it.euronews.com
Global Conflict Surge: Palestine Most Affected, 223,000 Deaths in 2024
Global political violence increased by 25 percent in 2024, resulting in 223,000 deaths; ACLED identifies Palestine as the world's most conflict-ridden country, with 81 percent of its population affected and 35,000 deaths in the last year, while the Ukraine war remains the deadliest globally; 2025 humanitarian needs are estimated at 305 million people, largely due to conflicts and underfunding.
- What is the global impact of the 25 percent increase in political violence in 2024, and what are the most affected regions?
- Global political violence surged 25 percent in 2024, impacting one in eight people and resulting in an estimated 223,000 deaths, according to ACLED. This represents a doubling of global conflicts over the past five years. The Palestine is identified as the most conflict-ridden country, with 81 percent of its population affected and 35,000 deaths in the last year alone.
- How does ACLED's assessment of the Palestine conflict compare to other global conflicts, and what are the key factors contributing to its severity?
- ACLED's assessment of conflict considers mortality, danger, spread, and fragmentation. The ongoing war in Ukraine remains the deadliest globally, while Myanmar experiences the highest number of armed groups due to internal conflict since the 2021 coup. The increase in global conflict is linked to multiple factors including, but not limited to, ongoing wars, regional instability and internal conflicts.
- What are the long-term implications of underfunded humanitarian aid in conflict zones, and what measures are needed to address the increasing global humanitarian crisis?
- The rising global humanitarian needs, estimated at 305 million people requiring assistance in 2025, are largely fueled by conflict and violence. Underfunding of humanitarian aid in critical areas like Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine poses a significant risk, despite international legal obligations. The escalating conflicts in various regions suggest a concerning trend of increased instability and humanitarian crises.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the increase in global conflict through the lens of ACLED's data, emphasizing the rise in violence and casualties. The headline and the beginning of the article immediately highlight the increase in conflict, setting a tone of alarm. The focus on Palestine as the 'most conflictual country' is a strong framing choice, potentially overshadowing the severity of other conflicts. The detailed description of the Palestinian situation compared to the more summary accounts of other conflicts further reinforces this framing.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual, relying primarily on statistics and reports from organizations like ACLED and the UN. However, phrases like "further surge in conflicts" and "the most conflictual country" carry a slightly alarmist tone. The repeated emphasis on death tolls and casualties can be emotionally charged, even if presented as factual data. More neutral phrasing could be used, focusing on the data itself without overtly emotional language. For example, instead of "the most conflictual country," a more neutral description like "the country with the highest reported incidents of conflict based on ACLED data" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Palestine conflict and the Ukraine war, mentioning other conflicts briefly. While it acknowledges other areas of conflict such as Myanmar, Sudan, and Mexico, a more comprehensive overview of global conflict zones and their relative severity would provide a more balanced perspective. The omission of specific details on the nature and scale of conflicts in these other regions limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion on the global conflict landscape. The heavy reliance on ACLED data might also be a limitation, as other datasets might offer differing perspectives.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but by focusing intensely on Palestine and Ukraine as the "main" conflicts, it implicitly creates a dichotomy between these two and the rest, suggesting a hierarchy of importance that may not accurately reflect the complexity of the global situation.
Gender Bias
The article does not exhibit overt gender bias. However, a more in-depth analysis of the impact of conflict on different gender groups within the affected regions would provide a more complete picture. The lack of data on gender-specific impacts limits the analysis of gender inequality within the context of these conflicts.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant surge in global conflicts in 2024, resulting in a 25% increase in political violence compared to 2023. This directly impacts SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by undermining peace, justice, and strong institutions globally. The escalating conflicts lead to increased casualties, displacement, and instability, hindering efforts to build peaceful and inclusive societies. Specific examples include the intense conflicts in Palestine, Ukraine, Myanmar, and other regions mentioned, all of which severely challenge the establishment and maintenance of strong institutions and the rule of law.