The Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant was quoted today:

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant says he has ordered a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip, as Israel fights the Hamas terror group.

“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba.

“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds.

Intentionally starving a civilian population is a violation of the Geneva convention and is prohibited under international law.

This question will resolve YES if two conditions are both met by end of 2024:

1. The seige is carried out largely as described, with the Gaza strip cut off from food/water, fuel and electricity via Israeli-controlled territory (if goods/services can still enter via the border with Egypt, that is not relevant for this condition).

2. There is a consensus view among experts in international law that this was a war crime.

Even though the minister only mentioned food, cutting off either food or water, in addition to fuel and electricity, will satisfy condition 1. The seige does not have to be perfect for condition 1. to be met: policy mostly but imperfectly followed will still satisfy it. Official policy to allow food, fuel, or electricity selectively, for humanitarian reasons, will mean condition 1 is not met. There may be some grey area here, in which case I will use my judgement.

Condition 2 requires a consensus view among experts in international law that this seige was a war crime. Israel is a party to the Geneva convention and has ratified its four main conventions, but is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court. Thus, the ICC may not have jurisdiction - it's not clear. In any case, end of 2024 is likely too soon for official judgement by an international court, and so condition 2. will be judged based on the consensus view as I can best discern in the absence of official judgement. I will draw on Wikipedia and seek the views of experts in international law, and am open to other suggestions for how to discern this.

I won't bet on this market.

Edit Oct 9th PST: changed "consensus among the international community" to "consensus among experts in international law", I will refund the losses of those who bet on the distinction.

2nd Edit Oct 9th: clarified that a blockade by Israel still counts even if the Eyptian border is still open.

Possible clarification from creator (AI generated):

• Resolution does not require an official trial or court judgement to take place

• The ICC arrest warrant and related commentary will be considered as part of evaluating the consensus among experts in international law

• A judgement call will be made based on available evidence and expert opinions at market close