Monday, June 17, 2024

  • Monday, June 17, 2024
  • Elder of Ziyon
The previous linkdump included the news that the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification’s Famine Review Committee concluded in May that there was no evidence of famine in Gaza as of April, and that the analysis done in March by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS) warning of famine was not plausible. As the IPC notes, FES did not count commercial trucks of food going into Gaza, which more than doubled the amount of food entering the sector that FEWS counted.

How did FEWS get it wrong? 

One reason is that FEWS doesn't trust Jews.

FEWS, which still says as of May 31 that "it is possible Famine is ongoing in northern Gaza, is not on the ground in Gaza and relies on third party reports. It lists all of its sources that it gets information from - and judges their reliability.

Here's the beginning of the appendix listing all of FEWS' sources.

The third column rates the perceived reliability of the source of information.

Here are its definitions of R2, R1 and R0 reliability:

Evidence is only reliable if the method used is robust and evidence depicts current conditions. If evidence is yielded through a reasonable but less rigorous method, such as evidence with limited representativeness, or if evidence needs to be extrapolated to the current analysis period because it was collected in past seasons or years, the evidence can be at most R1. Evidence that has either limited soundness of M and T scores R1+, while evidence that has both types of limited parameters scores R1-. Reasonable evidence that scores less than R1 (such as field trip reports and local knowledge) can be referred to as R0 and may still be used in the IPC to support the analysis. However, it should be carefully reviewed and cannot be counted towards achieving minimum evidence needs, except for areas with limited humanitarian access for collecting evidence if the data adhere to specific parameters included later in IPC Manual Version 3.0.
So R0 is the worst level of evidence, somewhat useful but to be treated skeptically.

Now, look how they rate COGAT reports that accurately say how many trucks of aid enter Gaza.


The official and most accurate statistics on how much food enters Gaza is considered less reliable than secondhand reporting in the New York Times and about as reliable as anecdotal evidence in newspapers. 

They define COGAT's statistics as being unreliable unless other sources confirm them.

COGAT has been counting every truck going into Gaza - commercial and humanitarian. When it is contradicted by other sources, COGAT invariably is discovered to be more accurate. 

Why is COGAT considered less reliable when it gives more details than everyone else? It counts aid going in through crossings that UNRWA does not count. It coordinates every single truck from every source. 

The only reason is because the people behind these reports simply do not believe that Israel, or Jews, tell the truth. 

Can anyone come up with  better explanation? 

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!




EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"


EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz





For $18 donation

Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years


Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون

This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.


Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options

One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive