And, once again, you utterly fail to understand.
We are not labeling the correction propaganda. We are labeling the original, uncorrected version as propaganda. If there had been any integrity to the reporting process it would never have gone to press as reported. The problems were obvious, they were ignored. It would be like reporting that alcohol was involved in a traffic accident where a driver struck a keg of beer that fell into the road.
And the original report was tweeted to an account that has 55 million followers. The correction was tweeted to an account with <100k followers.
And while I disagree with the vandalism I do not see how that remotely is trying to intimidate them into silence. That vandalism was shaming them for a falsehood. The Times no longer has any journalistic integrity left to protect, anyway.
Mistakes and oversights happen in every newsroom, which is precisely why corrections exist. Calling the uncorrected story “propaganda” ignores that The New York Times publicly acknowledged and amended the error—and appended a clear correction to the original article online so all future readers see it. That process upholds, rather than undermines, journalistic integrity.
The vandalism occurred after The New York Times amended its article about starvation in Gaza that sparked outrage.
www.jpost.com
Reach disparities are regrettable, but the correction also appears on the main article page and in the paper’s print edition—ensuring it cannot be “buried.” Every reader who visits the original link sees the update at the top. Corrections aren’t confined to a secondary feed; they’re integrated into the story itself.
en.wikipedia.org
Spray-painting a news outlet’s offices with “NYT Lies” is coercion, plain and simple—no more “shaming” than burning a building is “protest.” It sends a message: question our narrative at your peril. True integrity isn’t proved by enduring graffiti; it’s proved by transparent corrections, source verifications, and willingness to own errors.
Technical point: When you end a sentence with a URL and rely on the board to parse the link do not put a period on the end of the sentence. The parser fails to understand and includes the period in the URL, making it a 404.
And about article 70:
3. The Parties to the conflict and each High Contracting Party which allow the passage of relief consignments, equipment and personnel in accordance with paragraph 2:
(a) shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted;
(b) may make such permission conditional on the distribution of this assistance being made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power;
(c) shall, in no way whatsoever, divert relief consignments from the purpose for which they are intended nor delay their forwarding, except in cases of urgent necessity in the interest of the civilian population concerned.
Look at 2a: Israel gets to decide how it's done. And 2b: If Hamas doesn't cooperate Israel is under no obligation.
Point taken. I’ll ensure URLs are never followed by trailing punctuation so they remain fully functional.
Those subparagraphs address how relief is secured—they allow the Occupying Power to set reasonable security or logistical measures (e.g., inspection protocols, protected routes, impartial oversight by a Protecting Power) to prevent diversion of aid into military channels. They do not permit outright refusal or indefinite delay. Article 70 (2) mandates that “the Parties… shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments… even if… destined for the civilian population of the adverse Party.” And Article 70 (3 c) flatly forbids any diversion or delay except where an urgent necessity in the interest of civilians exists. If Hamas refuses the security arrangements in (a) or (b), Israel must still guarantee relief—by providing alternative oversight (for example via the ICRC), conducting distribution itself, or adjusting its measures. Failure to do so would breach the Occupying Power’s non-derogable duty to protect and facilitate humanitarian aid under GC IV Art. 59 and AP I Art. 70 (2–3).
And the horse spoke about 2c:
The UN2720 dashboard tracks every consignment’s off-load, collection and arrival, but under Additional Protocol I Article 70(3 c), “the Parties… shall, in no way whatsoever, divert relief consignments… nor delay their forwarding, except in cases of urgent necessity in the interest of the civilian population concerned.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-70
Any hold-up at the border—whether due to security checks or recalcitrant armed actors—must be minimized. And under Fourth Geneva Convention Article 59, the Occupying Power “shall… facilitate [relief] by all the means at its disposal.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-59/commentary/1958
Supplies that entered Gaza: 40kt. Supplies picked up: 27kt. In other words, the UN left 1/3 of the supplies at the border. And of what they actually picked up 4kt reached it's destination while 23kt was diverted.
Add that up. 90% of the supplies aren't reaching the people. If there's starvation that's why.
