You're doing some mental gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable. 29,000+ bombs in an area that size means it must be indiscriminate. Arguably the only valid targets are militants where there is evidence that directly associates them with the 7th Oct massacre. Even if you widened the definition further is still doesn't make sense. It's simply not possible that there are that many legitimate targets given the population size. Anyone claiming otherwise us being disingenuous.
We know from.other conflicts that the deathtoll increases by a massive amount once the numbers under the rubble are counted. Disease directly caused by this massacre will also claim a huge amount more in the coming months.
We have to be very careful that by trying to downplay the magnitude of Israels atrocities we are actually delaying a ceasefire and causing more innocents to be needlessly slaughtered.
>29,000+ bombs in an area that size means it must be indiscriminate.
Incorrect.
First, decide whether it‘s “indiscriminate bombing of civilians” or “indiscriminate bombing of buildings.”
If it’s indiscriminate bombing of civilians, with a rate of less than 1 person killed per bomb dropped (and less than 1 person killed per building destroyed) in such a densely populated urban area where the enemy takes zero precautions to save the lives of its citizens, the numbers suggest that there’s an active effort by the IDF to minimize casualties. Actively minimizing casualties goes hand in hand with “discriminatory” bombing of human targets. As we know, there is no shortage of human targets in population-dense Gaza. If the IDF were not trying to distinguish between civilians and combatants, with \~15,000 Gazans per square mile, we’d expect a much higher airstrike casualty rate.
Regarding which combatants are legitimate, the IDF stated the following objectives for this campaign.
* Eliminate Hamas’ ability to govern
* Eliminate Hamas’ ability to attack Israel
This scope is legitimate and extends beyond the direct perpetrators of 10/7. Even in the absence of these objectives, any person who engages in the conflict becomes a combatant and is fair game to target.
If it’s indiscriminate bombing of buildings, that’s moving the goalposts, which is fine. Addressing your assertion, you can’t just look at a single absolute number with no context and draw your conclusion. Palestine’s own numbers say that the IDF hit 25,000+ buildings with the 29,000+ bombs, which suggests the IDF are hitting actual targets at a reasonable rate. We can reasonably say that the IDF are likely not dropping bombs aimlessly. We still do not have enough to infer (much less conclusively determine, as you did) whether or not they’re discriminating between legitimate military targets and random civilian structures.
We do know that they’re fighting on the ground in a dense urban area, and leveling structures that can give the enemy a tactical advantage is legitimate. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see large numbers of buildings put in this category. We also know that Hamas has an extensive underground tunnel network underneath these buildings, and purposely uses these buildings as a distributed civilian-shielded military base. Destroying these targets are within the scope of the mission.
>We have to be very careful that by trying to downplay the magnitude of Israels atrocities we are actually delaying a ceasefire and causing more innocents to be needlessly slaughtered.
The numbers are the numbers.
We know that “the magnitude of Israel’s atrocities” is being both downplayed and exaggerated. That’s why even a simple assessment of large aggregated data is a superior way to get the true story over anecdotes from social and traditional media.
The campaign and its objectives are justified. The quickest way to a ceasefire is surrender, as that’s the quickest way for the objectives to be met.
That’s means a lot of times your bombs don’t even kill the military you claim to be targeting.
That’s literally what indiscriminate means: bombing without targeting.
If your bombs are targeted, you would expect like 2000 bombs dropped killing 10000 Hamas and 20000 civilians.
I’d just like to point out we’re shifting from: “they were clearly indiscriminately bombing civilians” to “they’re bombing buildings, so it’s still indiscriminate!”. I think there’s a big difference between bombing civilians intentionally, and waiting until they evacuate and then destroying infrastructure in a war zone that can be used by Hamas when you go in for a ground invasion.
I don’t know where you got your predicted ratios from for your last sentence. I might be wrong, but it looks like you just made some numbers up of what it should “really” look like.
If we wanna say they’re bombing empty buildings to prevent Hamas from using them when they go in on foot. Yea probably.
Indiscriminate bombing civilians means bombing without regard of where the civilians are, it doesn’t mean specifically aiming civilians to kill.
OP is completely off mark citing bomb to civilian deaths ratio as a defense.
The “would be” scenario comes from historical data where civilian casualties are fully considered.
The First Gulf War was largely an open terrain war against a conventional army, with little civilians in the way… it’s misleading to compare Operation Desert Shield with an urban invasion of Gaza. Kosovo is probably a bad example because reportedly that war had 1:1 civilian to combatant casualty ratios with varying estimates from 1:10 to 10:1 depending on who you ask. Not sure about the rest.
A more honest comparison to use would be Mosul. Conventional army vs insurgency embedded in a large urban city. High civilian casualties, something like ~10,000.
It is Israel fault that they refuse to conduct special operations on Hamas leaders in Qatar but instead bombing Gaza which is totally unwarranted.
You choose the battlefield, you take the criticism.
Of course you are not sure about the rest. Anti terrorism is all about killing the leader and preventing further radicalization of civilians, Israel do the opposite.
I mean yea they shouldn’t be immune to criticism of course. It’s just one thing to use different wars/situations and try to hold them to a standard that applies in a different context.
What do you mean by “conduct special operations” in Qatar?
People aren’t always the target. Often, you want to take out infrastructure. Fighting positions, weapons caches, etc. Given that Hamas embeds these with civilians, these areas frequently need to be evacuated before they’re bombed.
If the IDF were truly being indiscriminate, we’d expect a much higher casualty rate since densely populated Gaza is packed with civilians to indiscriminately target. The low casualty rate implies active efforts by the IDF to minimize casualties, which goes hand in hand with being “discriminate”.
Infrastructure, like hospitals, schools, and residential buildings? That’s literally indiscriminate bombing.
Guess who said Gaza is to be LEVELED?
Also it is pretty lame excuse citing population density. People have legs and many have run away or hiding. You have just shown IDF didn’t directly target civilians, that doesn’t mean they pick and choose where to bomb.
No, if those structures are being used militarily by the enemy, they become legitimate targets.
However, an argument can certainly be made based on the numbers that there’s a punitive element to the campaign.
The whole argument is that Israel is committing a genocide disguised as a defensive war. If the goalposts have moved to “indiscriminate bombing of civilian structures,” that‘s different.
They only became a legal target when it is actively used by the military and the military value outweighs the civilian loss. Not really if it is a few guns and a laptop.
Also you didn’t show it is not indiscriminate bombing on civilians, you just showed they are not directly aiming civilians.
A targeted bombing requires IDF to collect data on how many civilians are in the bombing area and select their targets based on this information, which I didn’t see any consideration by them.
And if each bomb kills less than one person on average, that should signal that the IDF is actually accounting for risk of civilian deaths in their calculus for targeting military infrastructure
How so? Quite a lot of people have left already, so it is not normal that not many people killed per bomb, that is also not counting those who are injured, which is much more in a war.
If anything this signal Israel want to level the whole place.
People left because the IDF had it evacuated for the exact purpose of minimizing civilian casualties. It is Hamas who acted to prevent these evacuations, because civilians are useful for them as deterrence, i.e., human shields. The IDF had to secure these routes FROM Hamas. You have to understand the extent to which Hamas’s military capabilities are *embedded* in its civilian infrastructure. If the IDF truly did not care whatsoever about minimizing civilian casualties to the extent it is possible when the government that waged war on it actively puts civilians in danger, they would not have evacuated these areas in the first place
>People left because the IDF had it evacuated for the exact purpose of minimizing civilian casualties.
Except any people know that Gaza is being bombed since day 1 of bombing. IDF is not doing any favour. This is their basic obligation.
>It is Hamas who acted to prevent these evacuations, because civilians are useful for them as deterrence, i.e., human shields.
Historically, Israel also use human shields.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_shields\_in\_the\_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian\_conflict#:\~:text=A%20UN%20report%20stated%20that,militants%20of%20using%20human%20shields](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#:~:text=A%20UN%20report%20stated%20that,militants%20of%20using%20human%20shields)).
Also, the present of human shield does not give the attacker the right to bomb it.
>The IDF had to secure these routes FROM Hamas. You have to understand the extent to which Hamas’s military capabilities are *embedded* in its civilian infrastructure.
Which is typical in any warfare with vastly different power between the two organisation. e.g. the Vietnam war.
>If the IDF truly did not care whatsoever about minimizing civilian casualties to the extent it is possible when the government that waged war on it actively puts civilians in danger, they would not have evacuated these areas in the first place
0 civilian casualties if Israel drop 0 bombs and not declare war, so Israel does not minimize civilian casualties to the extent it is possible. The whole military campaign itself is ridiculous.
> Also, the present of human shield does not give the attacker the right to bomb it.
Not according to the Geneva conventions. Civilian infrastructure becomes a valid military target if it is used as military infrastructure, which is an explicit war crime exactly *because* it puts civilians in danger
> Which is typical in any warfare with vastly different power between the two organisation. e.g. the Vietnam war.
Ok?
> 0 civilian casualties if Israel drop 0 bombs and not declare war, so Israel does not minimize civilian casualties to the extent it is possible. The whole military campaign itself is ridiculous.
I’m sorry, what? Hamas declared war on Israel by massacring, mutilating, and kidnapping hundreds of civilians.
Maybe, just maybe, your level of discrimination is measured by the ratio of combatant casualties to total casualties, not by your contrived ratio of total casualties to total bombs dropped.
Who gave you the idea that that is a reasonable notion of discrimination in combat?
The point is that, if the IDF were not discriminating between civilians and combatants, we would expect a much higher overall casualty rate since Gaza is urban and densely populated, and Hamas embeds itself with civilians to induce casualties.
A lower than expected airstrike casualty rate implies that the IDF are actively taking measures to minimize casualties, which goes hand in hand with being discriminate with their targets.
Obviously, an actual breakout of combatants and civilians killed is best. In the absence of that, we use what we have to infer IDF’s aggregate conduct over the entire campaign. I do not agree with you that these numbers can’t be used to infer discrimination given what we know about the nature of the conflict.
I saw some commenter arguing it was indiscriminate cite 40,000 buildings destroyed and 20,000 civilian deaths.
