Highlight:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant said. “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
Highlight:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant said. “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
Using hunger as a weapons against a populace is 100% a war crime, yes.
I just took a gander at the list as a refresher, and it is not 100% a war crime. You can argue this is an unjustified or excessive attack on civilians, but a judge may rule that is is required to defend against the enemy (Hamas).
Item 2.b.25 from the list seems to match up:
"Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions; "
Is the intent to starve civilians or to deprive hamas combatants of any and all supplies?
If you are blocking an entire region from getting food and water then yes, the intent is to starve the civilian population.
Regardless of what we feel is intended or not, that is what war is - hell for everybody involved. Let's just hope that this doesn't get drawn out.
That's not what "intent to starve a civilian population" means. This is not a program of starvation. It's cutting off resources before an invasion
This isn't your homebrew DnD game where you can make rules mean whatever you want.
It is though. A program of cutting off resources would be blocking fuel and other goods, not fucking food and water. Ukraine was rightfully put in the corner for cutting off water to Crimea after 2014. There is no excuse to starving people, it's a horrendous crime which should land the people involved in prison. Besides what do you think will happen now? Who will the Palestinians in Gaza trust more, the murder hobos who got them into this mess or the Israelis who decided collective punishment is an appropriate response? War crimes are called war crimes for a reason, just because one side commits them doesn''t suddenly make it ok to commit them back.
It isn't, and whoever told you it is such is just lying to you.
Idk where you people get your "news" but whatever podcasters you listen to are fucking braindead.
You're exactly equivalent to the dumbest of the MAGA by believing that tripe.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/9/israel-announces-total-blockade-on-gaza
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67051292
Gaza is completely blockaded, by Israels own admission. If you don't want to call it an attack on the entire population there, please go ahead and stay delusional. This is not OK, no matter who does it. It was not OK when Ukraine did it to Crimea, it's not OK now. It's heinous and despicable.
Well the EU just called it a war crime. So between the text of the rule, the spirit of the rule, and the fucking international body of governments' interpretation of the rule, I think I'm gonna stick with interpretation that intentionally cutting off food, water, and power to the entire region constitutes intentionally cutting off food and water to civilians.