J. Garcia

Technical analysis of IHL & Geopolitics | ICJ & Geneva Conventions specialist | ⚖️ Focusing on primary sources & legal consistency.
Hincha de @udechile ⚽🇨🇱

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

You claim I read the law 'too literally.' In International Law, that is called following the Rule of Law. According to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, terms must be interpreted in their 'ordinary meaning.' I stick to the text of the Convention and the ICJ Orders; you, however, are trying to invent a 'demographic offset' that exists in no legal textbook.
​Now, let’s talk about your ‘Balance Sheet’ of death:

​The Demographic Fallacy: Arguing that genocide is negated because births outpace deaths is a legal absurdity. Genocide is defined by the acts of the perpetrator (Art. II), not by the biological resilience of the victims. A net gain in population doesn’t erase the 3.23% killed or the deliberate destruction of their life-support systems.

​Plausibility vs. Final Proof: You claim there is 'no demonstration whatsoever' of a threat to existence. You are factually and legally wrong. The ICJ already ruled on this in Paragraph 54 of the Order: 'The facts and circumstances [...] are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed [...] are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide.' The Court doesn't issue binding orders based on 'nothing'.

​The Srebrenica Trap: You cite the killing of men in Srebrenica as 'substantial' due to procreation. By that same logic, the massive killing of women and children in Gaza—which the ICJ identified as a plausible risk—is even more 'substantial' for the group's future survival.
​Infrastructure & Art. II (c): You claim universities aren't 'necessary'. Under the Convention, destroying 100% of universities and 80% of homes is the deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction. You are describing the dismantling of a society and calling it 'irrelevant'.

​Your math isn't legal analysis; it's an attempt to quantify atrocity to make it palatable. Between the literal text of the Law and your creative math, I’ll take the Law every time.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

@grok @Jou_Kaiser @CNNChile @gork algo que decirle a @Jou_Kaiser ?

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

Esta es por lejos la pelea más estúpida y chistosa que he visto con Grok 🤣

[Johannes Kaiser @Jou_Kaiser]

@CNNChile @grok es cierto que ya no existe el secreto bancario en los paises de la oecd o miente frigolett?

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

@HonestReporting @Erin_Molan To think that this news came out over a year ago and was already clearly debunked, yet they keep using it to distract from other more serious issues.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

@danielzucker8 @VividProwess You romanticized and defended terrorism by saying, 'Those movements were outlaws under British rule prior to the establishment of the state in 1948.' I don't need any more proof.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

@danielzucker8 @VividProwess Both Hamas and the Irgun-Lehi are terrorist groups, using the same tactics, but I see that you only romanticize/defend what suits you. That is bad faith and a double standard.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

@danielzucker8 @VividProwess Is telling the truth a bad faith argument now? Just because you're upset that it's known Lehi attempted to ally themselves with the Nazis?

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

@danielzucker8 @VividProwess Yes, we all know it, like for example the Lehi, which aside from carrying out terrorist attacks, were even capable of requesting an alliance with the Nazis.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

Here are the Google Earth Pro satellite images, along with videos of Beit Hanoun, Al Mughraqa, and Khan Younis—three of Gaza's most important agricultural areas. They show the transformations these zones have undergone from 2023 before the war, through 2024, up until last month. If you want to learn more, here is my article for you to check out.

https://t.co/acX0uCTEF1

Regards,

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

Tweet 5/5

Para quienes quieran revisar toda la evidencia, metodología, limitaciones y fuentes utilizadas, dejo aquí el artículo completo:

https://t.co/ZvFnIpi0s7

Las críticas fundamentadas son bienvenidas. Si existe una mejor evidencia o una mejor metodología, el análisis debe mejorar con ella.

#Gaza #Palestina #GazaCrisis #GazaSatelite #OSINTGaza

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

https://t.co/nkBlOdinFA

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

Tweet 1/5

Durante meses he visto afirmaciones de que la crisis alimentaria en Gaza puede entenderse únicamente contando calorías o camiones.

Antes de hablar de números, veamos qué ocurrió sobre el terreno.

Estas imágenes satelitales actualizadas muestran la misma zona de Gaza en distintos años. Las fechas y coordenadas están incluidas para que cualquiera pueda verificarlas.

#Gaza #Palestina #GazaCrisis #GazaSatelite #OSINTGaza

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

Tweet 4/5

La pregunta central no es:

“¿Entró comida?”

La pregunta es:

“¿Los sistemas necesarios para convertir esa comida en supervivencia sostenida siguieron funcionando?”

Esa diferencia es el núcleo del debate y del artículo.

#Gaza #FoodSystems #HumanitarianCrisis

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

https://t.co/nkBlOdinFA

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I also enjoyed the discussion, even if we ultimately disagreed on many of the conclusions. I understand being limited by work and time, so no worries on that.

One thing I do want to acknowledge publicly is that you raised a fair methodological criticism regarding some of the satellite imagery comparisons I used. After reviewing them again, I realized I had been too confident when updating parts of the OSINT section and did not pay enough attention to matching dates within the same seasonal window.

Because of that, I will be updating the article and replacing those comparisons with imagery from the same period of the year. I appreciate you pointing that out.

What I find important is that good analysis should be able to withstand corrections. If a comparison can be improved, it should be improved, regardless of whether it strengthens or weakens a particular argument.

I've attached an updated comparison using imagery from the same period across different years, with the dates now displayed directly on the images for transparency.

I also genuinely hope this discussion continues in the future. I think both of us — and certainly I do — feel that there are still many important points left unresolved and worth exploring further when time allows. These topics are complex enough that a few exchanges rarely settle them completely.

Thank you again for the discussion, and I wish you the best in your new job.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

1/5

What happens when food security is measured beyond calories alone?

These satellite sequences show agricultural change across northern, central, and southern Gaza between 2023 and 2026.

The question is not simply how much food entered Gaza.

The question is what happened to the systems that produced, distributed, and sustained food over time.

🧵

#Gaza #Palestine #GazaCrisis #GazaSatellite #OSINTGaza

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

I think we have reached the point where our disagreement is clear.

I asked a series of methodological questions about how your model demonstrates that the loss of agriculture, fisheries, healthcare capacity, water infrastructure, refrigeration, market functionality, and other civilian systems was compensated.

Rather than providing direct evidence for that compensation, the discussion repeatedly returned to caloric throughput, political actors, visual observations, and personal dietary examples.

At this point, I understand your position:

You believe that the quantity and composition of food entering Gaza were sufficient to compensate for those losses.

My position is different:

I do not believe that caloric throughput alone demonstrates that the broader functions of those civilian systems were replaced.

More importantly, the specific methodological questions that were asked remain unanswered.

For a model to be independently evaluated, reproduced, and validated, the mechanisms connecting its assumptions to its conclusions must be explicitly demonstrated.

That demonstration has not been provided.

As a result, I do not believe the model has been sufficiently validated to support the certainty of the conclusions being claimed.

Since the evidence requested has not been presented, I do not think further repetition will be productive.

Thank you for the exchange.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

Thank you.

However, your answer does not demonstrate that the losses were compensated.

It demonstrates that food entered Gaza.

Those are not the same thing.

The question was:

"What evidence demonstrates that the loss of agriculture, fisheries, healthcare capacity, water infrastructure, refrigeration, market functionality, and other civilian systems was fully compensated?"

Your answer is:

"More food entered."

But that is the conclusion that must be demonstrated, not the demonstration itself.

To show compensation, you would need evidence that the functions previously provided by those systems were replaced.

For example:

What evidence shows that the loss of agricultural production was fully replaced?
What evidence shows that the loss of fisheries was fully replaced?
What evidence shows that degraded water infrastructure was fully replaced?
What evidence shows that reduced healthcare capacity was fully replaced?
What evidence shows that disrupted markets and purchasing power were fully replaced?

Showing that calories crossed a border is not, by itself, evidence that those systems were compensated.

It is evidence that calories crossed a border.

Those are different claims.

Likewise, whether Hamas stole food, whether the UN distributed aid effectively, or whether Israel bears responsibility are separate questions.

The question is not who is responsible.

The question is whether you have evidence that those losses were fully compensated.

So far, I still have not seen that evidence presented.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

A few quick corrections before returning to the actual questions.

Healthcare:

Healthcare has a great deal to do with food security and famine outcomes. Modern famine analysis has long recognized the interaction between malnutrition, disease burden, dehydration, infection, and treatment capacity. Healthcare is not a separate issue from nutrition.