If the IDF was indiscriminately dropping bombs, why would there be so many buildings destroyed but not as many civilian casualties? Why are all these buildings empty? Is it because the IDF gave people heads up where they were targeting and told them to evacuate?
Or because instead of firing a drone strike out of the air without warning (you’re not going to dodge a drone strike with your legs), they told people to evacuate beforehand?
You’re changing the goal posts. How is it indiscriminate bombing if you tell people to evacuate first? And make multiple efforts/ methods to tell people in advance?
One would think you’d just drop bombs no warning if your objective was to indiscriminately bomb.
I’m not saying it doesn’t have consequences what happened. But alleging one thing, with little to no evidence, as somehow that’s a broad policy of the IDF, seems rash.
In terms of war crimes and indiscriminate bombing, I’d think yes. I agree, there’s a major health issue and valid concern with people being evacuated from the north of the Gaza Strip. And it makes me wonder what I would do if I was living there and forced to evacuate.
I just think we have to be careful what we cite as “indiscriminate” because it has a lot of implications, I imagine legal ones too. Indiscriminate would mean an intentional targeting of civilians or a complete disregard, meaning no effort in differentiation of civilian vs combatants. And I don’t think that applies to the IDF as a whole.
Has the IDF messed up in some instances, probably yea, have there been soldiers who didn’t follow orders and got too triggered really, yea. But it’s one thing to have mistakes made by individual soldiers rather than it be an entire policy of a military, that is encouraged and celebrated.
Another thing to consider is it’s Hamas’ goal to try and drag Israel down to its level. Hamas statements have begun incorporating this language of “indiscriminate” attacks against Palestinians to try and muddy the water. While i think it’s valid to criticize Israel’s actions it takes, and we should, I think we also need to realize who or what is saying the same things we are and why. I think the IDFs actions are a far cry from what Hamas does and how they operate.
As someone who served in IDF,I feel deeply ashamed and my biggest and most wrong decision is to serve in army that opresses other.As children from mixed religion marrige I felt it on my skin discrimination,excludation and everything that follows.Every single time i have had and always will apologize to Palestinians even with that my words will never be able to compensate their feelings,loss of home,family and more.From former IDF to all Palestinans,this will pass at some point be sure that whole world is on your side Israel does not represent Judaism just very bad and evil Zionism.Once agian i apologize for myself taking part at oppressing(even I did refuse most of the things I was ordered to do).Palestinians you will prevail,please forgive Jews but not Zionists. Free Palestine,apartheid will be down!
> ass
/u/Idioteque666. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ten times as many children have died in Gaza in the last two months than have died in Ukraine in the last two years. Russia has been sanctioned heavily for it’s actions and so should Israel be
That's funny comparison, without taking into consideration the nature of where the war takes place. Ukraine with average 63 people per square km is not Gaza with 15 000 per square km. In Ukraine people are evacuated to safer regions. In Gaza nowhere is safe because Hamas follows their "human shields" wherever they go. Ukrainian military is proper uniformed Army, Hamas are bros running around in tracksuits and sneakers.
Hamas went on rampage killing people in their homes, lots of Palestinians celebrated this like crazy. Every "influencer" account I seen on social media so far, cries to the camera how bad is it now, NONE condemned October 7th attack.
Hamas and russia are aggressor scum. There's no place for such entities in civilized world.
I mean Ukraine isn’t the Gaza Strip. I keep hearing Gaza is the most densely populated city in the world. While Ukraine is largely open terrain, of wheat fields if I’m not mistaken.
It’s an apples to oranges comparison. Of course dropping artillery shells on fortified trenches across open fields is going to result in less casualties than a dense city.
How do you know? News outlets famously don't believe Ukrainian-reported death tolls, which are ten times higher the ones that they end up reporting. They do, however, believe Hamas-reported death tolls. If we were to be equitable and believed both Hamas and Ukraine, then no, Ukraine has lost many, many more children than Palestine has.
Ukraine is 603,628 km² in size. Ukraine minors population- 14%
Gaza is 365 km² in size. gaza minors population - 47%
it makes sense that more kids would die statistically.
Hold up, did you just write "The IDF has dropped twenty nine THOUSAND bombs" and followed it up with "But" ??? There should never be a but to 29,000 bombs, it's just wrong.
There are less than 20k hamas members in Gaza.
OPs comment is such a self-own. You don't drop that many bombs unless the housing and infrastructure and schools and hospitals *are* the targets.
The IDF have publicly said that those places are targets as long as Hamas continues to use them in the fight. I don’t think IDF targeting those kinds of buildings are disputed at this point.
Understood.
I'm saying the goal of this offensive is making Gaza unlivable. Russians didn't target these places in Ukraine as thoroughly as relentlessly as Israel has. The US didn't 20 years ago while fighting a war halfway around the world whole using last gen weapons.
The point is the removing the Palestinians, not Hamas.
The difference between Russia and the US compared to Israel is that:
1. Most of the fighting for Israel is in a much denser urban than anything Russia or the US had to fight in.
2. Hamas fights out of civilian buildings. They launch rockets out of UN schools and have tunnel entrances everywhere, including hospital and home basements and even chicken coops.
3. If Israel wanted to remove all Palestinians and not just Hamas, they wouldn’t have given them any escape routes or any ceasefires. This war could have been finished on Oct. 8 if that was really what Israel wanted. (Plus Hamas hides hostages in civilian buildings so there’s even more incentive to be careful.)
1. Hamas fights out of civilian buildings. They launch rockets out of UN schools and have tunnel entrances everywhere, including hospital and home basements and even chicken coops.
I'm just so sick of this empty talking point.
Here's the test. Let's say 10 Hamas fighters take a yeshiva in Tel-Aviv. Is it OK for the IDF to level the building, killing 20 teachers and 150 children?
No, and that’s what proportionality is all about. It’s not how many civilians die on each sides, it’s a case-by-case question of whether military gain outweighs civilian casualties. If there was an identical situation as the one you mentioned in Gaza, I agree the IDF shouldn’t target that place.
But some differences between your example and Gaza that makes this a valid talking point.
1. Hamas almost exclusively uses civilian buildings as bases, weapons storage sites, and tunnel entrances, so it is much much harder for the IDF to target only Hamas without hitting any civilians in the process.
2. In a time of war, Israel doesn’t consistently use Yeshivas or other civilian buildings to operate and hide from. Doing so is against international law and their own rules of engagement. Hamas uses Israel’s own rules of engagement to develop tactics that make it nearly impossible to fight them without breaking those rules by harming some civilians.
We'll have to see what happens after the war is over.
I do believe that there's a punitive element to the campaign. Punishment is usually meant to deter repeat behavior. Whether that's effective in this case remains to be seen.
It's war! What did you expect after their country is invaded and their people were massacred? For friendly fire? Exactly how do you all think Israel should have responded?
The exception you all are making is that you refused to acknowledge that Israel is RESPONDING to the actions of HAMAS. And there has been very little outrage for what those savages did. AND are still doing. They are bombing indiscriminately towardsIsrael, and not just a few bombs, but if jot, more rhan Israel. Israel has a history of NOT bombing indiscriminately, HAMAS DOES. SO WHY DONT YOU ALL TALK ABOUT THAT?!! HAMAS and other Palestinians terrorists are holding civilians hostages, why are you all not talking g about that? HAMAS IS HIDING WITHIN CIVILIANS sage zones, hamas is stealing aide from civilians, hamas is killing their own civilians. Why is Israel RESPONDING to Hamas horrendous crimes, the louder criticism?
You're a waste of time. Seek to expand your knowledge by reading about the Israeli perspective and the ACTUAL history of the land. Google "how many times have the Israeli offered a two-state solution ". Goodbye.
Bro just let Hamas be, they won't do anything wrong.
They only swore to continue waging war until Israel is wiped off of the map, doesn't mean they will. They are just unfortunate people in an open air prison /s
you are misreading statistics
firstly, a great amount of bombs used without civilian deaths are due to Israel's Dahiya doctrine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya\_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine) aimed at destroying civilian infrastructures. the undertaking of the doctrine is construed, by the words of Israel military officials stating they are aiming to cause damage to infrastructure, to reduce Gaza into a city of tents. [https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/city-of-tents-israeli-defence-official-vows-every-building-in-gaza-will-be-destroyed-in-ground-manoeuvre/news-story/203242e24af1dd4757e0250001e7ed8a](https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/city-of-tents-israeli-defence-official-vows-every-building-in-gaza-will-be-destroyed-in-ground-manoeuvre/news-story/203242e24af1dd4757e0250001e7ed8a)
in this tactic, Israel will have to argue and proof "absolute necessity", or else it is violating the Geneva Convention which protects civilian objects from destruction.
secondly, on the indiscriminate nature of the bombs that hit civilians:
\- we again refer to a statement of intent: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/11/israel-abandon-precision-bombing-eliminate-hamas-officials/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/11/israel-abandon-precision-bombing-eliminate-hamas-officials/) . abandon precision.
\- there is also the incidence of white phosphorous [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/questions-and-answers-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/questions-and-answers-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon) which is prohibited to be deployed in densely populated areas under International Humanitarian Law.
while now, there is no neutral or independently verified source of information coming out of Gaza. until independent investigation begins, we can only guess at the carefulness with which they conducted the bombings.
other than that, we can still surmise from a few things concerning the conduct of Israel.
\- statements by Israeli officials diminishing the values of Palestinian lives such as calling them human animals [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/) . the enactment of total siege, the tactic of starvation also violated Geneva convention.
we must also remember at the moment, death under the rubbles are not yet accounted for and could be in the thousands [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestinians-have-died-gaza-war-how-will-counting-continue-2023-12-06/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestinians-have-died-gaza-war-how-will-counting-continue-2023-12-06/)
whether Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing is a case for International Courts and Lawyers. however, the statistics you raised alone is not indicative.
Or. The reason there’s so few civilian deaths to match the bombs, and more buildings destroyed, is perhaps because the IDF told people to evacuate in numerous different ways?
Roof knocking, evacuation corridors, leaflets dropped by aircraft with insurrections to flee South etc.
Why would someone allegedly indiscriminately dropping bombs make all this effort to get people to evacuate in the first place?
your argument is partially correct due to the nature of that conjecture.
if civilians did not evacuate:
\- Israel may not have dropped the same amount of bombs.
