[dankai]

"The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare."

Whats perhaps interesting to note is that this charge was made for "just" 41 [1] confirmed starvation deaths among a population of 2,141,643 people [2].

Of course every death caused by intentional starvation is a severe crime and must be punished, but in the context of the victim numbers that most past crimes against humanity have had, it sets a relatively low new bar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_famine

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

[shihab]

This is common and expected. Even when a serial killer suspected of 20 murder is apprehended, arrest is often made based on one or two confirmed cases, more charges are later added as investigation deepens.

Also, keep in mind foreign journalists are completely banned by Israel from entering Gaza- complicating evidence gathering.

[culi]

This is not how the ICC conducts its investigations. The "41+" figure is from a Wikipedia article that is undergoing an edit war. The very source it is citing actually says 63k

[dlubarov]

As I understand it 41 is the number of starvations recorded in hospitals. 63k is a highly theoretical "estimate" based on the IPC scale and data from food insecurity in other parts of the world. It seems absurd on its face, since it would imply that an absurdly small fraction of starvations were recorded in hospitals.

[com]

I walked past the offices of Medcins Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders) incidentally across the road from the very good new Holocaust Museum in Amsterdam, with posters in the windows imploring “no bombardment of hospitals in Gaza”.

The numbers are absurdly small, if hospitals were still operational, their employees not subject to extrajudicial killing from the occupation authorities and the facilities themselves not subject to bombardment.

Data from these killing fields is probably going to be far, far worse than we believe, once the dust has settled.

[dlubarov]

This doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 63k "expected" starvations are spread out over a period beginning Nov 24, 2023 [1].

Over that period, something like 30k deaths have been recorded in hospitals and morgues. The 63k starvations claim would suggest that roughly 2/3 of all deaths were due to starvation, but somehow they were only ~0.1% of the cases that hospitals and morgues saw.

So Gazans are something like ~500x more likely to enter a hospital or morgue for wounds (or other ailments) than for starvation? How do you explain that?

[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/66e083452b3cbf4bbd719...

[freeone3000]

Due to the active bombing campaign against the civilian population, many Palestinians are wounded before they are starved.

[legulere]

Israel does take selected journalists into Gaza on trips organised by the military. The issue is that journalists cannot make themselves an independent picture of the situation in Gaza.

[immibis]

The Gaza ministry that would have counted the deaths was also destroyed several months ago, which is why news media have been reporting the same death total of 40,000 for several months.

[yyyk]

This is wrong. They are still reporting daily deaths counts, that counts have been going up. The Grauniad is good about collecting the reports (but bad about other unrelated things).

[noman-land]

I was wondering about this. Thanks for the info. Got any links where I can read more?

[newspaper1]

This is a really good independent report on the death toll:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

[dlubarov]

Note that the 186k figure is not an estimate of deaths to date; the bulk of it is anticipated future deaths attributable to the destruction of hospitals and so forth. Lancet has also published some criticism of that correspondence - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

The Gaza heath ministry's figures remain the best (and basically only) source of casualties to date. While they're no longer able to record many deaths in hospitals or morgues, they've adapted by collecting casualty reports from other sources like a Google form (which makes the data a bit iffy, but better than nothing).

[edanm]

It is a report that was correctly widely criticized. Certainly worth reading, but worth being aware of this.

(I personally think that estimating that the eventual death toll will be 4x higher than the somewhat-verified death toll that exists today, based on guesses of the impact of the war on the population, is very disingenuous and misleading, and mostly a way to just be able to say much higher numbers.)

[newspaper1]

It wasn't "widely criticized", it's taking into account the starvation, attacks on hospitals... estimating how many people are going to die is important work.

[zarzavat]

Given that the accused is currently in control of the crime scene, it's not surprising that the prosecution chose to prioritise the crimes that are easiest to prove.

[culi]

The ICC does not state only 41 deaths ocurred. GP is pulling that number from an unrelated Wikipedia article that is undergoing an edit war. It went from "63k" to "41+". None of the commentors here justifying the low number realize its completely made up and unrelated to the ICC

[jowea]

Same reason an warrant on Putin was issued over the official children "adoption" program.

[peppers-ghost]

"confirmed" data from Gaza at the moment is unreliable. The people who were doing the counting have either been killed or cleansed from the area. The official death toll is still around 40k despite the reality being closer to 100-200k.

[bawolff]

Regardless, total deaths don't matter, only deaths that were the result of crimes matter, in this context.

Some of those deaths are going to be legal targets killed during combat, which is not evidence of a war crime. You have to split things out for the numbers to mean anything.

[xg15]

But the problem is that Israel's style of warfare is (intentionally or not) blurring the distinction between those numbers, by using methods of combat that have exceptionally high rates of collateral damage.

The most extreme instances of this are the deliberate withholding of aid, both in the "total siege" in the beginning of the war, as well as operations like now in the north.

You might hit a lot of legitimate targets with this, but it's also guaranteed you will impact all the civilians in the area.

Generally, in this entire war (and also long before), Israel is far too quick with the "Human shields"/"collateral damage" argument to my liking, and using it as an excuse to basically disregard considerations for civilians at all.

