The Lancet publish article estimating 186,000 death toll in Gaza

It's just horrendous really isn't it. I can't begin to image how long it will take for life to begin to go back to 'normal' for Palestinians in Gaza. Can bodies recover from severe malnourishment as infants and children? Surely that alone will have long lasting effects on not just this generation but future generations too. The psychological effects of living under such intense stress and fear for a prolonged period of time are going to be enormous. The Infrastructure that is needed to support a healthy life has been so badly destroyed that it will no doubt take decades to repair.

I very much doubt we will know the full details of just how much damage has been inflicted on Palestinians for a very long time. It has just been an assault on all fronts, everything from education and healthcare to water and energy infrastructure to historical monuments have been destroyed. How you move on from that is anyone's guess really.

@LastTrainEast I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by referencing that we now have a labour government.
Could you elaborate please? Is it due to him (Starmer) calling for a ceasefire?

I see I got deleted, but so did a lot of people. Were they also defending Jews? I know we have a Labour government now.

I'm sure we're all seen Keir's speech about 7/7

Why?

@israelilefty yes I agree, you're right. I was out at the time with my toddler hence the "etc".

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/5000-lives-one-shell-gazas-ivf-embryos-destroyed-by-israeli-strike-2024-04-17/

For reference

It's not only the indirect deaths that will be a real tragedy but the emotional trauma. In December last year the IDF bombed Gaza's largest IVF fertility clinic, where in one single strike they destroyed more than 4000 frozen embryos. When asked for the reason of striking the centre, the only response given was they would look into it.
This sort of brutal trauma is not something that can be quantified with figures.

That's not the meaning of indirect deaths - those would be direct deaths. Indirect deaths are those affected by the side effects of war: like lack of healthcare, insufficient food and so on. The number of indirect deaths cited in the letter is probably extrapolated from other conflicts in the region; for example the US-led wars after 9/11 are estimated to have caused 3.6-3.8 million indirect deaths, in addition to 940,000 direct deaths.

See watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/

Quite a misleading title tbh

that sentence stands out quite a lot to me.

@keenforhelp where is your evidence to support no indirect deaths? Do you not think that there is a high probability that hundreds and hundreds of people would have died indirectly through being trapped under rubble etc?
Can Israel do no wrong?

Sorry but no evidence in this writing .
The modal verb "could" refers to an estimation of indirect deaths that have not happened yet anyway.
Quite a misleading title tbh.

Yes and it is incredibly frustrating and unsatisfactory (to put it mildly) that we have to rely on letters in the Lancet rather than evidence from independent investigators in Gaza.

That's horrific @AhNowTed. That's so much more than the 38K that's accounted for. For a small population, that's a significant amount of people to be obliterated.

I'm not specifically familiar with The Lancet. But the letters pages of journals are typically the place for toing and froing of arguments. Letters are published more rapidly than articles. Articles will go through a much more rigorous process of editorial and peer review that can take months.

The important thing is that words are important. This is a letter, not an article. And the authors have deliberately chosen their words with care. Lay readers can over-interpret scientific/professional journals when not familiar with the terminology and when they don't pay attention to the exact wording. A phrase such as "it would not be implausible" is very different to "it would be very/highly likely".

That's a fair point @DogInATent

Not familiar with the Lancet letters page - does it publish responses challenging content of correspondence?

That's not an exact summary.

It doesn't lessen the tragedy to better summarise it for those who won't read the link as describing the death toll to date as 37,396. And based on the reviews of similar previous events the authors of the letter (note, letters are not peer reviewed in the same way as articles) consider it would "not be implausible" for the total including indirect deaths to reach 186,000 when the effects of displacement and loss of infrastructure are considered.

It is a very strong call for an immediate ceasefire.

Because you've actually got nothing to say.

Shocking figures but I suppose not really that shocking when we know about the issues in Gaza. Mass displacement, lack of all services, food, aid etc.

I meant I've made comments about Israel's behaviour in Gaza in other threads.

My point here is that it's so utterly disappointing that 9 months into this some people still seem unable to make comment without slipping in a completely unnecessary and goady comment about antisemitism/Jews.

I'll leave you to it.

No. 8000 men and boys were killed in Srebrenica and that was ruled to be genocide.

No, it's the intentional destruction of a nation in whole or in part

Although this is something I was aware of, to read this written down in such stark words was still difficult. Even if there was a ceasefire this very moment, the Palestinians will continue to suffer and feel the effects of this brutal war for years to come

Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given the intensity of this conflict; destroyed health-care infrastructure; severe shortages of food, water, and shelter; the population's inability to flee to safe places; and the loss of funding to UNRWA, one of the very few humanitarian organisations still active in the Gaza Strip.

No that's not the definition of genocide enshrined in international law

100% of the Tutsi population weren't killed in the Rwanda genocide were they?