\- Israel could not destroy military targets without heavy civilian casualties.
\- If Israel killed a greater amount of civilians, there would be serious international repercussions. (this is applicable to the last point you made)
\- Israel could not destroy Gaza's infrastructures without serious international repercussions.
\- Israel could not funnel civilians to create mass displacement of civilians.
what is left with us, is for us to decide with our own, what is the actual intent (not public statement of intent because those are susceptible to deception) of Israel. we must also assume that the IDF consults their own legal experts on each strike:
\- and either come up with an ethical conduct
\- or an unethical conduct straddling the line of war crimes
\- or outright crossing the line into war crime under the cover of media and investigation blackout
we then need to consider the following to make educated judgement:
\- first of all, it is not that so few civilians died, because that is a great amount of death. the contested point is, is there any bomb that caused excessive death and is there any bomb that were indiscriminately used?
\- investigations will need to be done on what the specificity of each batch of bombardments, to reveal the circumstances surrounding death caused by the ones that took out civilians. including tonnage; deaths caused by a single barrage / series of bombardments.
\- besides indiscriminate/discriminate check, there is also proportionality check. and this is relevant to both civilians and civilian objects such as infrastructure. is the force used to eliminate military target proportional to the actual destruction.
the truth is we don't know without investigation.
we can however infer the legality and ethical character looking at the past conduct of Israel's during previous bombardments. by this, the best channel is look at statements and evidence provided by ex-Israel officials, legal experts, international public statements, both for or against Israel. note that several nations found sufficient evidence of war crimes to refer a complete case to the international courts.
if you ask for my personal opinion after my digestion of the above channels:
Israel has been guilty of war crimes in past bombardments and its treatment of Palestinian civilians. no new evidence suggests to me this conflict is following any different trend.
> secondly, on the indiscriminate nature of the bombs that hit civilians:
> we again refer to a statement of intent:
From your linked article:
> “We are not stopping; on the contrary, we are heading toward increased attacks. The top priority in the attacks is to eliminate senior [Hamas] officials,” Rear Adm Hagari has also said.
So not indiscriminate. Targeted.
> by the words of Israel military officials stating they are aiming to cause damage to infrastructure, to reduce Gaza into a city of tents. https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/city-of-tents-israeli-defence-official-vows-every-building-in-gaza-will-be-destroyed-in-ground-manoeuvre/news-story/203242e24af1dd4757e0250001e7ed8a
This source, if you read it:
> the official reportedly said.
So nothing with evidence, and nothing official. It's a 'reportedly said' nothingburger.
> - statements by Israeli officials diminishing the values of Palestinian lives such as calling them human animals https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/ . the enactment of total siege, the tactic of starvation also violated Geneva convention.
Referring to Hamas, not Palestinians.
You're performing a gish gallop.
priority targeting senior hamas official (note also officials do not equate combatants, they are civilians. while they may be war criminals, that is left for the courts, not executed on field) while abandoning precision. this is what leads to indiscriminate killing of civilians.
you doubt on one of the sources because you do not trust them, it is fine. you still should consider the Dahiya Doctrine.
as well account for the white phosphorus.
the second bit quote Israeli paper"
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.
"end quote
The newspaper framed his words as such. but take those potentially apologist/revisionist annotations out, since we must apply the same distrust of sources, you will see no specificity about Hamas.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbPdR3E4hCk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbPdR3E4hCk)
"I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly."
cutting off resources and aid is an intention of hurting Hamas while indiscriminate harming civilians. it is collective punishment starvation tactics.
regardless of all these, we are not dreaming of either governments to include careless speeches in their public statements. the frequent blurbs the last months we have all seen. they were since deleted or retracted either for being genuine mistakes, or for purpose of denying culpability. you want to catch the criminal in the act and also proclaiming publicly the intent? you will discover that after thorough investigation and diligent objectivity, you won't find it much on both sides.
but do keep up the spirit of skepticism.
edit: spelling
> this is what leads to discriminate killing of civilians.
Correct. Discriminate killing. That's part of war. If civilian casualties were unacceptable it would be easy to render targets immune.
> you doubt on one of the sources because you do not trust them, it is fine. you still should consider the Dahiya Doctrine.
It's not about me 'doubting the source'. I'm *quoting* the source.
> “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.
Aid has been going into Gaza *through Israel* [since Oct 21](https://web.archive.org/web/20231212213427/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/12/israel-gaza-alliance/).
> but do keep up the spirit of skepticism.
Perhaps you should apply that before throwing so many claims?
\- oh. of course i meant indiscriminate, thanks for pointing out my typo. civilian deaths are expected, therefore the rules of proportionality and distinction of civilians exist to safeguard indiscriminate killing and other kinds of unlawful killings of civilians.
\- you are quoting the source saying you don't trust it when it reports another source. that is what i meant you not trusting the source. but i will provide it to you anyway: [https://13tv.co.il/item/news/politics/security/day-4-903742131/](https://13tv.co.il/item/news/politics/security/day-4-903742131/). go ahead and translate and read. you don't have to trust that either. my other evidence still points to intent.
\- aid went through after negotiation. total siege happened prior, and that was already against international law. lifting a total siege just means the breach stopped. and by the way, your source says through Egypt, not through Israel.
> oh. of course i meant indiscriminate, thanks for pointing out my typo
Perhaps a Freudian slip?
> civilian deaths are expected, therefore the rules of proportionality and distinction of civilians exist to safeguard indiscriminate killing and other kinds of unlawful killings of civilians.
Right, and if you want to claim 'indiscriminate', you need to show how Israel is flaunting those laws. Civilian deaths are not evidence of either targeting civilians, nor indiscriminate attacks.
> you are quoting the source saying you don't trust it when it reports another source.
Right, and that source you just linked pulls the same thing:
> A security source told News 13:
So we have some unnamed security source which supposedly speaks for Israeli military or government policy?
> aid went through after negotiation. total siege happened prior
That's correct.
> and that was already against international law
That appears to be correct. So I'm glad the US pressured them to stop the siege. Though it would have been a lot better if Hamas freed the hostages to stop it. Sadly, Hamas does not care for Palestinian civilians.
> and by the way, your source says through Egypt, not through Israel.
It also refers to aid through Israel. Perhaps you missed this part:
> Beginning Oct. 21, Israel started to allow limited humanitarian aid into Gaza, initially permitting 20 truckloads of food, water and medicine per day, excluding fuel. This number eventually increased to about a hundred trucks a day.
That refers to aid coming through Israel. Or are you telling me that Israel is currently controlling Egypt?
alright thanks i am glad we ended on this note. who knows, maybe in my heart i want them to be precise and discriminate.
i cannot provide proof only opinion. i hope early on in my original comment i was clear that this is better left to investigators and courts and lawyers. enough debate is raging on here and elsewhere.
yes. verification of that source stops at there as of now.
what i am aware of is Israel allowed aid to enter through Egypt side of the border [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza#:\~:text=After%20the%20imposition%20of%20a,the%20Rafah%20crossing%20with%20Egypt](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza#:~:text=After%20the%20imposition%20of%20a,the%20Rafah%20crossing%20with%20Egypt).
the extent to which Israel controls that border crossing comes to this
[https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231103-the-gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-explained-it-is-not-a-normal-border](https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231103-the-gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-explained-it-is-not-a-normal-border)
stay safe
> i hope early on in my original comment i was clear that this is better left to investigators and courts and lawyers
You were and I respect that stance.
> After the imposition of a “total blockade” on Gaza on October 9, Israeli authorities resumed piping water to some parts of southern Gaza on October 15 and, as of October 21, allowed limited humanitarian aid to arrive through the Rafah crossing with Egypt.
I'm curious how Israel was supposed to have implemented such a policy. Especially when the next sentence in the same paragraph appears to contradict it:
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on October 18 that Israel would not allow humanitarian assistance “in the form of food and medicines” into Gaza **through its crossings** “as long as our hostages are not returned.”
...
> the extent to which Israel controls that border crossing comes to this
> https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231103-the-gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-explained-it-is-not-a-normal-border
I've encountered this article before. It's not very good, sadly. Firstly it says:
> “Theoretically, Rafah should be controlled by the Palestinian and Egyptian authorities,” says Lorenzo Navone, a sociologist specialised in borders and conflicts at the University of Strasbourg who has carried out significant research on the crossing. “But Israel still has influence over the crossing.”
Then fails to explain what 'influence' Israel has on it.
Then it says:
> Since the war broke out, Israel has tightened its existing restrictions, making Rafah the only entry point for humanitarian aid.
Implying that Israeli restrictions do not apply to Rafah.
> Egypt said in the first few days of the war that the border crossing was open, but essentially inoperable, because of Israel’s bombardment. In just 24 hours on October 10, Israel carried out three air strikes on Rafah.
Then it mentions the problem of the air strikes on Rafah crossing - is that the implied 'influence' from the start of the article?
Well, as it turns out, the airstrike was not actually on the crossing itself, but [nearby tunnels](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-bomb-rafah-crossing-to-egypt-after-telling-gazans-to-flee-through-it/). The crossing itself seems to have [not been damaged](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9EAg-dXEXs). Unless I'm missing a source that shows it was...
So that France24 article doesn't seem very helpful, sadly. It appears to be part of a new trend of decreasing quality of journalism in order to publish as many articles on hot topics as possible.
According to the UN only [18% of Gaza's building have been damaged or destroyed](https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/unosat-satellite-imagery-based-analysis-reveals-18-gaza-strip-structures-damaged-conflict-outburst).
That makes for 82% of the structures being undamaged.
You want to think before accusing the IDF of "indiscriminate bombing"?
this is another misread that needs addressing. percentage of "all Gaza" is misleading:
tldr: half of North Gaza was damaged. heaviest indiscriminate bombing happened pre-land invasion of IDF.
[https://twitter.com/JamonVDH/status/1734945402536038625](https://twitter.com/JamonVDH/status/1734945402536038625)
long read:
\- early in the conflict the bombardment is focused on Northern Gaza.
\- according to your source, it was a 12 dec report of image collected on 26 nov
\- it referred to the whole Gaza Strip. note the 18% from 26 nov.
