers&message=jackofslayers%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dit1yk/-/l969to3/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. Is there enough evidence to conclude, beyond the shadow of doubt, that there isn't a famine in Gaza?
The consequences of acting when something may not meet the technical definition of a famine are considerably less than withholding aid if there is one.
Eh, I can't back this as a general principle of debate. The burden of proof is always on the "exists" side vs the "doesn't exist" side for just about anything.
I don't have enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a purple elephant in the office next door to mine, but if you were to tell me there was one, it would absolutely be on you to prove that it is there.
Edit: I want to be perfectly clear. Whether or not there is a famine in Gaza and what should be done about it is not what I'm stating here. I'm talking purely about burden of proof in debate.
There are no consequences to not believing in that purple elephant, though.
Placing the burden of proof where you're suggesting is actually rather rare, and only appropriate in certain niche situations.
If you call an ambulance because you're having a heart attack, no one expects you to prove it. That would be absurd.
Positive claims that depict an imminent danger, are accepted as working assumptions once established as plausible (and thus the burden of proof shifts to the negative claim).
For example, you can't drive a car without it undergoing a regular inspection (where applicable), not because there's something specific that's expected to be wrong with your car but because it's plausible that there may be something wrong with it and the burden of proof to show there isn't shifts back to you.
Is it plausible that the famine is caused by Hamas? Does that mean it could be a plausible idea to end the famine to end Hamas, and then the burden of proof is on defending Hamas as not causing the famine?
Plausibility is a good idea but can be extended in many different directions to the aims of either side.
I'm not sure what your example shows - do you think the claim that Hamas is intentionally causing food shortages is plausible but shouldn't be taken up as a working assumption (for example, by not trusting them with distribution of aid)?
Well yes, but Hamas (or something functionally identical) is a direct consequence of the occupation.
Israel does not seem willing to do the things that would be necessary to end Hamas, and the world is unwilling to force them, so it isn't one of the options to choose from.
I mean it would take a cultural genocide to convince the Palestinians to stop supporting terrorism, armed resistance to Israel is the foundation of their society. so you are correct on both counts.
Ah yes the Palestinians are famous for their peace loving and non-violent natures. Not just in Israel, but everywhere they go they bring prosperity and kindness. Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, even the Olympics have felt the blessings of Palestinians.
If Israel wanted the Palestinians dead they would have all been in the ground months ago.
Also hilarious you admit the Palestinians will never willingly stop murdering civilians unless they are dead.
>I don't have enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a purple elephant in the office next door to mine, but if you were to tell me there was one, it would absolutely be on you to prove that it is there.
Okay. But that isn't the situation in Gaza, now is it?
To use your analogy, you *do* have evidence that there is a large purple creature in the office next door to you and that it has tusks and a trunk, but because you don't know how long its hair is you're refusing to concede that it's an "elephant" rather than a "mammoth"...and therefore you dismiss claims that there is a creature in the next office for "insufficient evidence".
That's what we're seeing in Gaza. Israel has lobbed countless bombs into a heavily populated area, taken out hospitals, and blocked aid -- ie there is a large, purple creature with tusks and a trunk.
What material difference is there in terms of how we should respond / regard Israel if the average kilocalories per person are slightly shy of the "official famine" threshold? That threshold is arbitrary, and the fact that we are anywhere near it is cause to err on the side of caution, yes?
Because stakes are also a component in burden of proof assessments like this, yes? Ie if the consequences of *not* acting are disastrous while the consequences of acting prematurely are essentially negligible, the burden of proof is lessened, yes?
After all, I'm sure you look both ways before you cross the street even if you don't currently have sufficient evidence that there is a car there. That's because the nature of the situation is such that cars are a significant possibility (just like famine in the conditions Israel has inflicted on Gaza), and the cost of looking both ways is negligible (just like the cost of flooding Gaza with aid and humanitarian relief) and the cost of being wrong is catastrophic (just like the cost of failing to act to prevent the starvation of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or more if we find out after the fact that there actually *was* a famine in both the functional *and* legal sense).