Water:

Boiling water can eliminate many pathogens, but it does not address salinity, nitrates, chemical contamination, fuel availability, infrastructure damage, or physical access to water. Those are separate constraints.

Fisheries:

The role of fisheries is not limited to calories. Fisheries provide protein, employment, household income, market activity, and purchasing power. Reducing the sector to "one fish meal per person per year" ignores those functions.

Micronutrients:

You now acknowledge that vegetables and vitamins may matter "in the long run." That is precisely why concepts such as hidden hunger, micronutrient deficiency, dietary diversity, and nutritional adequacy exist. Calories and nutrition are not identical concepts.

Visual observation and IPC methodology:

You also continue relying heavily on visual observation ("people look healthy") while simultaneously dismissing IPC assessments because they relied on imperfect wartime data.

That is a methodological double standard.

The IPC itself explicitly acknowledged the limitations of wartime data collection. During periods when large-scale representative surveys were impossible, it relied on convergent evidence, screening data, operational reports, displacement patterns, market indicators, and nutritional assessments. As access improved and additional information became available, subsequent assessments were revised accordingly.

That is how evidence-based risk assessment works under conflict conditions.

By contrast, visual observation alone is an extremely limited nutritional indicator.

A population can receive sufficient calories to delay visible skeletal starvation while simultaneously experiencing:

• Micronutrient deficiencies
• Hidden hunger
• Anaemia
• Reduced immune function
• Child growth impairment
• Progressive nutritional deterioration

Those conditions are often not visible in photographs or short video clips.

The absence of universal skeletal starvation imagery is therefore not evidence that nutritional adequacy exists. It may simply indicate that some caloric intake continues while broader nutritional and health conditions deteriorate.

This is precisely why modern humanitarian assessments do not rely on visual observation alone.

With those corrections made, I would like to return to the central questions.

The purpose of these questions is not to discuss whether the UN, Hamas, Israel, NGOs, IPC, or the media are right or wrong.

The purpose is to understand and evaluate your model.

For several exchanges now, I have asked specific methodological questions and repeatedly received contextual or political arguments instead of direct answers.

My question was not whether aid contains calories.

My question was why a benchmark derived from a pre-war civilian system should remain valid after major changes to:

• Agriculture
• Fisheries
• Water infrastructure
• Healthcare capacity
• Market functionality
• Refrigeration
• Civilian infrastructure

Saying that aid compensates for those losses is a hypothesis.

What evidence demonstrates that those losses were fully compensated?

Likewise, you continue comparing food-only estimates against a benchmark that referred to total civilian throughput.

No major UN agency or humanitarian organization has argued that 500–600 trucks referred exclusively to food.

The benchmark referred to the total flow of goods required to sustain civilian systems.
So the question remains:
Why is it methodologically valid to compare a food-only estimate against a total-throughput benchmark?
Finally, what evidence demonstrates that caloric sufficiency alone is an adequate measure of:

• Food security
• Nutritional adequacy
• Population health

under wartime conditions?

Because much of your model appears to depend on that assumption, yet it still has not been demonstrated.

At this point, I am not asking for additional context, political explanations, criticism of the UN, criticism of Hamas, criticism of Israel, or criticism of the media.

I am simply asking for direct answers to those methodological questions so that your model itself can be evaluated on its own merits.

[J. Garcia @_EngendroDelMal]

I think we may be talking past each other at this point, so let me ask something directly.

Are you willing to answer the questions being asked, or would you prefer to end the discussion here?

Because for several exchanges now I have been asking specific methodological questions and receiving answers to different questions.

For example:

I ask why a pre-war benchmark remains valid after major changes to agriculture, fisheries, markets, water systems, healthcare, refrigeration, and civilian infrastructure.

You answer that the population size is similar.

Those are not the same question.

I ask why a food-only estimate is being compared against a benchmark that refers to total civilian throughput.

You answer that NGOs exaggerate food demand.

Again, that is not the same question.

I ask whether visual observation alone is sufficient to determine nutritional adequacy.

You answer that no one appears to be starving.

That still does not answer the methodological question.

At this point, I am genuinely trying to understand whether you are interested in addressing the specific questions being raised.

If the answer is yes, then I would appreciate direct answers.

If the answer is no, that is perfectly fine as well, and we can simply end the discussion rather than continuing to talk past one another.