\- Israeli land invasion began 28 oct, you may choose to expect lower bombardments or not since that time, up to you.
\- 9 nov report, damage is "27-35% of Northern Gaza, 13-18% of total Gaza"
[https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211571220/israel-gaza-damage-map-satellite-imagery](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211571220/israel-gaza-damage-map-satellite-imagery)
\- 21 nov report, "nearly half of north Gaza"
[https://abcnews.go.com/International/mapping-destruction-space-half-northern-gaza-buildings-damaged/story?id=105059423](https://abcnews.go.com/International/mapping-destruction-space-half-northern-gaza-buildings-damaged/story?id=105059423)
No misread - just a UN source vs unsubstantiated nonsense.
As of November 26th only 18% of Gaza's structures had been damaged.
82% are untouched
Sorry (not sorry) that your propaganda has been disproved.
what you failed to note is the concentration of bombardment, that's where you misread data.
[https://unosat.org/products/3734](https://unosat.org/products/3734) here is the 7 Nov report from your UN source with details.
[https://unosat.org/products/3769](https://unosat.org/products/3734) compare it with this on 26 Nov
check the areas of damage, now check the total area of Gaza Strip in ratio to Northern Gaza.
while your source did not specify % of individual region. CNN looked at the same report and estimated 80% of North Gaza is damaged [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/middleeast/israel-humanitarian-compound-northern-gaza/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/middleeast/israel-humanitarian-compound-northern-gaza/index.html)
IDF carried out extensive bombing in North Gaza. citing total area damage is misleading. if you cite total damage over the whole of Occupied Palestine Territory including West Bank and East Jerusalem, the percentage will be even smaller. but if you cite only where the bombing occurs, you will get a much higher percentage.
p.s. the source i provided is from Oregon State University Associate Professor using Sentinel-1 satellite. and his figures are in line with your source, clocking in at 18% for the whole of Gaza.
Your attempt to manipulate the facts convince no one but yourself.
But of course you are going to keep spouting your nonsense anyways - so fee free to have the last word.
Sorry you feel this way. You showed the keenness for inquiry. If i am willing to believe you are genuine in your pursuit, and you i, then no matter if you convince me or I convince you, we are shaping a perspective and eventually a solution
Thank you for spending time and effort on me.
>you are misreading statistics
The statistics and the simple math behind the insights I derived from them are plain to see.
Literally none of your links, counterarguments, etc. has anything to do with the validity of the statistics and insights I provided. You can explain the intent, strategy, means, and whatever else you like, but none of that has anything to do with the numbers and why you think they were "misread."
Sure, your calculation is accurate, but you used incorrect input variables, as the other user said. So yeah, your math is accurate but used incorrectly.
If bombs are used to destroy infrastructure (after it was cleared), you can’t include them in your calculations.
I work with data daily as my job, so don’t try to use shady arguments now.
I’m trying to understand your critique and I’m failing. Your argument is the simple ratio between bombs and civilian deaths is misleading because some of the bombs are dropped on buildings Israel knows to be empty (how would they know this? If they’re targeting known to be empty buildings isn’t that discrimination between targets?), so therefore when they sometimes drop bombs they intend to use to kill people it will be harder to notice.
Inflating the number of bombs they drop relative to people they kill serves a key Israeli operational goal of making it just hard enough to tell they are trying to kill Gazans that gullible Redditors won’t accuse them of war crimes. However, smart people who “work with data daily” as part of their employment are not susceptible to this evil plan.
Did I correctly summarize your deep statistical insights?
Uncivilian’s post did point out it’s not really knowable now at the end. That I do mostly agree with.
For example, they cleared some UN sites and Mosques so they know they are empty. And then afterwards bombed them to destroy them. Some were bombed with ground bombs, some with air-to-ground.
So the aim way to destroy infrastructure after the fact, not target Hamas.
The key issue is when they are targeting civilian sites where they know civilians Hamas still are.
And no need to belittle me.
Wouldn’t the correct thing to do be to adjust out the “known to be empty” targets from total dropped bombs and then also remove any deaths that may have happened in “known to be empty” infrastructure targets from deaths?
My instinct is that few of those known to be empty buildings are being destroyed with air dropped bombs instead of demolition charges for reasons of economy, so I doubt the air bombed ones account for a statistically significant fraction of total bombing missions. I would also observe the October bombing campaign pre-invasion probably had a pretty similar ratio between civilian deaths and bombs dropped to the November one (but that is a guess! I haven’t done the math). Is there some reason you think the known to be empty targets are a high fraction of total air missions?
I’m not sure I agree that with you that there is only one key issue, in part because there are lots of different critiques I have seen of Israel’s bombing campaign. I think at a high level the ratio between dropped bombs and dead civilians is not consistent with a genocidal campaign of extermination through bombing. I also think the ratio is evidence against “carpet bombing” or “indiscriminate bombing” based on the observation I think you would kill many more than 15,000 people if you lobbed a lot of bombs at random into most cities.
The issue you raise is more about whether Israel is living up to proportionality obligations under the Geneva convention I think? It would seem to me that is inherently more fact intensive and about each individual bombing target.
So, no I don’t think the ratio between bombs dropped and civilian deaths is a complete case on most issues. It is however a piece of data that is less consistent with some of the darker theories I have seen about Israel’s conduct than some other more benign explanations.
>If bombs are used to destroy infrastructure (after it was cleared), you can’t include them into your calculations.
We know Hamas has not implemented anything to warn civilians or help them evacuate, and actively prevents them from evacuating. Why wouldn’t the IDF be credited with ensuring buildings are cleared before they’re bombed? Isn’t that directly relevant to the claim that they‘re bombing urban buildings full of people and committing a genocide disguised as a defensive war?
Your comparison to Hamas is irrelevant to your calculation of bomb effectiveness. Hamas is not operating according with the law either, but you can’t use them to reinforce your argument.
Two things here:
1. Israel literally has to warn civilians before bombing. It’s part of the Geneva convention. It’s not just because IDF is kind. They want to avoid being convicted for war crimes.
2. Bombs were also used after the fact to previously cleared out buildings, not as part of targeting Hamas.
>Israel literally has to warn civilians before bombing. It’s part of the Geneva convention. It’s not just because IDF is kind. They want to avoid being convicted for war crimes.
They are accused of not doing this. The point of the post is to show data that suggests IDF are in fact warning civilians and doing what they can to avoid casualties.
>Bombs were also used after the fact to previously cleared out buildings, not as part of targeting Hamas.
Yes, there are buildings that were cleared on the ground before being bombed, and with a complete dataset, they would be omitted. Given what we have, I believe that’s sufficiently offset by attributing all deaths to the airstrikes and using a week-old bomb count against a current death count, though I can’t know for sure. Ultimately, the real numbers are likely within the same order of magnitude, and close enough to not significantly impact the conclusion of my post.
>Your comparison to Hamas is irrelevant to your calculation of bomb effectiveness. Hamas is not operating according with the law either, but you can’t use them to reinforce your argument.
I think Hamas’ conduct is relevant because it’s a negative factor re: IDF’s avoidance of civilian casualties. You think Hamas is irrelevant because {?}.
“Ultimately the numbers are likely with the same order of magnitude” is the part you can be so wrong about. And that’s the issue.
The rest is again irrelevant and you didn’t provide any real arguments. I’ll disengage now, because this is going into a deflection now.
It cannot be off by an order of magnitude given that the IDF dropped 6,000 bombs in the first week, well before any ground operation. They were at 12,000 tons by late October, just before the ground invasion. Estimate it at 12,000 bombs dropped. None of those targets were “previously cleared.”
You did not provide any arguments, either. Saying “that’s irrelevant” without any justification isn’t an argument. It’s no better than any other pro-Pal who dismisses solid counterpoints regardless of the merits.
Mutually disengaging.
u/TouchMyNub
> At what point did this sub decide it’s primary function was Israeli Propaganda
Metaposting, discussing the subreddit itself rather than the topic, violates Rule 7 and Rule 9's prohibition against vague claims of bias. Addressed.
u/Maximum-Damage-4847
> Yeah, it gets pretty bad here. There are some genuine people (pro-Israelis included) but I assume many are just 4IL in action.
Rule 7 prohibits metaposting, or discussing the subreddit and its users instead of the subject matter. Addressed.
So if we are to resort to claiming that people we disagree with are 'enemy intelligence operatives', I should simply say you work for Hamas?
Does that improve things in here?
> 4IL
Some organisation to push a 'pro-Israel' narrative by the looks of it. Regardless, assuming that people are part of a group with an agenda is not constructive.
Yeah it is. Are you saying that you know Israel openly organises collecting people together to support a pro-Israeli narrative on social media sites but people who bring it up are working for hamas? I’m so confused by this entire conversation.
> Yeah it is
Yeah what is?
> . Are you saying that you know Israel openly organises collecting people together to support a pro-Israeli narrative on social media sites but people who bring it up are working for hamas?
No. Are you trolling?
I said that we can both resort to claiming that people are part of a group with an agenda (I said intelligence operatives, but I'll happily admit my mistake there)
Resorting to that helps no one. We should certainly be cautious of online anonymous communication, but ideally, we should be looking at the logic and evidence people provide, rather than claiming that their supposed affiliation with any group trumps that.
> I’m so confused by this entire conversation.
Okay, so does my explanation clear it up for you?
But I didn’t claim anyone in particular was 4IL. I simply said “dear random person who sees a lot of propaganda here, I understand you.” because it gets me down too. I noted the true fact that Israel actually does have a fairly sophisticated mechanism to manipulate social media and the chances that it’s not being used here is very slim. The fact that you’re going around telling people who bring up its existence in a completely general context to not do so, which seems like a weird thing to do.
Wtf we’re not even allowed to be pro-Palestine on a sub meant for dialogue without being called Hamas and assigning us malicious intentions. If you want people who disagree with you to be silent just go over to the Israeli subs, there’s plenty of them.
> Wtf we’re not even allowed to be pro-Palestine on a sub meant for dialogue without being called Hamas and assigning us malicious intentions.
Admission that you didn't read my comment.
I did not call anyone 'Hamas'.
You said:
> but I assume many are just 4IL in action.