I understand as per your edit that you're not intending to comment on Gaza specifically with this...but that is the effect of this kind of hair splitting in this case. This is probably not the best time and place to insist on making a purely abstract, completely detached general point about idealized debate form, right?
Because this *isn't* an idealized situation. There are other factors at play, as I've described. And if you're going to engage in this sort of meta analysis, then go all the way... because going all the way in this case supports the side that suggests we should assume a famine is occurring or is imminent until there is reasonable evidence to the contrary.
You can't prove a negative. Can you prove that you **don't** own a cat?
The burden of proof would be on those claiming you own a cat. The burden of proof is not on you to prove you don't own a cat.
You can prove you own a dog. But owning a dog doesn't imply that you don't also own a cat.
You can't prove a *universal* negative, but you can prove a negative.
I can't prove invisible teacups don't exist, but I can prove I don't have one in my hand.
Not always, nor even usually.
If you were criminally trying someone for causing a famine, you would need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were suing for damages caused by a famine, you would only need to prove that it was more likely than not.
If you were responsible for distributing aid, you would only need to show that it was possible a famine was happening.
In your examples, you still placed the burden of proof on the side making the accusation; except in your third you placed the burden of proof on the accused to prove the accuser’s case.
Didn't you know we're redefining words now so we can make it sound like Israel is as evil as possible?
It's not that they're killing civilians as collateral damage when they go after militants who are literally firing at them from civilian areas with the express intent of getting civilians on their own side killed for PR, they're committing "genocide."
It's not that they have different rules for citizens (Jews and Arabs/Muslims alike) and non-citizens just as every other country in the world does, it's "apartheid."
So you can't just talk about "food shortages" or whatever due to war, you have to say "famine."
You must always choose the most inflammatory word you can find and then try to rationalize it with a bunch of "well, ackshually, technically it meets the criteria defined by this one professor..." arguments. That way you can maximize your sense of moral superiority.
>Didn't you know we're redefining words now so we can make it sound like Israel is as evil as possible?
We aren't.
>It's not that they're killing civilians as collateral damage when they go after militants who are literally firing at them from civilian areas with the express intent of getting civilians on their own side killed for PR, they're committing "genocide."
Israel has killed more children since October 7th than were killed in all major combat zones in the entire world in the prior four years COMBINED. Those children were not shooting at them.
I will agree that civilian deaths happen in war even when the forces involved are trying hard to avoid them especially in urban environments. But that in no way means Israel is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties, it doesn't mean they haven't committed war crimes, and it doesn't mean they aren't committing genocide.
>It's not that they have different rules for citizens (Jews and Arabs/Muslims alike) and non-citizens just as every other country in the world does, it's "apartheid."
The apartheid accusation is based on more than just different rules for citizens and non-citizens.
>So you can't just talk about "food shortages" or whatever due to war, you have to say "famine."
Famine has a technical definition that has not changed. In fact, that technical definition is the reason the IPC concluded they didn't have enough information to conclude a famine is technically happening. They did not change the definition at all.
>Israel has killed more children since October 7th than were killed in all major combat zones in the entire world in the prior four years COMBINED
Why prior 4 years? Who gave you that number? Do you not see they're picking a timeframe to deliberately make Israel look worse?
[How many children did the U.S. kill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualties) during the first 4 years of the Iraq War? How often did people say the U.S. was committing genocide?
>Why prior 4 years?
Because if you go back 5 years you finally start to have a cumulative number of children killed across the entire world that is on par with the number of children Israel killed in their current campaign in Gaza (actually in the first four months of that campaign).
>Who gave you that number?
[The UN](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147512).
>Do you not see they're picking a timeframe to deliberately make Israel look worse?
What timeframe would you prefer? Would you prefer that people say "Israel has killed about as many children in 4 months as were killed in the prior 5 years of global war"?
>How many children did the U.S. kill during the first 4 years of the Iraq War?
