Middle East ......

HughFreakingDillon

how does one negotiate with someone who has BEEN negotiated with and gone back on the terms of those negotiations? this did not start on oct 7

benjs

Lerxst1992 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?

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.

I agree with you on everything you’ve written here. I’m also curious about how the UN assure some sense of balance, and if you find out, I’d be curious to know.

Halifax2TheMax

Pretty damning if you care to read it.

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf

HughFreakingDillon

Or how about if they keep funding, but it comes with certsin conditions

gimmesometruth27

isn't bibi on trial right now?

mickeyrat

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?

because erhinic cleansing aint bad at all?