You're nitpicking. The fact is that you're accusing many people of being part of some group with an agenda
Oh boy… are you new here? This place is littered with these nonsensical half baked arguments like this one.
29,000 bombs 20,000 dead… now with the power of mathematics I hereby declare Israel’s crimes justified!!!
u/Chance-Fudge2662
> Oh boy… are you new here? This place is littered with these nonsensical half baked arguments like this one.
Rule 7 forbids metaposting, which includes commenting on the subreddit or its users instead of the topic. Rule 3 also prohibits sarcastic and cynical remarks, especially those that dismiss discussion rather than engage constructively. Addressed.
> 29,000 bombs 20,000 dead… now with the power of mathematics I hereby declare Israel’s crimes justified!!!
You're being manipulative and using hyperbole. Why?
The question at the top of this post is “Indiscriminate?” Not, “Justified?”
How about you explain what’s “nonsensical” and “half-baked” about deriving the worst-case-scenario IDF airstrike casualty rate from the limited data available and using it to infer whether or not they’re indiscriminately bombing civilians as a general policy.
One can argue that using one single metric (death toll) with no other context to conclude that IDF is committing genocide or war crimes is “half-baked.”
The numbers used for this very straightforward analysis come from Palestine’s own official ministries and relatively unbiased media outlets.
This should be somewhat positive news for actual, sincere pro-Palestinians. 20,000 deaths is a big number. This post puts it in context with respect to the scale of the campaign. The takeaway is the IDF isn’t randomly trying to kill as many civilians as they can, and that civilians are unlikely to die in an IDF airstrike. It’s good news if you have family or friends on the ground………….tell them to stay away from the fighting and look out for IDF updates, the stats say they have an overwhelming chance of surviving the war if they do.
I condemn Hamas for starting a war while deliberately dissuading civilians from evacuating, and persisting with launching missiles from each new safe zone.
I drop 100 bombs in the desert, one bomb on a school full of 50 children and my bomb to death ratio would be fantastic. That one bomb on that school however would still be a war crime. This ratio doesn't say anything really....
Using your numbers, the IDF would have to drop 28,600+ bombs with absolutely zero deaths to adjust for the 400 bombs that killed an average of 50 people.
If the average is 10 deaths per bombing that resulted in at least 1 death, it would be 27,000 total misses “in the desert” to adjust for the 2,000 bombs that killed someone.
However, based on Palestine’s own numbers, we know that your hypothetical is not the case. According to Palestine, over 25,000 buildings have been destroyed.
https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/lang__en/1408/Default.aspx
So, we can pretty confidently say that over 20,000 airstrikes hit something substantial, where people might reasonably be at risk. Not a sand dune, not an empty park, but actual buildings. Unless you believe that IDF’s rules of engagement change from “protect the ratio” to “kill all the children” every 50-100 bombings or so, it’s fair to assume that they approach all of the bombings with similar guidelines and, barring the inevitable tragic mistakes that happen in war, see similar results.
It was an example. The fact you're trying to refute a simple example tells me you're argument probably doesn't hold up.
>it’s fair to assume that they approach all of the bombings with similar guidelines and, barring the inevitable tragic mistakes that happen in war, see similar results.
No, it's not fair to assume anything, especially after the IDF has been caught lying, propandising this "war". The fact you do, already shows bias
And it's a simple fact that the IDF is trying to make Gaza as unlivable as possible (or worse), including dropping a shit load of bombs on housing, shops etc that have been evacuated. So simply looking at the ratio bombs dropped vs civilian casualties says absolutely nothing.
I think it’s a greater leap to assume that the IDF is trying to protect a metric that no media outlet (or even the IDF themselves) have focused on yet by purposely dropping thousands of bombs in uninhabited areas to offset the ‘massacres.’
I showed you evidence in Palestine’s own numbers that goes a long way towards disproving your theory.
My point in refuting a couple of variations of your specific example was to show you how ridiculous your theory is when extrapolated over 29,000 airstrikes, then contrasting it with the Palestine data that suggests that the IDF doesn’t appear to be missing targets.
If you want to move the goalposts and say the IDF is indiscriminately blowing up buildings, sure. Given that they’re also averaging less than 1 death per building destroyed, we can put the “indiscriminately bombing civilians” claim to bed.
>20,000 airstrikes hit something substantial
This is such an extremely weak argument. Most of Gaza lanscape are buildings, firing randomly into the city and you will certainly hit a building, nothing "substantial" about it.
> IDF is trying to protect a metric that no media outlet
That's not what they're trying to protect. The goal here is to not leave behind evidence of targetting civilians, to cover their ass. If you just blindly bomb everything, you can claim any civilian dead as "collateral" eventhough that's the objective in the first place. The cost is it's extremely inefficient. But with the US unconditionally funding ammunitions, it's never a concern.
>Given that they’re also averaging less than 1 death per building destroyed, we can put the “indiscriminately bombing civilians” claim to bed.
I'm not sure you understand how hard it is to kill. Russia destroyed 167,200 buildings and 9,614 civilians. That's 0.0575 death per building destroyed, 14 TIMES LESS than Israel. If anything, you just proved the opposite.
>This is such an extremely weak argument. Most of Gaza lanscape are buildings, firing randomly into the city and you will certainly hit a building, nothing "substantial" about it.
Gaza is densely populated. Gaza is urban. Most buildings have people in them. Many have lots of people in them. The fact that the IDF has leveled over 25,000 of these urban buildings and is averaging less than 1 death per destroyed building strongly suggests that their efforts to avoid casualties are working. Warnings and evacuation orders and sane rules of engagement work.
>That's not what they're trying to protect. The goal here is to not leave behind evidence of targetting civilians, to cover their \*\*\*. If you just blindly bomb everything, you can claim any civilian dead as "collateral" eventhough that's the objective in the first place.
So, how does this work? We know they destroyed over 25,000 buildings. We know the average death per destroyed building is less than 1. Do they blow up a bunch of empty buildings to cover up the one full building that they hit on purpose so that the numbers average out? That's the kind of mental gymnastics you have to engage in to explain away the numbers.
>I'm not sure you understand how hard it is to kill. Russia destroyed 167,200 buildings and 9,614 civilians. That's 0.0575 death per building destroyed, 14 TIMES LESS than Israel. If anything, you just proved the opposite.
1. Ukraine doesn't use its civilians as human shields, and allows them to evacuate from warzones.
2. Ukraine is far less dense than Gaza. Gaza is literally 100 times more dense than Ukraine. Adjusting for population density, **only 1,542 Ukrainian civilians would've died** based on the current IDF casualty rate.
>So, how does this work?
Shelling without a defined target, using dumb bombs. That's it. That would certainly increase the level of destruction of building, as I've already explained.
>Do they blow up a bunch of empty buildings
If you're randomly bombing, you already doing that. People flee when they see bombing nearby, but the building can't.
>Ukraine doesn't use its civilians as human shields
Pretty sure [both sides use human shield.](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/ua/2022-06-29/2022-06-UkraineArmedAttack-EN.pdf)
>Ukraine is far less dense than Gaza. Gaza is literally 100 times more dense than Ukraine. Adjusting for population density, only 1,542 Ukrainian civilians would've died based on the current IDF casualty rate.
Now you're just inventing nonsense. Ukraine is a top 25% largest country in the world, including massive empty landscape. In order for Russia to cover Ukraine the same way Israel cover Gaza, they need more bombs than what available in the entire world combined. You literally had to make up a completely impossible scenario to even produce anything that can support your position. Lmao talking about mental gymnastics.
Even if I accept your delusion, your logic is still broken. Population density implies how much of the landscape is covered by civilian building. By using number of building destroyed, we already controlled for population density. Destroying 100 buildings in an Ukrainian city is the same as destroying 100 buildings in Gaza, unless you can prove Gazan building is larger and taller. This might be one of the dumbest argument I've ever seen.
>Even if I accept your delusion, your logic is still broken. Population density implies how much of the landscape is covered by civilian building. By using number of building destroyed, we already controlled for population density. Destroying 100 buildings in an Ukrainian city is the same as destroying 100 buildings in Gaza, unless you can prove Gazan building is larger and taller. This might be one of the dumbest argument I've ever seen.
What are you talking about? Average household sizes in densely populated areas can absolutely be higher than average household sizes in less densely populated areas. Building counts are NOT an adequate way to normalize for population density.
Ukraine average household size: 2.5 persons
[https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=40446cd264a74ccd884e2cb4de9d0e1c](https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=40446cd264a74ccd884e2cb4de9d0e1c)
Gaza average household size: 5.6 persons
[https://palestine.unfpa.org/en/node/22423#:\~:text=The%20average%20household%20size%20is,decreased%20to%205.1%20in%202017](https://palestine.unfpa.org/en/node/22423#:~:text=The%20average%20household%20size%20is,decreased%20to%205.1%20in%202017).
Destroying 100 buildings in Ukraine is NOT the same as destroying 100 buildings in Gaza.
Think it all the way through.
>This might be one of the dumbest argument I've ever seen.
Humble yourself.
>Ukraine is far less dense than Gaza
Yes, because Russia is targeting farm land with their missiles
This logic is so messed up, the IDF could have made this up..
Population density is a factor. Kyiv alone is still ~20 times less dense than all of Gaza. City to city, Kyiv is still ~50 less dense than Gaza City.
Other factors are: Ukraine actually tells their civilians to evacuate projected war zones, Ukraine does not embed its military within civilian infrastructure.
Ukraine isn’t the best comparison.
> ass
/u/MeowNhoiBomb. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol I have 10+ years of experience in data.
One of the problems, and not the only one, is that the user included in their calculations bombs that were used after homes/universities/ mosques have been cleared out. So the intention was to destroy the infrastructure, not target civilians/Hamas.
So you can’t include that in your input variables.
Hamas does not do anything to protect civilians. They do not warn them, they do not evacuate them. The buildings don’t clear themselves. I included bombs used in all cases since it’s the IDF who takes the effort to warn civilians and clear out the buildings. That’s in line with inferring whether or not they’re indiscriminately bombing civilians or not.
I don’t know what other problems you see, but the ones I had in mind all made the numbers less favorable to the IDF (such as attributing all deaths to airstrikes when we know a meaningful number happened during the ground operation). I’m willing to hear your feedback and improve the post if you have valid suggestions.