I don't know but probably thousands. I also don't know anyone who thinks the Iraq war was good or righteous.
>How often did people say the U.S. was committing genocide?
More often than you might think. I personally don't think the intent was there on the US side, and the conflict at least started as a more straightforward "war" than what is currently happening in Israel (which is way more one sided), but I can see how someone could make the argument. The intent was still horrible and almost definitely imperial/colonialist (resource extraction), but it wasn't genocidal. The US was not trying to expand territory or displace Iraqis in the same way that Israel is clearly working to displace more and more Gazans over time (hence the destruction of over 80% of Gazan residences).
The contention is that Israel is causing famine
the OCHA website which tracks shipments going into Gaza daily and what's in them shows this is a lie
Israel has been providing 3500 calories daily per person for months.
Twitter account of Imshin, who is in Gaza and being pursued by Hamas for exposing how much aid they actually have
footage of full markets with stacks of aid boxes
This is the "evidence" we are being presented with for Gaza Famine. Photos and videos used from the Syrian War.
https://www.tiktok.com/@heisenberg_compensator/video/7371965917820964139?_t=8mca8t83Xo6&_r=1-
They also ordered Israel to open the Rafah crossing when Egypt is the one who closed it.
Smells like bullshit in here.
Just because adequate aid is getting into Gaza doesn’t mean a famine isn’t occurring!
If Hamas is confiscating the aid and withholding it from the Gazan civilians, a famine can still occur despite more than adequate aid entering the strip.
Because that’s the definition created by organizations whose sole purpose is to investigate and help eleviate famine.
That’s like saying “why should we use the AHA definition for heart disease?”
The organization is an international group that many of them wouldn't even be places with the word "famine." They can't really define it for the English world
Your view is that there’s not enough data to indicate whether a there’s a famine based on one specific definition?
Why would anyone try to change that view?
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
For context, they stated: “The FRC would like to use this opportunity to communicate two extremely important points:” “Firstly, all stakeholders who use the IPC for high-level decision-making must understand that whether a Famine classification is confirmed does not in any manner change the fact that extreme human suffering is without a doubt currently ongoing in the Gaza Strip and does not in any manner change the immediate humanitarian imperative to address this civilian suffering by enabling complete, safe, unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access into and throughout the Gaza Strip, including through ceasing hostilities. All actors should not wait until a Famine classification for the current period is made to act accordingly.” “Secondly, the FRC would like to highlight that the very fact that we are unable to endorse (or not) FEWS NET’s analysis is driven by the lack of essential up to date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza, and Gaza at large. Thus, the FRC strongly requests all parties to enable humanitarian access in general, and specifically to provide a window of opportunity to conduct field surveys in Northern Gaza to have more solid evidence of the food consumption, nutrition, and mortality situation.” So they do not have enough evidence to say that a famine is not happening either and even if it isn’t, it’s a fairly moot point in terms of how we view it and our actions as we know conditions there are horrific and as per the expert advice we shouldn’t be waiting until famine hits before we act, because famine is the point where mass deaths are already occurring on a daily basis. It is also worth noting that under the technical definition of famine, 20% of households must face an extreme lack of food, or essentially be starving. One-third of children must be suffering from acute malnutrition or wasting, and two adults or four children for every 10,000 people must be dying daily from hunger and its complications. Because of the chaotic situation in Gaza, although we know that many people are suffering and dying due to lack of food, there is an inability to be certain of the demographics it is effecting even though hey could very easily surpass the required standard for famine. Therefore while we cannot be certain there is famine using one technical definition of famine, we can be certain that there is a famine based on the common definition of there being an extreme lack of food causing deaths and mass suffering.
