IDF confirms some 70,000 Gazans died in war, none from starvation.

As for a “very strong narrative” what is emerging now is that reports of starvation were being actively suppressed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/exclusive-early-warning-apocalyptic-wasteland-060114418.html?

Babies are dying of hypothermia now, enough aid still not getting in, babies don’t do well in tents in freezing weather and pouring rain. The horror continues.

Why such a grr reaction your question was regarding Hamas being embedded in the population and when in history has it happened and I answer it did happen in the Irish War of Independence, that was the only parallel I drew between the two. You went off on a tangent about any other similarities which I never mentioned. (Presumably to encourage the extreme anti Irish sentiment by many posters)

I haven't fallen for any Hamas propaganda whatsoever, civilians were put into danger by combatants in 1920 voluntarily or not so it has happened in history before.

I can't imagine why this is justification for a large scale slaughter when Hamas are "embedded" in an area with a similar population density to London.

They’ll stop denying the starvation eventually too.

One official said something that wasn’t accurate which was quickly overturned by his employer. That’s not propaganda.

They’re agreeing to that number because the real number is much much higher. To deny that no one died from starvation when there’s evidence of babies dying is despicable.

That's kind of hard to tell from a distance, though...?

I'm just musing out loud, this is a philosophical question rather than a legalistic one. As they stand, the "rules" don't seem fit for purpose regarding the Gazan conflict.

Are you kidding me? The UN had to pull back from Tom Fletcher's claim that 14000 babies were going to die in 48 hours. There was a very strong narrative of widespread famine.

I didn’t see any “propaganda” from the UN and other NGOs.
They have been accurately reporting on the food status of Gaza.
Not once did they ever say famine was “widespread”

No its not erasing deaths. Who is erasing them? Its correcting the propaganda that there was widespread famine and starvation. There are always premature deaths in a conflict situation. That is a materially different thing to widespread famine and starvation across the pipulation as a whole. Noone is saying any deaths were a good thing but why would you not want factual accuracy?

How are you defining “healthy”? Newborns were (and may well still be) dying because their mothers were too malnourished to breastfeed, and Israel were stopping infant formula from coming into Gaza. I’m pretty sure no one would think that was a positive?!

That’s kind of ableist to say it’s good that no “healthy” people died of starvation when the first people to die due to starvation are always the vulnerable- children, infants, elderly, pregnant mothers, disabled.

It’s like you’re erasing all the deaths that were absolutely caused by starvation because they were not perfectly healthy not pregnant adults in the prime of life.

Why does the title imply 'that's alright then'? Who is ok with 70,000 deaths? But who would not think it was a good thing that no otherwise healthy people died of starvation?

No where does it say uniformed. The way you tell the difference is whether the person is armed or unarmed.

The other countries don’t have a permanent member of the UNSC vetoing every resolution put forward by the UNGA. That’s the reason for the disconnect.

This is deceptive. The UNGA has repeatedly passed the same resolution that has been repeatedly vetoed by the US at the UNSC. Each time it is vetoed the US says why, they go back and edit the resolution to please the US and each time the US comes up with a new reason to veto the UNGA resolution.

When you look at actual resolutions involving Israel that pass the UNSC, it’s very very few. There would be far fewer UNGA resolutions if they weren’t being purposely blocked.

Why on earth would anyone believe whatever the IDF say?

And this thread title is abhorrent.

Its as if "well that's all right then" is the logical conclusion to reply to that sentence.

Lots of wars involved combatants without uniforms so your question doesn’t really make sense.

International law is becoming meaningless now. Gaza has been part of that due to western powers being complicit with Israel. But the US going the way it is, is the biggest driver.

So I think future wars will be more catastrophic with more civilian suffering. So you’ll be happy to know that there likely be few attempts to protect civilian life in future.

Read more history then. This war was conducted as a siege, where all civilians were trapped inside an urban area with the combatants.

Loads of people don’t know what an atrocity is. They say oh that’s war. It’s awful and brutal but it’s just way war is.

Do you think this particular war will force them to revise the rules? Otherwise they seem rather meaningless.

Because I’d believe anything the IDF says.

No it’s not implicit in that. This rule of distinction doesn’t depend on uniforms at all. There is other wording in IHL that further clarifies this.

Quoting international law isn’t a good road to go down if you are attempting to defend the number civilians killed by Israel.

As explained, I took a short cut using Copilot because I was heading out, but felt such a "grrr" reaction that I wanted to post anyway. (I'm sure many of us can relate to that on the CITME forum!) Anyway, now I'm back and can dazzle with my usual erudition 🤣🤣🤣

The point I was making is that drawing a parallel with the Irish War of Independence is problematic for a gazillion reasons, not least that it overlooks Hamas's motives and the severity of the threat faced by Israel.

If you view it all through the lens of brave resistance to colonial oppression, and can't tell the difference between people voluntarily hiding combatants versus combatants deliberately exposing citizens to risk, then I fear you have bought Hamas's propaganda hook, line and sinker.

But neither of us is saying anything new. God, how many times have we had this discussion on various threads?! 🤡 At least we're not wasting a sunny day, but I should probably be cleaning the bathroom 🌞

So, why do you think they aren't? And do you have faith in a system with such an obviously, incontrovertibly deep level of bias? Is it plausible that all those resolutions are in fact legitimate when the same people can't bring themselves to pass resolutions against Iran? Do you think that's really a convincing position?