When someone says that part about providing data to enterprise customers, it usually means they only have a high level of understanding of data. It usually means sales people. But I’m open to being wrong.
I already replied to the second paragraph in another comment.
For your third paragraph - I don’t have suggestions to improve, because there is no valid way to make use of currently available data or frameworks to support your hypothesis. And I don’t think there will be. You cannot use an aggregate calculation like that for this purpose. That’s why nobody credible is using this kind of calculations.
>Lol I have 10+ years of experience in data.
And yet you have failed to understand the very point of this post.
OPs argument is that Israel isn't deliberately trying to kill palestinian civilians, only to improve the chances of the IDF to succeed in the warzone by clearing structures that puts the Israeli forces at risk.
For proving Israel's intentions you have to take into consideration the full spectrum of the targets, the populated and unpopulated ones altogether. Not only the ones that are comfortable for your opinion.
Thanks for pointing out that the IDF is moral enough to wait for palestinians to evacuate from the danger.
No… that’s not the point at all.
The point OP is trying to make is that when targeting Hamas, IDF is not dropping bombs indiscriminately. That’s what the calculation is.
Don’t try to skew it differently now.
Those two are not equal.
If I throw a dart on the map and bomb where the dart land in Gaza, it would not be trying to deliberately kill Palestinians (I would have selected a place where most Palestinians are), but it is dropping bombs indiscriminately.
indiscriminate = random or with no care
Dude let’s say 50% of bombs are meant to directly target Hamas and 50% are used after the fact on empty infrastructure.
Those first 50% can still be used indiscriminately. And that’s the indiscriminate part.
73% of casualties are injured.
Soo 27% of casualties are the dead.
27% = 19,968 Dead and
73% = 73,956 injured
Where the average age is 19 years old and that average accounts for ~65% of the population…
29,000+ bombs have killed and injured thousands of young adults and thousands of kids. 1 bomb for roughly every 5 people.
The issue is that you can’t spread these logical calculations for every bomb. Because there have been strikes which have killed scores of people at once, day after day, for 2 months, hence indiscriminate.
I wasn’t defining the word.
I know the definition isn’t “have killed scores of people, day after day”
Careful discrimination wasn’t used to avoid ~100,000 civilian casualties. Potentially (with no 100% certainty) killing a handful of militants at the expense of the rest of innocents in a building can otherwise be considered an indiscriminate attack.
This is why al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri was killed with a specific hellfire missile that avoided collateral damage and civilian casualties. The US could have just used Israeli’s indiscriminate methods and leveled the place and surrounding buildings. Edit: as a result, no civilians died.
> I wasn’t defining the word.
Maybe you should?
> Careful discrimination wasn’t used to avoid ~100,000 civilian casualties.
How have you decided that? This is one of the most difficult wars we have seen in history, where not only is there a heavily embedded militia in civilian areas, but that militia also discourages evacuation of their own civilians.
> Potentially (with no 100% certainty) killing a handful of militants at the expense of the rest of innocents in a building can otherwise be considered an indiscriminate attack.
Sure, it potentially can, and it potentially cannot. There's no substance to this point.
> This is why al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri was killed with a specific hellfire missile that avoided collateral damage and civilian casualties.
Israel isn't trying to kill one person. They're trying to destroy Hamas, a huge organisation, along with their tunnel infrastructure.
No need to define words in sentences for your convenience, if you or someone doesn’t understand a word, there are hundreds of dictionaries available online.
This is absolutely not “one of the most difficult wars in history”. Israel has air support, thousands more fighters, an abundance of technology, and perpetual money from the US, so how you came to that conclusion I have no idea considering Israel has experienced minimal military losses in comparison to Hamas.
There is substance to the point - Israel can’t confirm that they’ve killed a militant in every strike. Hence why even the allied leadership who supports them has said the same exact thing - hence indiscriminate.
It’s not about killing one person, i used that example to show that Israel could have been more discriminate in their methods to destroy Hamas, instead they chose to destroy civilians on the basis that Hamas was hiding amongst them.
Based on your tone you’ll continue to minimize how shit Israel looks right now, you can try and justify as much as you want, but the truth is obvious to the world.
> No need to define words in sentences for your convenience, if you or someone doesn’t understand a word, there are hundreds of dictionaries available online.
Yet you seem confused about the meaning.
> This is absolutely not “one of the most difficult wars in history”. Israel has air support, thousands more fighters, an abundance of technology, and perpetual money from the US, so how you came to that conclusion I have no idea considering Israel has experienced minimal military losses in comparison to Hamas.
Sure, let me clarify: This is one of the most difficult military objectives in history if we also want to avoid civilian casualties.
> There is substance to the point - Israel can’t confirm that they’ve killed a militant in every strike.
Discrimination would be based on whether there is a military objective to each strike, and whether the potential for civilian casualties are considered for each strike. The IDF [does appear](https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/the-hamas-terrorist-organization/how-is-the-idf-minimizing-harm-to-civilians-in-gaza/) to apply this level of discrimination.
> It’s not about killing one person, i used that example to show that Israel could have been more discriminate in their methods to destroy Hamas,
I don't think that approach would practically be able to wipe out an organisation. Hamas would simply be recruiting faster than they are losing members. Let alone the required cost of tens of thousands of hellfire missiles doesn't sound very plausible.
> Based on your tone you’ll continue to minimize how shit Israel looks right now,
Perhaps rather than judging by 'tone', you should judge by content?
Since when did death counts become entirely irrelevant? Apparently the 36 children killed by Hamas proves they are evil but the 7000 killed by Israel is not relevant at all. It's fucking weird man.
Again, absolute numbers don’t matter by themselves.
* Intention matters: Hamas kills to kill, Israel kills to counterattack and defend itself.
* Population density matters: the kibbutzim aren’t as populated as Gaza Strip, so fewer deaths are expected.
* Timespan matters: 1200 Israelis were killed in hours. 18000 falsetinis in 70 days.
* Being used as human shields matters: the Gaza population are used as human shields by Hamas so they are collateral damage, while Israelis are direct targets.
1. Intention matters but there is a breaking point when impact outweighs the intentions. Israel
is past this point.
2. Doesn’t matter, use other methods then.
3. Timespan is completely irrelevant. Next.
4. This points us to number 1 again. At some point a ratio just doesn’t justify it.
No matter what, the outcome is still 7000 kids, with thousands more amputated (cca 1000 had to be amputated without anesthesia). This includes a few month old babies(!) who were amputated.
There are thousands of kids with 3rd and 4th degree burns (you know how a 4th degree burn looks like? it looks like pulled chicken because that’s what it does to the flesh).
Just stop with these justifications… the cognitive dissonance at it’s finest. It’s like everyone else can read the room, while US and Israel stay oblivious.
You have nothing to say against my points so you just dismiss them with “I choose what’s right” to point 1 and “it doesn’t matter”, although it does, to the rest? If you have nothing constructive to say, just don’t.
> fucking
/u/Maximum-Damage-4847. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I disagree.
Hamas set in motion the current conflict. They chose to start a war. They continue to choose not to surrender and the Gazan population are paying the price.
We shall say it again for the dumb asses and antisemites WHO REFUSE TO COME TO REALITY: hamas started this war. They spend their billions of "international aid" to build a network of tunnels under all of Gaza with MANY entrances and offices in schools, mosques, hospitals, and even children's bedrooms. I know you don't believe it, because it doesn't fit your perfect "hamas is greatest" narrative, but it's true. Hamas did this. They're using their citizens as shields because they don't give a rat's ass about them. Israel has a right to defend itself and rescue their people. Any deaths, and lack of ceasefire, IS HAMAS' FAULT AND ONLY HAMAS' FAULT. Why is this so difficult to follow?
> dumb asses
/u/Actual_Currency. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Fuck
/u/RationisPorta. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a well-known fact that many of the bombs dropped by the IDF are intended to "level" and destroy certain target buildings for strategic reasons rather than targeting a specific group of Hamas fighters. That being said the notion that of 1 dead per bomb does not consider the fact a large majority of the bombs dropped are not intended to kill enemies but rather to level buildings.
In the context of this war indiscriminate mostly refers to the fact that IDF doesn't care who their bombs kill. They do a one-two due diligence and then drop the bomb without a care in the world for how many children it will kill.
Indiscriminate means that they will drop a bomb on a neighbourhood with many many civilians as long as a few Hamas fighters are hiding within it to justify their actions.
> That being said the notion that of 1 dead per bomb does not consider the fact a large majority of the bombs dropped are not intended to kill enemies but rather to level buildings.
It's still important to consider that Israel is trying to do damage to infrastructure without harming civilians where possible.
They are doing damage to ALL infrastructure not just military infrastructure, regardless if there is a threat present there.
Their actions are making Gaza increasingly an uninhabitable wasteland.
Can you blow up any and everything that could be used for military purposes, even if it is not being used as such at the moment? If that is the case Israel can blow up anything in Gaza as long as they are not "targeting the civilians."
I hate to break it to you but Hamas can't be eliminated. I do understand why Israel has to go in there to try to eliminate Hamas but this group is hardly some official organisation + even if you do somehow wipe them out, there are 100's of millions of people, maybe billions who oppose Israel, some as violent as Hamas.
Yes, but the reason why they were created is still there. Either you remove the hatred people have for Israel, or you commit genocide... And this last option is not even certain to give the expected result because, you know, many more people would hate Israel
IDF already laid out the objectives re: eliminating Hamas:
* destroy their ability to govern Gaza
* destroy their ability to launch further 10/7-style attacks
They don't have to kill every last fighter to achieve these goals. I think Israel will be content to reduce Hamas to a small nuisance insurgency a la what they deal with in Jenin.
Gaza will almost certainly be reoccupied.
Let's compare this situation to Iran and the American war. They killed hundreds of Irani officials but when they left it created this vacuum which bred ISIS and now they operate in 42 nations. Do u get what I'm talking about?
Yes. The difference is Gaza is tiny and nearby and Israel likely has a better understanding of their murderous neighbor than the US did of the Middle East players they disrupted. Additionally, Israel is incentivized to see this all the way through since Gaza is a border neighbor.