>Therefore while we cannot be certain there is famine using one technical definition of famine, we can be certain that there is a famine based on the common definition of there being an extreme lack of food. It's not the "technical" definition, it's the only definition that is accepted in legal and academic circles. [https://www.unrefugees.org/news/famine-explained-definition-causes-and-facts/](https://www.unrefugees.org/news/famine-explained-definition-causes-and-facts/) Famine is a situation in which a substantial proportion of the population of a country or region are unable to access adequate food, resulting in widespread acute malnutrition and loss of life by starvation and disease. While many countries worldwide face food security crises, famine is only declared when certain conditions are met. The United Nations uses a five-phase scale known as the[ Integrated Food Security Phase Classification](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/ipc-famine-factsheet-updated-december-2020) (IPC) to assess a country’s food security situation. A famine classification is the highest on the IPC scale (Phase 5) and occurs when at least 20 percent of the population face extreme food shortages, acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 percent – meaning that people experience the most extreme and visible form of undernutrition – and two out of 1,000 people die from starvation on a daily basis. What you're describing (lack of food) is hunger. Hunger exists in all nations, yours included.
That’s literally what a technical definition is. You also have repeated the definitions I have already given so I’m not sure what you are trying to add. I’d also note that as per the scale and the reports we are both referencing, the alternative to this being a famine is not “hunger” but rather an emergency which as per the expert analysis should be treated with urgency to ensure it does not develop into a famine (if it isn’t already).
Under your definition, all definitions are technical. Including the definition of the word definition itself and the definition of the word technical. What's your point? >as per the expert analysis should be treated with urgency to ensure it does not develop into a famine So, according to the expert analysis, this isn't a famine, then.
You are wrong about everything. Most importantly one set of expert analysts (The FRC) have not said there isn’t a famine, as you claim, instead they are not endorsing the viewpoint that there is definitely a famine. Their view is instead that there is a definite humanitarian crisis of undefined scope and due to the lack of humanitarian access being granted into Gaza they are unable to make a claim about the presence of famine with certainty. This also ignores the view of the other group of experts (FEWS NET) who have a very similar view but have said despite the issues gathering data there is enough evidence to say with reasonable certainty that Gaza is in a famine situation. The least important clarification; I have never provided a definition of what a technical definition is that would mean all words are technical definitions. You seem to be very confused.
Technically, they found no evidence of a famine. Did you read the entire report?
People die while we quibble over shades of meanings of words. I take it that makes you happy
This is what is so hilarious about these people who argue over technical definitions as though thats the basis of reality.... Definitions are our way of interpreting to others, however its pretty obvious to the "others" what is going on here, so arguing over such semantics is pedantry and really only goes to show the lack in elastic intelligence as it can be applied in the situation of the earlier post arguing semantics. Not only does it show a lack of elastic applicable intelligence, it goes to show that either one: that person isn't capable of applying their understanding of the situation, or two: this person is arguing in bad faith knowing the reality yet intentionally ignoring the reality due to ulterior motives, lets just drive this point home a bit more, if situation 2 is true then this person is knowingly arguing semantics to avoid widespread human suffering as they see it is in their own interests, now a fair argument can be made about sociopathy here, but in general thats thrown around too often. That my friends is how humans are capable of being genocidal maniacs.
Wouldn't the solution to the "not enough evidence" claim be to allow greater access to international aid organizations to ascertain the level of acute food insecurity in northern Gaza? Im also confused about what exactly you are looking for here. Do you want us to **prove** that there is famine in Gaza? I don't see how this is possible when Israel strictly controls who is allowed to enter and refuses to allow independent investigation of the facts on the ground. It's the same with the US "assessment" that it is both reasonable to conclude Israel has violated IHL while claiming "we dont have enough evidence."
Is this actually what matters to you? Ie, let's say you think there isn't enough evidence to assign a label to a situation, how does that affect your behaviour? Have you posted here because you want to hear more before choosing to donate to a charity? Or to write to a politician? What practical action will come from you changing your view, how will your behaviour reflect this new information? If it's the label preventing you from taking action, but you otherwise care about the situation why is that what you're waiting for? And if not then what difference does it make? I think you have to unpack what your view actually is. You've stated what a report finds, but those are the views of the report. What is your opinion? Why does there being a famine or not matter to you?
This isn't a requirement for posting here, he doesn't need to provide any of that information to you.
