dw.com
UN Declares Famine in Gaza; Calls Grow to Prosecute Starvation as War Crime
The UN declared famine in Gaza, the first such case in the Middle East, amid rising global calls to prosecute starvation as a war crime, with examples like the year-long siege of Al-Fashir, Sudan, affecting 30,000 people, and accusations against Israel for blocking aid to Gaza.
- What are the immediate consequences of the UN's declaration of famine in Gaza?
- The UN declared famine in Gaza, a first for the Middle East, following similar situations elsewhere. Increased calls for criminal prosecution of starvation as a deliberate strategy in armed conflict highlight the severity of this issue.
- What are the long-term legal and political implications of prosecuting starvation as a war crime?
- Future implications include the potential for increased prosecutions of those responsible for starvation in conflict, as evidenced by arrest warrants issued against Israeli officials by the ICC. However, challenges remain, including proving intent and securing the cooperation of states.
- How does the use of starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza compare to similar situations in other global conflicts?
- The use of starvation as a weapon of war is gaining international attention, with experts citing conflicts in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen in the last decade. The deliberate deprivation of food, as seen in Gaza and Al-Fashir, Sudan, is increasingly recognized as a violation of international humanitarian law.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue primarily from the perspective of those accusing parties of using starvation as a weapon of war. While presenting legal arguments and counterpoints, the framing consistently emphasizes the severity of the accusations and the need for prosecution. The headlines and introduction strongly suggest intentional actions, setting a tone that is difficult to counteract later in the article.
Language Bias
While the article uses strong language reflecting the seriousness of the accusations (e.g., "genocide," "war crime"), it largely attributes such terms to quoted individuals, maintaining a degree of journalistic objectivity. However, the choice of presenting accusations prominently may subtly influence the reader's perception. Replacing words like "genocide" with "alleged genocide" when reporting the claims of experts could be more neutral.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the use of starvation as a weapon of war, providing numerous examples and expert opinions. However, it omits discussion of potential mitigating factors, such as the logistical challenges of providing aid in conflict zones or the role of internal conflicts within affected regions in exacerbating food insecurity. While acknowledging limitations of space, a brief mention of these complexities would enhance the article's balanced perspective.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present a false dichotomy, but it implicitly frames the issue as a clear-cut case of intentional starvation versus unavoidable famine. The nuance of situations where intent is difficult to definitively prove is understated. The complexities of intent are discussed in the final sections, but less prominently than the accusations of intentional starvation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the deliberate starvation of civilians in armed conflicts, specifically mentioning the UN declaring famine in Gaza and the blockade of aid in the region. This directly contradicts SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) which aims to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. The deliberate actions to restrict food and aid supplies clearly hinder progress toward this goal.