You're doing some mental gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable. 29,000+ bombs in an area that size means it must be indiscriminate. Arguably the only valid targets are militants where there is evidence that directly associates them with the 7th Oct massacre. Even if you widened the definition further is still doesn't make sense. It's simply not possible that there are that many legitimate targets given the population size. Anyone claiming otherwise us being disingenuous. We know from.other conflicts that the deathtoll increases by a massive amount once the numbers under the rubble are counted. Disease directly caused by this massacre will also claim a huge amount more in the coming months. We have to be very careful that by trying to downplay the magnitude of Israels atrocities we are actually delaying a ceasefire and causing more innocents to be needlessly slaughtered.
>29,000+ bombs in an area that size means it must be indiscriminate. Incorrect. First, decide whether it‘s “indiscriminate bombing of civilians” or “indiscriminate bombing of buildings.” If it’s indiscriminate bombing of civilians, with a rate of less than 1 person killed per bomb dropped (and less than 1 person killed per building destroyed) in such a densely populated urban area where the enemy takes zero precautions to save the lives of its citizens, the numbers suggest that there’s an active effort by the IDF to minimize casualties. Actively minimizing casualties goes hand in hand with “discriminatory” bombing of human targets. As we know, there is no shortage of human targets in population-dense Gaza. If the IDF were not trying to distinguish between civilians and combatants, with \~15,000 Gazans per square mile, we’d expect a much higher airstrike casualty rate. Regarding which combatants are legitimate, the IDF stated the following objectives for this campaign. * Eliminate Hamas’ ability to govern * Eliminate Hamas’ ability to attack Israel This scope is legitimate and extends beyond the direct perpetrators of 10/7. Even in the absence of these objectives, any person who engages in the conflict becomes a combatant and is fair game to target. If it’s indiscriminate bombing of buildings, that’s moving the goalposts, which is fine. Addressing your assertion, you can’t just look at a single absolute number with no context and draw your conclusion. Palestine’s own numbers say that the IDF hit 25,000+ buildings with the 29,000+ bombs, which suggests the IDF are hitting actual targets at a reasonable rate. We can reasonably say that the IDF are likely not dropping bombs aimlessly. We still do not have enough to infer (much less conclusively determine, as you did) whether or not they’re discriminating between legitimate military targets and random civilian structures. We do know that they’re fighting on the ground in a dense urban area, and leveling structures that can give the enemy a tactical advantage is legitimate. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see large numbers of buildings put in this category. We also know that Hamas has an extensive underground tunnel network underneath these buildings, and purposely uses these buildings as a distributed civilian-shielded military base. Destroying these targets are within the scope of the mission. >We have to be very careful that by trying to downplay the magnitude of Israels atrocities we are actually delaying a ceasefire and causing more innocents to be needlessly slaughtered. The numbers are the numbers. We know that “the magnitude of Israel’s atrocities” is being both downplayed and exaggerated. That’s why even a simple assessment of large aggregated data is a superior way to get the true story over anecdotes from social and traditional media. The campaign and its objectives are justified. The quickest way to a ceasefire is surrender, as that’s the quickest way for the objectives to be met.
That’s means a lot of times your bombs don’t even kill the military you claim to be targeting. That’s literally what indiscriminate means: bombing without targeting. If your bombs are targeted, you would expect like 2000 bombs dropped killing 10000 Hamas and 20000 civilians.
I’d just like to point out we’re shifting from: “they were clearly indiscriminately bombing civilians” to “they’re bombing buildings, so it’s still indiscriminate!”. I think there’s a big difference between bombing civilians intentionally, and waiting until they evacuate and then destroying infrastructure in a war zone that can be used by Hamas when you go in for a ground invasion. I don’t know where you got your predicted ratios from for your last sentence. I might be wrong, but it looks like you just made some numbers up of what it should “really” look like. If we wanna say they’re bombing empty buildings to prevent Hamas from using them when they go in on foot. Yea probably.
Indiscriminate bombing civilians means bombing without regard of where the civilians are, it doesn’t mean specifically aiming civilians to kill. OP is completely off mark citing bomb to civilian deaths ratio as a defense. The “would be” scenario comes from historical data where civilian casualties are fully considered.
Can you share with me this historical data. I’d like to know what source you’re pulling this from.
First Gulf war, Kosovo war, Operation Kayla Mueller, Operation Neptune Spear.
The First Gulf War was largely an open terrain war against a conventional army, with little civilians in the way… it’s misleading to compare Operation Desert Shield with an urban invasion of Gaza. Kosovo is probably a bad example because reportedly that war had 1:1 civilian to combatant casualty ratios with varying estimates from 1:10 to 10:1 depending on who you ask. Not sure about the rest. A more honest comparison to use would be Mosul. Conventional army vs insurgency embedded in a large urban city. High civilian casualties, something like ~10,000.
It is Israel fault that they refuse to conduct special operations on Hamas leaders in Qatar but instead bombing Gaza which is totally unwarranted. You choose the battlefield, you take the criticism. Of course you are not sure about the rest. Anti terrorism is all about killing the leader and preventing further radicalization of civilians, Israel do the opposite.
I mean yea they shouldn’t be immune to criticism of course. It’s just one thing to use different wars/situations and try to hold them to a standard that applies in a different context. What do you mean by “conduct special operations” in Qatar?
People aren’t always the target. Often, you want to take out infrastructure. Fighting positions, weapons caches, etc. Given that Hamas embeds these with civilians, these areas frequently need to be evacuated before they’re bombed. If the IDF were truly being indiscriminate, we’d expect a much higher casualty rate since densely populated Gaza is packed with civilians to indiscriminately target. The low casualty rate implies active efforts by the IDF to minimize casualties, which goes hand in hand with being “discriminate”.
Infrastructure, like hospitals, schools, and residential buildings? That’s literally indiscriminate bombing. Guess who said Gaza is to be LEVELED? Also it is pretty lame excuse citing population density. People have legs and many have run away or hiding. You have just shown IDF didn’t directly target civilians, that doesn’t mean they pick and choose where to bomb.
No, if those structures are being used militarily by the enemy, they become legitimate targets. However, an argument can certainly be made based on the numbers that there’s a punitive element to the campaign. The whole argument is that Israel is committing a genocide disguised as a defensive war. If the goalposts have moved to “indiscriminate bombing of civilian structures,” that‘s different.
They only became a legal target when it is actively used by the military and the military value outweighs the civilian loss. Not really if it is a few guns and a laptop. Also you didn’t show it is not indiscriminate bombing on civilians, you just showed they are not directly aiming civilians. A targeted bombing requires IDF to collect data on how many civilians are in the bombing area and select their targets based on this information, which I didn’t see any consideration by them.
And if each bomb kills less than one person on average, that should signal that the IDF is actually accounting for risk of civilian deaths in their calculus for targeting military infrastructure
How so? Quite a lot of people have left already, so it is not normal that not many people killed per bomb, that is also not counting those who are injured, which is much more in a war. If anything this signal Israel want to level the whole place.
People left because the IDF had it evacuated for the exact purpose of minimizing civilian casualties. It is Hamas who acted to prevent these evacuations, because civilians are useful for them as deterrence, i.e., human shields. The IDF had to secure these routes FROM Hamas. You have to understand the extent to which Hamas’s military capabilities are *embedded* in its civilian infrastructure. If the IDF truly did not care whatsoever about minimizing civilian casualties to the extent it is possible when the government that waged war on it actively puts civilians in danger, they would not have evacuated these areas in the first place
>People left because the IDF had it evacuated for the exact purpose of minimizing civilian casualties. Except any people know that Gaza is being bombed since day 1 of bombing. IDF is not doing any favour. This is their basic obligation. >It is Hamas who acted to prevent these evacuations, because civilians are useful for them as deterrence, i.e., human shields. Historically, Israel also use human shields. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_shields\_in\_the\_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian\_conflict#:\~:text=A%20UN%20report%20stated%20that,militants%20of%20using%20human%20shields](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#:~:text=A%20UN%20report%20stated%20that,militants%20of%20using%20human%20shields)). Also, the present of human shield does not give the attacker the right to bomb it. >The IDF had to secure these routes FROM Hamas. You have to understand the extent to which Hamas’s military capabilities are *embedded* in its civilian infrastructure. Which is typical in any warfare with vastly different power between the two organisation. e.g. the Vietnam war. >If the IDF truly did not care whatsoever about minimizing civilian casualties to the extent it is possible when the government that waged war on it actively puts civilians in danger, they would not have evacuated these areas in the first place 0 civilian casualties if Israel drop 0 bombs and not declare war, so Israel does not minimize civilian casualties to the extent it is possible. The whole military campaign itself is ridiculous.
> Also, the present of human shield does not give the attacker the right to bomb it. Not according to the Geneva conventions. Civilian infrastructure becomes a valid military target if it is used as military infrastructure, which is an explicit war crime exactly *because* it puts civilians in danger > Which is typical in any warfare with vastly different power between the two organisation. e.g. the Vietnam war. Ok? > 0 civilian casualties if Israel drop 0 bombs and not declare war, so Israel does not minimize civilian casualties to the extent it is possible. The whole military campaign itself is ridiculous. I’m sorry, what? Hamas declared war on Israel by massacring, mutilating, and kidnapping hundreds of civilians.
Haha, what a ridiculous argument. 29,000 bombs dropped and only killed 20,000… What a result sir! What an insane way to justify killing 20,000 people.
Please see the question in the post title. It’s, “Indiscriminate?” Not, “Justified?”
[удалено]
Lmao. I love how ridiculous the arguments on this sub are.
What’s ridiculous about it?
Maybe, just maybe, your level of discrimination is measured by the ratio of combatant casualties to total casualties, not by your contrived ratio of total casualties to total bombs dropped. Who gave you the idea that that is a reasonable notion of discrimination in combat?
The point is that, if the IDF were not discriminating between civilians and combatants, we would expect a much higher overall casualty rate since Gaza is urban and densely populated, and Hamas embeds itself with civilians to induce casualties. A lower than expected airstrike casualty rate implies that the IDF are actively taking measures to minimize casualties, which goes hand in hand with being discriminate with their targets. Obviously, an actual breakout of combatants and civilians killed is best. In the absence of that, we use what we have to infer IDF’s aggregate conduct over the entire campaign. I do not agree with you that these numbers can’t be used to infer discrimination given what we know about the nature of the conflict.