Those figures highlight a massive diversion by armed intermediaries, but Israel’s obligations remain. As Occupying Power, Israel controls the crossings and security zones; it must escort convoys, authorize ICRC/UN monitoring, or even take direct charge of distribution to ensure aid gets to civilians. Failing to deploy these measures violates its non-derogable duty under GC IV Art. 59 and AP I Art. 70 to prevent starvation.
And who is storing them there? Hamas. Why are you blaming Israel?
Storing munitions in civilian areas is indeed Hamas’s war crime (AP I Art. 58), but that does not nullify Israel’s separate duty. Occupation law vests Israel with authority over Gaza’s borders and the means to secure and supervise relief operations. Blaming Hamas for diversion is correct—but Israel is legally responsible for bridging the gap and must act to protect humanitarian aid and the lives of Gaza’s civilians.
And they are lying. On the page you link there's a page that is an explanation of the categories. And on that page we see that phase V is expected to kill 2-4 people per 10k per day. That's 400-800 people/day for Gaza. Hamas only claims 66 total.
That is a misreading of the IPC standard. The 2 deaths per 10 000 people per day (4 for children) is a diagnostic threshold to classify an area as Famine (IPC Phase 5), not a prediction of how many will actually die each day if famine is declared.
It sets the bar for severity: once mortality exceeds that rate, an area meets the Famine definition.
www.ipcinfo.org
Gaza’s roughly 2.3 million population would indeed cross the threshold at about 460 adult deaths per day—or 920 child deaths—if those rates were met. But the current, documented hunger-related fatalities already signal catastrophic conditions, even before reaching that extreme threshold.
WHO reports 74 malnutrition-related deaths in 2025 alone—with 63 occurring in July—based on clinical admissions and death certifications.
Malnutrition is on a dangerous trajectory in the Gaza Strip, marked by a spike in deaths in July. Of 74 malnutrition-related deaths in 2025, 63 occurred in July – including 24 children under five, a child over five, and 38 adults. Most of these people were declared dead on arrival at health...
www.who.int
The Financial Times confirms an “exponential increase,” citing 89 hunger-related deaths in July and 154 since October 2023.
Relaxation of some Israeli aid restrictions are not enough to reverse the descent towards famine, relief agencies warn
www.ft.com
Hamas’s figure of “66 total” refers only to officially registered child malnutrition deaths and systematically undercounts adult fatalities, indirect deaths from disease, and unrecorded cases in hard-to-reach areas. A Brown University study using IPC methods estimates at least 62 413 starvation deaths—and 5 000 more from blocked chronic care—since October 2023.
In short, the IPC’s mortality threshold is a marker of famine severity, and independent, multi-source data confirm Gaza’s mortality far exceeds the 66-child figure, underscoring both the validity of the IPC classification and the depth of the crisis.
First of all, it's a manufactured "distress". They are quite intentionally marooning themselves at sea, they are not the victims of an accident or malicious action.
The real world isn't the fantasyland you think it is. Let's look back 50 years ago. I was a passenger in a bus, there was a line of people including kids across the road. What did the driver do?
Under the SAR Convention, “distress” means any situation where someone is at risk of death unless assisted—whether by shipwreck, unseaworthy vessel, overcrowding, lack of fuel, or deliberate action. The cause of peril is irrelevant: once people are in grave danger, every shipmaster must render assistance. Intention or planning by migrants doesn’t nullify the legal duty to save lives at sea (SAR Conv. Art. 1.1 & 3.1; SOLAS Reg. V/33).
Anecdotal road scenarios don’t override binding maritime law. Unlike hypothetical bus drivers, shipmasters operate under SOLAS and UNCLOS, which impose an absolute obligation to assist anyone in distress at sea, regardless of fault or context (UNCLOS Art. 98; SAR Conv. Art. 3).
Second, under normal rules they would be returned to the country they are off the coast of. That doesn't happen because they'll be killed if they return.
The SAR Convention requires disembarkation at a “place of safety,” not automatic return to territorial waters of departure. Returning people to zones where they face persecution or death would breach non-refoulement under the Refugee Convention (Art. 33). Humanitarian rescuers must deliver survivors to a safe port where their physical and legal rights can be protected—precisely why MSF lands migrants in European ports, not Libya or Tunisia.
NHC