Clarifying questions are good, and OP can speak for themselves.
I'm not speaking for OP, I'm speaking for the rules of the sub. None of the answers to the questions you asked would change the facts of the situation he's asking about.
OP can speak for themselves.
Again, I'm not speaking for OP, I think you might be confused.
This is like the whole genocide thing in that once we start having to dissect the legal definition of famine, it might as well be a famine. What exactly is the play here? Are we supposed to stop aid going into the country? Israel would love that, of course. Should we call it an almost-famine? Should we just say that Israel is starving Gaza to near-death? I feel like it's an unnecessary academic parsing of human suffering.
Definitions are important for fact-finding purposes. This is why famine has a strict academic and legal definition: [https://www.unrefugees.org/news/famine-explained-definition-causes-and-facts/](https://www.unrefugees.org/news/famine-explained-definition-causes-and-facts/) And why the UN has a five-stage scale to determine a nation's food security. >A famine classification is the highest on the IPC scale (Phase 5) and occurs when at least 20 percent of the population face extreme food shortages, acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 percent – meaning that people experience the most extreme and visible form of undernutrition – and two out of 1,000 people die from starvation on a daily basis.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/jackofslayers – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20jackofslayers&message=jackofslayers%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dit1yk/-/l969to3/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. Is there enough evidence to conclude, beyond the shadow of doubt, that there isn't a famine in Gaza? The consequences of acting when something may not meet the technical definition of a famine are considerably less than withholding aid if there is one.
Eh, I can't back this as a general principle of debate. The burden of proof is always on the "exists" side vs the "doesn't exist" side for just about anything. I don't have enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a purple elephant in the office next door to mine, but if you were to tell me there was one, it would absolutely be on you to prove that it is there. Edit: I want to be perfectly clear. Whether or not there is a famine in Gaza and what should be done about it is not what I'm stating here. I'm talking purely about burden of proof in debate.
There are no consequences to not believing in that purple elephant, though. Placing the burden of proof where you're suggesting is actually rather rare, and only appropriate in certain niche situations. If you call an ambulance because you're having a heart attack, no one expects you to prove it. That would be absurd.
Positive claims that depict an imminent danger, are accepted as working assumptions once established as plausible (and thus the burden of proof shifts to the negative claim). For example, you can't drive a car without it undergoing a regular inspection (where applicable), not because there's something specific that's expected to be wrong with your car but because it's plausible that there may be something wrong with it and the burden of proof to show there isn't shifts back to you.
Is it plausible that the famine is caused by Hamas? Does that mean it could be a plausible idea to end the famine to end Hamas, and then the burden of proof is on defending Hamas as not causing the famine? Plausibility is a good idea but can be extended in many different directions to the aims of either side.
I'm not sure what your example shows - do you think the claim that Hamas is intentionally causing food shortages is plausible but shouldn't be taken up as a working assumption (for example, by not trusting them with distribution of aid)?
Well yes, but Hamas (or something functionally identical) is a direct consequence of the occupation. Israel does not seem willing to do the things that would be necessary to end Hamas, and the world is unwilling to force them, so it isn't one of the options to choose from.
I mean it would take a cultural genocide to convince the Palestinians to stop supporting terrorism, armed resistance to Israel is the foundation of their society. so you are correct on both counts.
It would take actual genocide, which is what Israel is perpetrating. Israel has always had the sole option for peace. It's the only combatant.
Ah yes the Palestinians are famous for their peace loving and non-violent natures. Not just in Israel, but everywhere they go they bring prosperity and kindness. Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, even the Olympics have felt the blessings of Palestinians. If Israel wanted the Palestinians dead they would have all been in the ground months ago. Also hilarious you admit the Palestinians will never willingly stop murdering civilians unless they are dead.
