Middle East ......

mickeyrat

mickeyrat

Israel intensifies Gaza City bombing as Rubio arrives - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-intensifies-gaza-city-bombing-rubio-arrives-2025-09-14/

Halifax2TheMax

Speaking of wittle Marco, did anyone see how he was dressed while speaking to reporters on the tarmac in Israel? He had a Flo Rida Gators baseball hat and matching zippered fleece vest that also had the Nike Air Jordan logo on it. He looked like the intern Ken from accounting on casual Friday. And Obama got shit for wearing a tan suit. Amateur hour in ‘Murica.

mickeyrat

Israeli journalist and government critic....

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNTna7kuUeT/?igsh=MTNkcWNodjk2MHc0Yg==

mickeyrat

mickeyrat

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DORak-zD-33/?igsh=dmV0dGl4NjJ6cjg5

Lerxst1992

mickeyrat said:

Yes 1939 Polish Jews had their own version of the Tulkarm Brigade.

Spiritual_Chaos

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Spiritual_Chaos

Eurovision: Spain becomes third country to confirm it will withdraw if Israel stays in contest

The move follows statements last week by RTÉ and the Netherlands public broadcaster AVROTROS.

Lerxst1992

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Is that commission democratically appointed?



what controls are in place to ensure this commission is balanced and free from bias?



did the nazis allow the Polish Jews in 1939 to escape the violence by the thousands, as is happening now in Gaza, per mainstream media?

mickeyrat

Israel says 'Gaza is burning' as it launches huge ground assault - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-gaza-is-burning-it-launches-huge-ground-assault-2025-09-16/

benjs

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Is that commission democratically appointed?



what controls are in place to ensure this commission is balanced and free from bias?



did the nazis allow the Polish Jews in 1939 to escape the violence by the thousands, as is happening now in Gaza, per mainstream media?

I wouldn't call being 'democratically appointed' a good benchmark, first off. Netanyahu was democratically appointed, after all. Trump was, after all. You can be democratically appointed and still egregiously one-sided (in fact, if you're appointed to the Israeli nation, and you consider the Palestinians to be another, it's all the more likely for you to be one-sided). I understand you're referring to commissions, not politicians, but I feel the analogy is fair. 

Next, I think the world is tired of Israeli government not allowing independent media into Gaza, and then criticizing the UN's reports as false. If they won't allow a commission that all can agree is unbiased (or at least contains a diverse set of members), how is the world to research what's going on and report honestly? In the absence of that 'noble' commission, the world will take the word of the UN, and it's well within Israel's abilities to change that. So why don't they?

Halifax2TheMax

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Is that commission democratically appointed?



what controls are in place to ensure this commission is balanced and free from bias?



did the nazis allow the Polish Jews in 1939 to escape the violence by the thousands, as is happening now in Gaza, per mainstream media?

I wouldn't call being 'democratically appointed' a good benchmark, first off. Netanyahu was democratically appointed, after all. Trump was, after all. You can be democratically appointed and still egregiously one-sided (in fact, if you're appointed to the Israeli nation, and you consider the Palestinians to be another, it's all the more likely for you to be one-sided). I understand you're referring to commissions, not politicians, but I feel the analogy is fair. 

Next, I think the world is tired of Israeli government not allowing independent media into Gaza, and then criticizing the UN's reports as false. If they won't allow a commission that all can agree is unbiased (or at least contains a diverse set of members), how is the world to research what's going on and report honestly? In the absence of that 'noble' commission, the world will take the word of the UN, and it's well within Israel's abilities to change that. So why don't they?

Because they’re committing genocide.

Halifax2TheMax

All Hamas operatives and sympathizers.

UN commission says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza

An independent United Nations inquiry has concluded for the first time that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and that the country’s top leaders have incited genocide, in what it described as the “most authoritative UN finding to date.”

In a 72-page report released on Tuesday, the commission, which was set up by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), found that Israel has “committed four genocidal acts” in the enclave since October 7, 2023, when Hamas carried out deadly attacks on Israel and Israel launched its military campaign.

These acts include the killing of Palestinians in Gaza, causing Palestinians “serious bodily and mental harm,” “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” according to the report.

