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.”

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    so wait. Siege is a war crime? Not taking a side, I’m just a technicalities kind of guy. Its not like locking people in a house. And don’t hostage negotiators do just that in the US? (Could be just on tv). But it’s a big place. Fuel and electricity are nice to haves. They should have some amount of food and water stored up. And the southern border is with egypt, so I assume they can’t actually do anything about that. Doesn’t seem like a straight up war crime. But I have never read yhe definitions they have at the UN.

      • wwaxen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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).

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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; "

          • Iceblade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is the intent to starve civilians or to deprive hamas combatants of any and all supplies?

            • NeshuraA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you are blocking an entire region from getting food and water then yes, the intent is to starve the civilian population.

              • Iceblade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • NeshuraA
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is not a program of starvation

                  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.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.