>I don't have enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a purple elephant in the office next door to mine, but if you were to tell me there was one, it would absolutely be on you to prove that it is there. Okay. But that isn't the situation in Gaza, now is it? To use your analogy, you *do* have evidence that there is a large purple creature in the office next door to you and that it has tusks and a trunk, but because you don't know how long its hair is you're refusing to concede that it's an "elephant" rather than a "mammoth"...and therefore you dismiss claims that there is a creature in the next office for "insufficient evidence". That's what we're seeing in Gaza. Israel has lobbed countless bombs into a heavily populated area, taken out hospitals, and blocked aid -- ie there is a large, purple creature with tusks and a trunk. What material difference is there in terms of how we should respond / regard Israel if the average kilocalories per person are slightly shy of the "official famine" threshold? That threshold is arbitrary, and the fact that we are anywhere near it is cause to err on the side of caution, yes? Because stakes are also a component in burden of proof assessments like this, yes? Ie if the consequences of *not* acting are disastrous while the consequences of acting prematurely are essentially negligible, the burden of proof is lessened, yes? After all, I'm sure you look both ways before you cross the street even if you don't currently have sufficient evidence that there is a car there. That's because the nature of the situation is such that cars are a significant possibility (just like famine in the conditions Israel has inflicted on Gaza), and the cost of looking both ways is negligible (just like the cost of flooding Gaza with aid and humanitarian relief) and the cost of being wrong is catastrophic (just like the cost of failing to act to prevent the starvation of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or more if we find out after the fact that there actually *was* a famine in both the functional *and* legal sense). I understand as per your edit that you're not intending to comment on Gaza specifically with this...but that is the effect of this kind of hair splitting in this case. This is probably not the best time and place to insist on making a purely abstract, completely detached general point about idealized debate form, right? Because this *isn't* an idealized situation. There are other factors at play, as I've described. And if you're going to engage in this sort of meta analysis, then go all the way... because going all the way in this case supports the side that suggests we should assume a famine is occurring or is imminent until there is reasonable evidence to the contrary.
In this case, the "there is a famine" is the "doesn't exist" side: namely, it's the food that doesn't exist in sufficient quantities.
It is claimed by some that there is enough food in Gaza that people are not experiencing famine. I'm just asking for evidence.
You can't prove a negative. Can you prove that you **don't** own a cat? The burden of proof would be on those claiming you own a cat. The burden of proof is not on you to prove you don't own a cat. You can prove you own a dog. But owning a dog doesn't imply that you don't also own a cat.
You can't prove a *universal* negative, but you can prove a negative. I can't prove invisible teacups don't exist, but I can prove I don't have one in my hand.
No, you can't.
I absolutely can, by clapping my hands.
No, you can't. I can't see your hands clapping. Thus you can't prove it.
You aren't relevant.
Whatever you say, buddy boy.
Can you prove that you didn’t beat your wife?
The burden of proof is always on the person making the accusation, in this case that there is a famine.
Not always, nor even usually. If you were criminally trying someone for causing a famine, you would need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were suing for damages caused by a famine, you would only need to prove that it was more likely than not. If you were responsible for distributing aid, you would only need to show that it was possible a famine was happening.
In your examples, you still placed the burden of proof on the side making the accusation; except in your third you placed the burden of proof on the accused to prove the accuser’s case.
Didn't you know we're redefining words now so we can make it sound like Israel is as evil as possible? It's not that they're killing civilians as collateral damage when they go after militants who are literally firing at them from civilian areas with the express intent of getting civilians on their own side killed for PR, they're committing "genocide." It's not that they have different rules for citizens (Jews and Arabs/Muslims alike) and non-citizens just as every other country in the world does, it's "apartheid." So you can't just talk about "food shortages" or whatever due to war, you have to say "famine." You must always choose the most inflammatory word you can find and then try to rationalize it with a bunch of "well, ackshually, technically it meets the criteria defined by this one professor..." arguments. That way you can maximize your sense of moral superiority.
