Gaza Ministry of Health has now released mortality numbers for 2025. For the first time since the war, they give numbers for all deaths, including natural deaths. In 2025 there were a total of 24,650 deaths in Gaza. 18,870 (76.6%) of these were violent, of which 17,286 (70.1%) were due to "war operations" and 1,584 (6.4%) were classified as accidents. There were a total of 5,780 (23.4%) non-violent deaths, including disease, old age, and all other causes. 5,780 deaths is about the same as the annual non-violent mortality in Gaza before the war, and the age distribution is similar to 2022. There is no significant excess of non-violent deaths. In other words, despite frequent and loud claims to the contrary, there seems to be very few indirect deaths due to the war in Gaza in 2025. As there were 50,227 births in 2025, this gives a natural population growth of 25,577 or 1.2% in Gaza in 2025, which is higher population growth than most countries in the world and more than the world average. There are currently ~6,000 births/month in Gaza, per GMH. Assuming a similar number of non-violent deaths in Gaza in 2026 as in 2025, that means there are currently 12x more births than deaths in Gaza, and that Gaza is now experiencing one of the highest population growths in the world.

I Met the Most DEMONIZED People on Earth (Israeli SETTLERS) The Israeli settlers. I haven't spoken about them until now. And for a good reason...

This massacre in El Geneina, Sudan unfolded on June 15, 2025. Hundreds of non-Arab people were gunned down while trying to leave the West Darfur capital. Let this be a reminder of what "they" do to Christians and all infidels. Islam is not a religion, nor are they peaceful.

Nobody really argues that the *checkpoints* are illegal under international law though. The question is over settlements. Plus there's a funky nuance over the process of establishing settlements being illegal (which many claim) and the settlers being illegal (which as untrue). It's a dichotomy akin to how in a domestic immigration context trafficking immigrants across a border is criminal but the immigrant crossing the border is a civil offense (akin to a speeding ticket). But in the international law context the immigrant crossing the border hasn't even committed a civil offense: there is no crime on their part. And this is presuming civilian settlements (or all settlements) are illegal. This which is the generally agreed upon view, but there are a variety of reasons and arguments for why that may be incorrect. But otherwise, the generally agreed upon international position is also one which has never really been followed ever by any sustained belligerent occupying power since WW2 when it laid claim to a disputed territory. There are routine condemnations of this when countries do it, but it's inconsistent and nobody really gets worked up over it outside of the contexts of Israel and Russia. But not Nagorno-Karabakh, North Cyprus, East Timor, West Sahara, etc. Otherwise, if the settlement process is illegal, it is still only considered a "simple violation" or "minor infraction" and not a "grave breach" of the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949. Prior to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territories prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention Art. 49(6) was not considered a "grave breach" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Red Cross's Commentary on the 1977 protocols notes that it was not a grave breach prior to 1977 because the people at whom the provision was directed to protect - the occupying power's own civilian population - aren't actually considered protected persons under the Geneva Conventions (which are about regulating what governments do to other countries' populations). Michael Bothe's 1982 Commentary on the 1977 Protocols New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts : Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 recorded the change of interpretation as specifically directed at Israel. Bothe characterized this as "an exceptional case", a "remarkable" change, and "an inversion" of the structure and original purpose of the provision. The Red Cross commentary on the 1977 protocols said that the change was "because of the possible consequences for the population of the territory concerned from a humanitarian point of view." So there wasn't even certainty over whether the rights of the occupied population were even being harmed by the settlements, and the illegality of the civilian settlements is conceptually linked to whether the occupied population is actually being harmed. As a practical matter, the humanitarian burdens on the territories are largely a product of the stringencies in response to the Second Intifada and not the settlement process per se. Palestinians were the richest Arabs outside of the petrostates before that, and had substantial quality of life improvements. Even today, work in and with settlements is a source of economic advantage for many Palestinians even as resource allocation to settlements burdens other Palestinians. Given how international law operates by consent, it should be noted that Israel never agreed to the 1977 Protocols on the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nor are the 1977 protocols as a whole considered customary international law whose violations are subject to universal jurisdiction irrespective of a country opting to be bound by them. Some parts of the 1977 protocols have achieved or arguably achieved that status, but article 85 which reinterpreted and recharacterized Geneva Convention Art 49(6) has not. So the relevant provisions have no binding effect upon Israel. Any appropriate analysis of the legality or illegality of civilian settlements necessarily has to conclude that even if Israel is violating the conventions by establishing civilian settlements, it is not a "grave breach" but rather a "simple violation" or "minor infraction." States have no obligation to really care about such petty matters at all.

האדם המערבי הוא פוסט היסטורי, כי ההיסטוריה מחייבת, היא לא מאפשרת את הניהיליזם של כאן ועכשיו, של אינדיבידואל שצריך לשרת את כל רצונותיו, זה מתחיל עם הורים גרועים שלא יודעים לתת גבולות ומסתיים בגאולה בדמות התנועה הפלסטינית

هل سيدخل الجنة من يقتل أب أعزل وهو يحتضن طفلته ويحاول إبعادها عن الخطر؟

Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor look drawn and solemn amid strong applause for Golden Lion Contender ‘NAZA’ exposing Israeli targeting of civilians in Gaza #VeniceFilmFestival

Israel's 🇮🇱 Sheba Medical Center is the #1-ranked hospital in the Middle East and Asia, a region encompassing 5 billion people. It has now advanced a major expansion plan that would increase capacity from 1,860 to 3,303 hospital beds. @sheba_medical