Nearly 65,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, according to the Palestinian health ministry there. The ministry does not distinguish between civilians and fighters but has said that most of the casualties are women and children.

The Israeli government has maintained it is conducting the war in Gaza in self-defense and in accordance with international law, firmly denying accusations of genocide.

“Israel categorically rejects the distorted and false report and calls for the immediate abolition of the Commission of Inquiry,” the country’s foreign ministry said in a statement Tuesday. It described the inquiry as a “report that relies entirely on Hamas falsehoods” and accused the authors of being proxies for the militant group “whose horrific statements about Jews have been condemned worldwide.”

For years, Israel has accused the HRC, which commissioned the report, of having an anti-Israel bias.

The Trump administration has backed Israel, withdrawing from the UN body in 2018 during Trump’s first term and during the first month of the second term. Israel has consistently argued that it is acting in accordance with international law.

But accusations of genocide are growing internationally, including from within the United States.

Last week, US Senators Chris Van Hollen and Jeff Merkley said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is “implementing a plan to ethnically clean Gaza of Palestinians” and that the United States is complicit.

Earlier this month, the International Association of Genocide Scholars – the world’s largest body of genocide scholars – said that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.

In July, a pair of leading Israeli human rights groups became the first organizations from Israel to make the claim that their country was “committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”

And in December 2023, South Africa accused Israel of genocide in an unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice, saying the country’s leadership was “intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza.”

The UN panel’s report lands as Israel launches a ground incursion into Gaza City after weeks of bombarding the packed urban center despite growing international condemnation. Netanyahu acknowledged the backlash on Monday, saying his country faced “a kind of isolation” that could last for years.

Palestinians ‘targeted collectively’

The report was released by the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.

The commission – an ongoing, independent, international commission of inquiry set up by the UN Human Rights Council in 2021 – is led by Navi Pillay, a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, former International Criminal Court judge, and former judge and president of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Pillay and the commission’s other two leaders announced their resignation in July. Pillay said her “age, medical issues and the weight of several other commitments” compelled her to step down in November.

The commission gave several examples of Palestinian civilians, journalists, healthcare professionals and humanitarian workers being “directly targeted and killed” in Gaza. These killings occurred in places including homes, hospitals, schools, and religious buildings, both inside designated safe zones and outside of them, it said.

The report cited the January 2024 killing of 5-year-old Hind Rajab and her family members as an example of Israeli security forces proceeding to kill civilians despite having “clear knowledge of the presence of Palestinian civilians along the evacuation routes and within the safe areas.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/middleeast/israel-gaza-genocide-un-commission-report-intl

Halifax2TheMax

Gee, Bibi couldn’t have miscalculated, could he? $1.4B.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DL7nQurx3YK/?igsh=bDV6Mm12MTJsaXR0

benjs

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Is that commission democratically appointed?



what controls are in place to ensure this commission is balanced and free from bias?



did the nazis allow the Polish Jews in 1939 to escape the violence by the thousands, as is happening now in Gaza, per mainstream media?

I wouldn't call being 'democratically appointed' a good benchmark, first off. Netanyahu was democratically appointed, after all. Trump was, after all. You can be democratically appointed and still egregiously one-sided (in fact, if you're appointed to the Israeli nation, and you consider the Palestinians to be another, it's all the more likely for you to be one-sided). I understand you're referring to commissions, not politicians, but I feel the analogy is fair. 

Next, I think the world is tired of Israeli government not allowing independent media into Gaza, and then criticizing the UN's reports as false. If they won't allow a commission that all can agree is unbiased (or at least contains a diverse set of members), how is the world to research what's going on and report honestly? In the absence of that 'noble' commission, the world will take the word of the UN, and it's well within Israel's abilities to change that. So why don't they?

Because they’re committing genocide.

Thanks for the unnecessary rhetoric that will inevitably shift the conversation back to your tit-for-tat with lerxst. I was actually interested in hearing his response.