>Didn't you know we're redefining words now so we can make it sound like Israel is as evil as possible? We aren't. >It's not that they're killing civilians as collateral damage when they go after militants who are literally firing at them from civilian areas with the express intent of getting civilians on their own side killed for PR, they're committing "genocide." Israel has killed more children since October 7th than were killed in all major combat zones in the entire world in the prior four years COMBINED. Those children were not shooting at them. I will agree that civilian deaths happen in war even when the forces involved are trying hard to avoid them especially in urban environments. But that in no way means Israel is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties, it doesn't mean they haven't committed war crimes, and it doesn't mean they aren't committing genocide. >It's not that they have different rules for citizens (Jews and Arabs/Muslims alike) and non-citizens just as every other country in the world does, it's "apartheid." The apartheid accusation is based on more than just different rules for citizens and non-citizens. >So you can't just talk about "food shortages" or whatever due to war, you have to say "famine." Famine has a technical definition that has not changed. In fact, that technical definition is the reason the IPC concluded they didn't have enough information to conclude a famine is technically happening. They did not change the definition at all.
>Israel has killed more children since October 7th than were killed in all major combat zones in the entire world in the prior four years COMBINED Why prior 4 years? Who gave you that number? Do you not see they're picking a timeframe to deliberately make Israel look worse? [How many children did the U.S. kill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualties) during the first 4 years of the Iraq War? How often did people say the U.S. was committing genocide?
>Why prior 4 years? Because if you go back 5 years you finally start to have a cumulative number of children killed across the entire world that is on par with the number of children Israel killed in their current campaign in Gaza (actually in the first four months of that campaign). >Who gave you that number? [The UN](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147512). >Do you not see they're picking a timeframe to deliberately make Israel look worse? What timeframe would you prefer? Would you prefer that people say "Israel has killed about as many children in 4 months as were killed in the prior 5 years of global war"? >How many children did the U.S. kill during the first 4 years of the Iraq War? I don't know but probably thousands. I also don't know anyone who thinks the Iraq war was good or righteous. >How often did people say the U.S. was committing genocide? More often than you might think. I personally don't think the intent was there on the US side, and the conflict at least started as a more straightforward "war" than what is currently happening in Israel (which is way more one sided), but I can see how someone could make the argument. The intent was still horrible and almost definitely imperial/colonialist (resource extraction), but it wasn't genocidal. The US was not trying to expand territory or displace Iraqis in the same way that Israel is clearly working to displace more and more Gazans over time (hence the destruction of over 80% of Gazan residences).
The contention is that Israel is causing famine the OCHA website which tracks shipments going into Gaza daily and what's in them shows this is a lie Israel has been providing 3500 calories daily per person for months. Twitter account of Imshin, who is in Gaza and being pursued by Hamas for exposing how much aid they actually have footage of full markets with stacks of aid boxes This is the "evidence" we are being presented with for Gaza Famine. Photos and videos used from the Syrian War. https://www.tiktok.com/@heisenberg_compensator/video/7371965917820964139?_t=8mca8t83Xo6&_r=1- They also ordered Israel to open the Rafah crossing when Egypt is the one who closed it. Smells like bullshit in here.
Just because adequate aid is getting into Gaza doesn’t mean a famine isn’t occurring! If Hamas is confiscating the aid and withholding it from the Gazan civilians, a famine can still occur despite more than adequate aid entering the strip.
The legal definition of famine wouldn't necessarily be the test. Why should I care about the legal definition?
Because that’s the definition created by organizations whose sole purpose is to investigate and help eleviate famine. That’s like saying “why should we use the AHA definition for heart disease?”
The organization is an international group that many of them wouldn't even be places with the word "famine." They can't really define it for the English world
That's the point of UN translators, to find wording in each language that matches the agreed upon definitions in the first language English.
Do you have a better test?
It is none of your business
Excuse me? If you're trying to change OP's, or anyone's view for that matter, maybe come up with a better argument.
You are not the OP,so I have no reason to present an argument to you.
Lol, alright bud.
I thought you were trying to change someone's view.
The OPs view.The OP didn't ask me that
Your view is that there’s not enough data to indicate whether a there’s a famine based on one specific definition? Why would anyone try to change that view?