How is forced starvation allowed?

[Tinycatnoise]

The top story in the BBC right now is the starvation of Gazans by Israel. The images are horrifying and not dissimilar to seeing those images of concentration camps in Nazi Germany. I cried seeing those and am crying now. I am sure someone will claim antisemitism because of this statement, but anyone looking at these images of starving children would agree.

How is this still going on? I feel like we are watching a genocide take place that the world has turning a blind eye to. The daily shooting by Israel of people trying to get aid too is just barbaric. If nothing is being done to stop this, what is the next horror that will unfold in the world that people will just accept?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9xkx7vnmxo

Calling a photo 'doctored' because it was cropped is at least a step up from the AI accusations a few days ago.

I admire your patience @Voxon and I think all reasonable people reading your posts understand exactly what you're saying and, for that matter, not saying.

Very true! Small steps…

Well no.

No official body has declared that 2 million people are “starving.”

The IPC, which is the global standard for famine assessment, has not declared a famine and there is no reliable data on mortality.

Over 1 million tonnes of aid have entered since the start of the war, more than any conflict in history.

So actually you don't know what the truth is, but you don't seem to mind.

If the cause is just, it shouldn't need doctored images to justify it. The world should be getting honest facts. Not propaganda.

Disturbing news, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable being treated by him.

Cropping a photo to deliberately remove key context - like the presence of a healthy weighted sibling - is doctoring. It's not about aesthetics or trimming edges. It's about manipulating what viewers think they’re seeing. When the cropped image is used to claim mass starvation, and the unedited image shows that’s clearly not the whole story, it becomes a textbook case of misleading by omission. Add to that, they oddly didn't mention the child's medical conditions in their articles on him either. That’s not journalism, it’s propaganda.

The issue isn’t whether Gaza needs aid, everyone agrees it does. The issue is truthfulness and responsible reporting

Do they? IDF is only letting in Aid because of international pressure, such as France recognising Palestine.

Without this pressure, the blockade would continue, supported by many on here.

There will always be dishonest journalists but they are a tiny minority, strange how some cling to this though.

Then why not disclose the child's medical condition in the article and why crop out the sibling?

Why hide that information from the public then?

Why is it relevant that the child has a medical condition? Do children with medical conditions lives matter less? Would people care less? Should people care less? It’s not exactly a secret- we know about it.

This child needed specialist formula. That formula was blocked. He’s starving to death.

That’s not a ‘gotcha’. It’s a damning indictment of a siege that cuts off life-saving supplies from the most vulnerable. Let’s not pretend that adding a medical label makes the image less truthful. It makes it more horrifying.

The real story isn’t what got cropped. It’s what’s being allowed to happen. And no amount of media nitpicking changes the fact that nearly 2 million people are being starved in real time.

If they'd done that and said due to aid restrictions this child cannot access the specialist formula/nutrition they need, it would have made the same point without needing to be deceitful. It really undermines the integrity of the journalist who did this and trust as a whole, particularly given this has been done (in different forms) dozens if not hundreds of times since the war began by Palestinian propagandists. It then becomes part of a debate about trust rather than about clear facts. But probably does its job since the majority don't question things.

I'm not disputing the need for aid etc or that Gaza is in a terrible state but there has been so much propaganda and such a lack of responsible journalism throughout that all trust is eroded. I no longer trust much from either side of the conflict.

Arguing about a cropped image while hundreds of thousands of children starve to death because food and aid have been blocked since March is actually disgusting. It’s deflection and minimisation.

I wouldn't have an issue with headlines across the world reading 'ISRAEL STARVING SICK AND DISABLED BABIES TO DEATH'. I bet there are a few people here who would take issue with that too though.

But isn't it reassuring to think he's given up supporting hizb ut tahrir now he knows it's proscribed?

The link was very informative.

I'm not outraged by anything actually.

I'm sad anyone is starving or suffering, but about 25,000 people die from hunger and hunger-related causes every day, mostly kids under 5 and almost all of those aren't in Gaza so I don't rank whos life I care about based on what's popular.

The point I'm making is that journalism should be honest, vital context should not be hidden from the public and people should be questioning why the media is sharing doctored images with them in order to deliberately mislead them.

That shouldn't be a difficult point to understand and agree with, unless you're invested in some reason in the goal of supporting propaganda, which I'm sure you're not.

The people in Gaza don't need to be starving. There is more than enough food for them, more than enough medical aid for them. Except Israel won't aid agencies do their jobs and distribute it as they are trained to do.

That is why people are desperately trying to highlight this. It is forced starvation by Israel. These skeletal children don't have to look that way. The UN are ready and willing to help them. Israel won't let them. People are trying to pressure Israel into doing the right thing and letting these children live.

This wasn't a couple of rogue journalists. It was shared by the BBC, the Guardian, The Express, the New York Times

They exploited the image of a child with cerebral palsy to push a famine story in order to demonise Israel. Ignoring how disturbing that is, the child also seemingly has very specific medical needs - why not share those so the poor child could get publicity and help, rather than use him for propaganda?

And I will say I fully support a cropped image if that's what it takes to get that poor child some food and medical care.

Exactly this. Just tell the truth.

Having standards re misinformation is never disgusting and it's incredibly unhelpful to any 'side' that we keep having to discuss it because it keeps happening.

So you don’t believe any accounts coming out of Gaza? Please share your news/info sources for what’s going on then. No matter how often I ask this question, no one responds.

And what basic moral principles are you suggesting aren’t being supported right now? People concerned about innocent people dying seems pretty high on moral principle.

Well, for some reason it wasn’t the brother who was chosen for the front pages of Western media.

Agree with all of this.

It’s not that I disbelieve all accounts coming out of Gaza, it’s that I unfortunately now have to verify claims due to propaganda being so rampant and mainstream media participating in sharing it rather than validating.

I have no single source of news, I read broadly. I cross-reference all of it. I can't always find facts as they're not available, but I make sure things tally up before making judgements.

I'm not sure what the scale of the hunger crisis is in Gaza, nobody is. But I am sure the global media is sharing images to deliberately make it look worse.

And regarding moral principles: i am referring to the basic moral principle of honesty in journalism. People should be very disturbed that they're being mislead but they seem fine with it as long as the media is sharing propaganda of the kind they want to see.

And people can continue to evaluate the trustworthiness of each source. The fact that that child has additional medical needs doesn’t make me less angry that he’s starving. It reminds me of all the hospitals and drs who have been killed or affected by the war and the aid that isn’t being delivered.

I have no issue with people checking the strength of evidence, but why ignore all the other evidence and bang on about one photo (that still shows a starving child affected by conflict) for this long? Obviously no one should base any opinion on a few photos in newspapers. I think people disagreeing with you are looking beyond these photos. What sources are you using to support your argument?