Halifax2TheMax

benjs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Is that commission democratically appointed?



what controls are in place to ensure this commission is balanced and free from bias?



did the nazis allow the Polish Jews in 1939 to escape the violence by the thousands, as is happening now in Gaza, per mainstream media?

I wouldn't call being 'democratically appointed' a good benchmark, first off. Netanyahu was democratically appointed, after all. Trump was, after all. You can be democratically appointed and still egregiously one-sided (in fact, if you're appointed to the Israeli nation, and you consider the Palestinians to be another, it's all the more likely for you to be one-sided). I understand you're referring to commissions, not politicians, but I feel the analogy is fair. 

Next, I think the world is tired of Israeli government not allowing independent media into Gaza, and then criticizing the UN's reports as false. If they won't allow a commission that all can agree is unbiased (or at least contains a diverse set of members), how is the world to research what's going on and report honestly? In the absence of that 'noble' commission, the world will take the word of the UN, and it's well within Israel's abilities to change that. So why don't they?

Because they’re committing genocide.

Thanks for the unnecessary rhetoric that will inevitably shift the conversation back to your tit-for-tat with lerxst. I was actually interested in hearing his response.

You’re welcome. He’s still capable, perhaps, of responding. JFC.

Lerxst1992

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Is that commission democratically appointed?



what controls are in place to ensure this commission is balanced and free from bias?



did the nazis allow the Polish Jews in 1939 to escape the violence by the thousands, as is happening now in Gaza, per mainstream media?

I wouldn't call being 'democratically appointed' a good benchmark, first off. Netanyahu was democratically appointed, after all. Trump was, after all. You can be democratically appointed and still egregiously one-sided (in fact, if you're appointed to the Israeli nation, and you consider the Palestinians to be another, it's all the more likely for you to be one-sided). I understand you're referring to commissions, not politicians, but I feel the analogy is fair. 

Next, I think the world is tired of Israeli government not allowing independent media into Gaza, and then criticizing the UN's reports as false. If they won't allow a commission that all can agree is unbiased (or at least contains a diverse set of members), how is the world to research what's going on and report honestly? In the absence of that 'noble' commission, the world will take the word of the UN, and it's well within Israel's abilities to change that. So why don't they?

Because they’re committing genocide.

You keep saying that but never answer any specific questions about it.


did the nazis allow polish jews in 1939 to escape the front lines by the thousands?

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Is that commission democratically appointed?



what controls are in place to ensure this commission is balanced and free from bias?



did the nazis allow the Polish Jews in 1939 to escape the violence by the thousands, as is happening now in Gaza, per mainstream media?

I wouldn't call being 'democratically appointed' a good benchmark, first off. Netanyahu was democratically appointed, after all. Trump was, after all. You can be democratically appointed and still egregiously one-sided (in fact, if you're appointed to the Israeli nation, and you consider the Palestinians to be another, it's all the more likely for you to be one-sided). I understand you're referring to commissions, not politicians, but I feel the analogy is fair. 

Next, I think the world is tired of Israeli government not allowing independent media into Gaza, and then criticizing the UN's reports as false. If they won't allow a commission that all can agree is unbiased (or at least contains a diverse set of members), how is the world to research what's going on and report honestly? In the absence of that 'noble' commission, the world will take the word of the UN, and it's well within Israel's abilities to change that. So why don't they?

Because they’re committing genocide.

You keep saying that but never answer any specific questions about it.


did the nazis allow polish jews in 1939 to escape the front lines by the thousands?

How is a question about polish jews in 1939 relevant to whether Israel is committing genocide in 2025?

Lerxst1992

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Conclusions at Odds with the Evidence

Beyond methodological shortcuts, several IPC Gaza outputs reached conclusions that were directly inconsistent with the evidence presented.

Mortality data ignored or downplayed. Throughout the war, the IPC analysis ignored the fact that official figures for malnutrition-related deaths were orders of magnitude below the thresholds it prescribes for crude death rates (CDR) and under-five mortality. At no point did the mortality evidence come close to justifying a famine declaration, or even a Phase 4 classification. When a systematic mortality survey — required under IPC methodology — was finally conducted, its results conflicted with the phase classifications being advanced. Instead of prompting correction, the inconsistency was downplayed: only the aggregate death rates were released, while the more decisive non-violent mortality figures, central to famine determination, were withheld and requests to release the full survey data were ignored, in direct violation of the transparency principle. However, even the published total death rates remained well below famine thresholds - a fact that was brushed aside in the final conclusions.