(It's also instructive to see how different the hostages and palestinian civilians are treated in IDF considerations, despite both groups technically being "human shields")

[bawolff]

> But the problem is that Israel's style of warfare is (intentionally or not) blurring the distinction between those numbers, by using methods of combat that have exceptionally high rates of collateral damage.

I'm not sure that is true. Urban combat is notoriously bloody, and other conflicts of this nature have seen similar orders of magnitude deaths.

Additionally, civilian deaths are not neccesarily indicative of war crimes. Certain types of collateral damage are allowed where others are not (rules are complex and quite frankly oblivious), so you would also have to separate the legal collateral damage from the illegal collateral damage.

> The most extreme instances of this are the deliberate withholding of aid, both in the "total siege" in the beginning of the war, as well as operations like now in the north.

Well that allegation is the main basis for this warrant. However so far it seems like only a very small porportion of the deaths are attributable to that practise. To the point where so far the icc found that there wasnt enough evidence for a charge of extermination. I think about roughly 15 people have to die for it to be considered extermination. So it seems like so far there isn't evidence that a significant number of deaths in this conflict are related to that method of war. Of course new evidence can always come to light later. (Its important to note that siege warfare is still a warcrime even if nobody dies. The counter side is israel would probably try and argue (for the recent activity at least) that they gave civilians an opportunity to evacuate and thus it wasn't directed at civilians).

[bawolff]

> (rules are complex and quite frankly oblivious)

Too late to edit, but i meant to say ambigious not obvlivious.

[ignoramous]

> the problem is that Israel's style of warfare ... The most extreme instances

Yep. The complication is, the Strip is close to being totally dependent on Israel, and yet chose war. I doubt any other country ruled by right-wingers, with that much power over their already (diplomatically, economically, socially) cornered enemy, would have acted any differently. I guess, the sequence of events reeks of desperation & despair from all sides and has ended up exposing one & all.

[xg15]

It's not as if life was particularly pleasant there before the war. Israel was already before restricting the maximally attainable quality of life. Or as if the Palestinian control group in the West Bank who had chosen cooperation was faring any better.

Also that stuff is exactly what international humanitarian law is supposed to prevent. Obligations of the occupying power and all.

[ignoramous]

Agree. Like I said, this war has exposed facists, racists, hawks, hypocrites and their nexus (on every side).

[culi]

The ICC doesn't claim 41 deaths were the result of war crimes. That claim is made by an irrelevant Wikipedia article that is undergoing an edit war. It was recently switched from "62,413 conservative estimate" to "41+"

ICC doesn't claim how many deaths are due to war crimes. GP is purposefully sowing misinformation

[culi]

GP is not citing the ICC. The ICC never claims 41 deaths are confirmed. GP is citing a Wikipedia article which is undergoing an edit war. The Wikipedia page had cited 62,413 deaths and then was switched to a pro-Israel source that instead says "41+"

ICC never claimed only 41 deaths were confirmed

[edanm]

If you think the "confirmed" data is unreliable, what makes you think you know the "real" number? How is your number any more reliable?

[bawolff]

> Whats perhaps interesting to note is that this charge was made for "just" 41 [1] confirmed starvation deaths among a population of 2,141,643 people [2].

IANAL but this is probably incorrect i think - the starvation charge is related to allegations of intentionally restricting neccesities of life. Whether anyone dies as a result is irrelavent to that charge. The murder charge is for the people who actually allegedly died as a result (of the starvation that is. To be clear, the death has to illegal for it to be the war crime of murder. Normal combat death is not murder).

[guipsp]

> Researchers at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University estimated deaths from starvation to be 62,413 between October 2023 and September 2024.

[shkkmo]

> but in the context of the victim numbers that most past crimes against humanity have had, it sets a relatively low new bar.

Which context is this? If you mean the context of past ICC indictments that isn't true. There are multiple other examples of people indicted for specific acts that resulted in the deaths of a 2 digit numbers of people.

The bar for "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" isn't the number of people you kill. Though in this case, plenty have been killed, this case is about what can be proved conclusively ebough given who it is against.

[yyyk]

We can compare the rate to countries in more.. stable situations[0]. They'll have a very difficult time getting anywhere with that rate. But we'll see. The world would be better off with all these individuals having no power at all.

[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/starvatio...

[megous]

Starvation vs starvation to death are different things.

War crime of starvation was directed against 2.3 million people without distinction, incl. ~1 million children. I'd say that's bad enough.

[culi]

This comment is just pure misinformation. Nobody is claiming only 41 deaths.

You're citing an irrelevant Wikipedia page as a source that has a crazy edit history going back and forth between "41+" and "62,413 conservative estimated" deaths

[croes]

What’s the threshold for war crimes?

[bawolff]

The crimes have a definition with requisite elements in the rome statue.

While many of them do require a certain gravity, viewing international crimes like a more serious version of a normal crime is probably the wrong way of doing it. Some war crimes do not require anyone to die. In other cases thousands could die and it wouldn't be a war crime or crime against humanity because the elements aren't met.

In particular, starvation doesn't require anyone to have died, and it covers more things than just food. Keep in mind its a relatively new crime in international law, it was only made illegal in 1977 (for example during ww2, the nuremburg trials explicitly ruled that sieges were legal). As far as i know nobody has ever been persecuted for it, so the case law doesn't exist, so its a bit unknown.