Is this 22,600 number accurate? It’s more precise than I would expect. I’ve also seen estimates of 8000 hamas militants killed, which is presumably included here as the Gaza authorities have never previously made a distinction. That suggests about 2 civilian deaths per soldier killed which is honestly a lot less than I would expect given all the “genocide” rhetoric.
I think Afghanistan ended up being about 1 civilian per 2 soldiers? That’s 4x lower, but was largely fought in low population density deserts. Is there even a modern equivalent to draw a comparison with to gauge what a “normal” civilian casualty rate is for urban warfare?
How so? I obviously assume the numbers on both sides are exaggerated, which is why I rounded everything in favor of there being more civilian deaths. How many hamas fighters do you think have been killed?
The Lancet is generally regarded as one of the most reputable and trustworthy medical journals. An assessment of the figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health published in the Lancet found that there was no evidence of inflated mortality statistics, and even went beyond that to say that it is considerably more likely that the Gaza Ministry of Health is under reporting the casualties providing the most conservative figures.
If MoH mortality figures were substantially inflated, the MoH mortality rates would be expected to be higher than the UNRWA mortality rates. Instead, the MoH mortality rates are lower than the rates reported for UNRWA staff (5·3 deaths per 1000 vs 7·8 deaths per 1000, as of Nov 10, 2023). Hypothetically, if MoH mortality data were inflated from, for example, an underlying value of 2–4 deaths per 1000, it would imply that UNRWA staff mortality risk is 2·0–3·9 times higher than that of the public. This scenario is unlikely as many UNRWA staff deaths occurred at home or in areas with high civilian populations, such as in schools or shelters.
Mortality reporting is difficult to conduct in ongoing conflicts. Initial news reports might be imprecise, and subsequent verified reports might undercount deaths that are not recorded by hospitals or morgues, such as persons buried under rubble (appendix pp 1–2). However, difficulties obtaining accurate mortality figures should not be interpreted as intentionally misreported data.
Although valid mortality counts are important, the situation in Gaza is severe, with high levels of civilian harm and extremely restricted access to aid. Efforts to dispute mortality reporting should not distract from the humanitarian imperative to save civilian lives by ensuring appropriate medical supplies, food, water, and fuel are provided immediately.
Seeing as the death rate pretty much reflects the population rate, it’s clear that the bombing is indiscriminate. 1/3 are women. 1/3 are children. 1/3 are men.
The IDF seems to adopt the Obama Doctrine: Under Obama, Men Killed by Drones Are Presumed to Be Terrorists
Let’s not forget Julian Assange is prosecuted for exposing the American military’s indiscriminate murdering and labeling everyone they kill as terrorists. NSFL: https://youtu.be/HfvFpT-iypw?si=tnK_NxtddWHDmc37&t=280 (starts at 4:30)
“Did that even happen?
And if it did, was it that bad?
And if it was, was it that big of a deal?
And if it was, does it matter?
And if it does, did they mean it?
And if they did, didn’t the victims deserve it?”
The narcissist’s prayer is no less cowardly when you phrase it in question form.
Copy and pasteing an internet trope isn’t always useful
You can look up civilian casualties in wars
And you could look up whether or not this is a genocide: https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
If I said something factually wrong please correct me. Otherwise let’s leave the ad hominem attacks unsaid.
Well, first of all is the idea that this level of destruction is in any way normal in war.
Take a look at this chart here. Those date ranges in the chart have some of the bloodiest conflict in each war, and yet on any given day only a handful of children would die.
Israel is killing an average of almost 150 children per day.
That’s why we’re calling it a genocide.
An ad hominem would be “you are wrong because you are a coward”. My statement was in effect “you are wrong and you are a coward”.
You could call it an insult, although I would say it was a generous term for someone who offers up mealy mouthed equivocations over the wholesale slaughter of civilians from the air by a nuclear power.
You didn’t say much that was wrong; you didn’t say much at all. You were just asking questions.
Not only Urban warfare but a terrorist regime that is actively using its own civilians as human shields.
Yes that’s right they were, unsure what that has to do with the above.
Military friendly fire incidents are also incredibly high in most conflicts.