Malnutrition rates not consistent with phase designation. Similarly, the MUAC prevalence rates themselves rarely supported the severity of the classifications. For much of the period, they were below the 15 percent Phase 4 threshold, and in most cases well within Phase 3 or even Phase 2 territory. Yet the reports continued to project worsening conditions and “imminent famine”.

The June 2024 Famine Review Committee report. The clearest example of conclusions contradicting evidence came in the June 2024 FRC review. That report presented a number of food consumption indicators that pointed to a relatively small share of the population in Phase 4 and Phase 5. However, the percentages cited in the final report were several times higher than what the actual hard data suggested. This demonstrated not only weak methodology, but also a willingness to override the data to sustain a narrative of crisis.

Lack of Transparency

Although the IPC formally upholds transparency as one of its guiding principles, the Gaza analyses often fell short of this standard. Repeatedly, the reports relied on datasets that were not publicly available, preventing independent verification. At the same time, requests to access the underlying data - or even to obtain clarification on the reasoning process that produced the final classifications - were routinely ignored. The result was a process that not only lacked transparency in practice, but also undermined confidence in the credibility and robustness of the conclusions.

Conclusion: A Systemic Bias and Credibility Problem

The Gaza IPC reports reveal more than isolated technical errors. They expose a systematic lowering of standards: neutrality safeguards abandoned, critical stakeholders excluded, data selectively used, projections skewed toward worst cases, famine thresholds bent until they no longer matched the IPC manual, and transparency sidelined as key datasets and analytical reasoning remained inaccessible to outside scrutiny.

Analyses that should have reflected transparent, evidence-based consensus were instead produced by a narrow circle of actors, relying on non-public data, without the inclusive multi-stakeholder validation that IPC requires, and in disregard of the system’s own rules. Given the enormous political and legal weight attached to IPC outputs, this pattern is not just a technical flaw — it is a credibility crisis for the IPC system as a whole.

Lol. Your sad takes and signal boosting disgusting israeli propaganda. What is wrong with you

An independent UN commission has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

A new report from the International Commission of Inquiry, set up by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, found Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2025/0916/1533696-un-commission-gaza/

Is that commission democratically appointed?



what controls are in place to ensure this commission is balanced and free from bias?



did the nazis allow the Polish Jews in 1939 to escape the violence by the thousands, as is happening now in Gaza, per mainstream media?

I wouldn't call being 'democratically appointed' a good benchmark, first off. Netanyahu was democratically appointed, after all. Trump was, after all. You can be democratically appointed and still egregiously one-sided (in fact, if you're appointed to the Israeli nation, and you consider the Palestinians to be another, it's all the more likely for you to be one-sided). I understand you're referring to commissions, not politicians, but I feel the analogy is fair. 

Next, I think the world is tired of Israeli government not allowing independent media into Gaza, and then criticizing the UN's reports as false. If they won't allow a commission that all can agree is unbiased (or at least contains a diverse set of members), how is the world to research what's going on and report honestly? In the absence of that 'noble' commission, the world will take the word of the UN, and it's well within Israel's abilities to change that. So why don't they?

I was interested in examining whether the UNs commissions are held to any standards, how their commissions are appointed, how their bias or lack of is measured, and what controls the UN has in place to make certain their reports are accurate and free from bias.

regarding Netanyahu, he was 50/50 next election at best, and the invasion/subsequent war has only strengthened his hold on their country. I am tired of this war as well, but believe both sides need to negotiate a peace. I’d support a two state solution, however not sure how significant problems and complexities are solved. And how Palestine can be policing because they’ve never had a functioning leadership.

i do believe, that constant blame and accusations does nothing to solve these problems. It only makes people think they are doing something about it while creating more hate. Getting the USA to stop funding Israel is not the magic solution the left believes, because that only pushes them towards a bad actor, perhaps Russia.