[throwaway198846]

Nitpick:

> Both men are indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity for their roles in the destruction of the Gaza Strip.

Role in destruction isn't a war crime they are being indicted for and as such irrelevant in this context.

[tovej]

The destruction of Gaza is obviously the context in which the war crimes and crimes against humanity occur(red).

[throwaway198846]

No, you missed the point. They have been indicated to "as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts". Physical destruction can occur without being a war crime and those war crimes can occur without any destruction. So it didn't add any useful information infact it was actively misleading because some people might think they were indicated for destruction.

[tovej]

I have a hard time understanding what you're upset about. "The destruction of Gaza" is clearly a context that anyone in the world can recognize.

The statement is simply referring to that. Not everything has to be maximally technical.

[throwaway198846]

Because someone is wrong on the internet, isn't that enough? I already explained it and I'm unsure what I can add aside from some examples (Siege of Jerusalem (starvation without destruction), Battle of Raqqa (destructive urban warfare, no allegations of starvation or war crimes), Siege of Mariupol (destructive urban warfare, many alleged war crimes))

[jeltz]

Your nitpick added zero value to the discussion.