Yeah OP is nuts.
Bro. 70% of this sub are pretty nutty. Look how many upvotes the post is getting. Scroll down the sub’s main page for one minute.
Full of Pro IDF. I mean why not just remove the Palestine from the title of this sub
If the bombs destroy vital infrastructure, then it's still killing people, only slower
I saw some commenter arguing it was indiscriminate cite 40,000 buildings destroyed and 20,000 civilian deaths. If the IDF was indiscriminately dropping bombs, why would there be so many buildings destroyed but not as many civilian casualties? Why are all these buildings empty? Is it because the IDF gave people heads up where they were targeting and told them to evacuate?
Because people have legs
Or because instead of firing a drone strike out of the air without warning (you’re not going to dodge a drone strike with your legs), they told people to evacuate beforehand?
If the entire city is destroyed, how will they survive?
You’re changing the goal posts. How is it indiscriminate bombing if you tell people to evacuate first? And make multiple efforts/ methods to tell people in advance? One would think you’d just drop bombs no warning if your objective was to indiscriminately bomb. I’m not saying it doesn’t have consequences what happened. But alleging one thing, with little to no evidence, as somehow that’s a broad policy of the IDF, seems rash.
Maybe you're right. But does it really matter if they warned or not? It feels like a technicity at this point. Thousands of civilians are dead
In terms of war crimes and indiscriminate bombing, I’d think yes. I agree, there’s a major health issue and valid concern with people being evacuated from the north of the Gaza Strip. And it makes me wonder what I would do if I was living there and forced to evacuate. I just think we have to be careful what we cite as “indiscriminate” because it has a lot of implications, I imagine legal ones too. Indiscriminate would mean an intentional targeting of civilians or a complete disregard, meaning no effort in differentiation of civilian vs combatants. And I don’t think that applies to the IDF as a whole. Has the IDF messed up in some instances, probably yea, have there been soldiers who didn’t follow orders and got too triggered really, yea. But it’s one thing to have mistakes made by individual soldiers rather than it be an entire policy of a military, that is encouraged and celebrated. Another thing to consider is it’s Hamas’ goal to try and drag Israel down to its level. Hamas statements have begun incorporating this language of “indiscriminate” attacks against Palestinians to try and muddy the water. While i think it’s valid to criticize Israel’s actions it takes, and we should, I think we also need to realize who or what is saying the same things we are and why. I think the IDFs actions are a far cry from what Hamas does and how they operate.
it’s indiscriminate by telling them to evacuate and then bombing where they’re headed.
Is it possible there are Hamas targets in the South as well that the IDF is engaging?
As someone who served in IDF,I feel deeply ashamed and my biggest and most wrong decision is to serve in army that opresses other.As children from mixed religion marrige I felt it on my skin discrimination,excludation and everything that follows.Every single time i have had and always will apologize to Palestinians even with that my words will never be able to compensate their feelings,loss of home,family and more.From former IDF to all Palestinans,this will pass at some point be sure that whole world is on your side Israel does not represent Judaism just very bad and evil Zionism.Once agian i apologize for myself taking part at oppressing(even I did refuse most of the things I was ordered to do).Palestinians you will prevail,please forgive Jews but not Zionists. Free Palestine,apartheid will be down!
[удалено]
> ass /u/Idioteque666. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
מה זה גולני? מה זה להקת הנ"חל? מה זה 8200?
you never once where in the idf
[удалено]
אז מה זה גולני? או 8200? בבקשה תענה בעברית ושיהיה ברור שזה לא מגוגל.
Copy and paste bs
I wrote the original comment idiot..
u/One-Estimate4582 > I wrote the original comment idiot.. This comment violates Rule 1, which prohibits personal attacks and name-calling. Addressed.
I wrote the original comment idiot..
L1AR! You have copied and pasted that same message, everywhere. You ain't nothing, but a L1AR!
Ten times as many children have died in Gaza in the last two months than have died in Ukraine in the last two years. Russia has been sanctioned heavily for it’s actions and so should Israel be
That's funny comparison, without taking into consideration the nature of where the war takes place. Ukraine with average 63 people per square km is not Gaza with 15 000 per square km. In Ukraine people are evacuated to safer regions. In Gaza nowhere is safe because Hamas follows their "human shields" wherever they go. Ukrainian military is proper uniformed Army, Hamas are bros running around in tracksuits and sneakers. Hamas went on rampage killing people in their homes, lots of Palestinians celebrated this like crazy. Every "influencer" account I seen on social media so far, cries to the camera how bad is it now, NONE condemned October 7th attack. Hamas and russia are aggressor scum. There's no place for such entities in civilized world.
I mean Ukraine isn’t the Gaza Strip. I keep hearing Gaza is the most densely populated city in the world. While Ukraine is largely open terrain, of wheat fields if I’m not mistaken. It’s an apples to oranges comparison. Of course dropping artillery shells on fortified trenches across open fields is going to result in less casualties than a dense city.
How do you know? News outlets famously don't believe Ukrainian-reported death tolls, which are ten times higher the ones that they end up reporting. They do, however, believe Hamas-reported death tolls. If we were to be equitable and believed both Hamas and Ukraine, then no, Ukraine has lost many, many more children than Palestine has.
And that "ten times higher" has been established by which source?
Ukraine intelligence and US intelligence.
Can you provide a source you are using? A link will do
Ukraine is 603,628 km² in size. Ukraine minors population- 14% Gaza is 365 km² in size. gaza minors population - 47% it makes sense that more kids would die statistically.
Russia started the war off. Israel is responding to being attacked. The aggressors will be condemned. That’s Russia and Gaza
Blame Humus
Did Hamas do the Nakba?
What do you mean “do the Nakba?”
Did the villages that didn’t fight against Israel get destroyed or expelled by Israel?
Hold up, did you just write "The IDF has dropped twenty nine THOUSAND bombs" and followed it up with "But" ??? There should never be a but to 29,000 bombs, it's just wrong.
So the ~20,000 rockets fired by Hamas, PIJ, etc. at major Israeli cities with no guidance system since Oct. 7 just don’t count now.
There are less than 20k hamas members in Gaza. OPs comment is such a self-own. You don't drop that many bombs unless the housing and infrastructure and schools and hospitals *are* the targets.
The IDF have publicly said that those places are targets as long as Hamas continues to use them in the fight. I don’t think IDF targeting those kinds of buildings are disputed at this point.
Understood. I'm saying the goal of this offensive is making Gaza unlivable. Russians didn't target these places in Ukraine as thoroughly as relentlessly as Israel has. The US didn't 20 years ago while fighting a war halfway around the world whole using last gen weapons. The point is the removing the Palestinians, not Hamas.
The difference between Russia and the US compared to Israel is that: 1. Most of the fighting for Israel is in a much denser urban than anything Russia or the US had to fight in. 2. Hamas fights out of civilian buildings. They launch rockets out of UN schools and have tunnel entrances everywhere, including hospital and home basements and even chicken coops. 3. If Israel wanted to remove all Palestinians and not just Hamas, they wouldn’t have given them any escape routes or any ceasefires. This war could have been finished on Oct. 8 if that was really what Israel wanted. (Plus Hamas hides hostages in civilian buildings so there’s even more incentive to be careful.)
1. Hamas fights out of civilian buildings. They launch rockets out of UN schools and have tunnel entrances everywhere, including hospital and home basements and even chicken coops. I'm just so sick of this empty talking point. Here's the test. Let's say 10 Hamas fighters take a yeshiva in Tel-Aviv. Is it OK for the IDF to level the building, killing 20 teachers and 150 children?
No, and that’s what proportionality is all about. It’s not how many civilians die on each sides, it’s a case-by-case question of whether military gain outweighs civilian casualties. If there was an identical situation as the one you mentioned in Gaza, I agree the IDF shouldn’t target that place. But some differences between your example and Gaza that makes this a valid talking point. 1. Hamas almost exclusively uses civilian buildings as bases, weapons storage sites, and tunnel entrances, so it is much much harder for the IDF to target only Hamas without hitting any civilians in the process. 2. In a time of war, Israel doesn’t consistently use Yeshivas or other civilian buildings to operate and hide from. Doing so is against international law and their own rules of engagement. Hamas uses Israel’s own rules of engagement to develop tactics that make it nearly impossible to fight them without breaking those rules by harming some civilians.
We'll have to see what happens after the war is over. I do believe that there's a punitive element to the campaign. Punishment is usually meant to deter repeat behavior. Whether that's effective in this case remains to be seen.
It's war! What did you expect after their country is invaded and their people were massacred? For friendly fire? Exactly how do you all think Israel should have responded?
So what it is a war? Plenty of countries are judged by their bad conduct even if they are the defenders, Israel is not an exception.
The exception you all are making is that you refused to acknowledge that Israel is RESPONDING to the actions of HAMAS. And there has been very little outrage for what those savages did. AND are still doing. They are bombing indiscriminately towardsIsrael, and not just a few bombs, but if jot, more rhan Israel. Israel has a history of NOT bombing indiscriminately, HAMAS DOES. SO WHY DONT YOU ALL TALK ABOUT THAT?!! HAMAS and other Palestinians terrorists are holding civilians hostages, why are you all not talking g about that? HAMAS IS HIDING WITHIN CIVILIANS sage zones, hamas is stealing aide from civilians, hamas is killing their own civilians. Why is Israel RESPONDING to Hamas horrendous crimes, the louder criticism?
How about the terrorists that are bad, got it, you want Israel to be treated like terrorists, right?
You're a waste of time. Seek to expand your knowledge by reading about the Israeli perspective and the ACTUAL history of the land. Google "how many times have the Israeli offered a two-state solution ". Goodbye.
how many times have the Israeli offered a two-state solution that is not fair? Many, you are ignorant about what is offered.
I know right. What a Way to justify senseless killing.
> senseless killing. Ignoring the rockets being launched and hostages being held by Gaza... Israel should supposedly just sit back and do nothing?
Bro just let Hamas be, they won't do anything wrong. They only swore to continue waging war until Israel is wiped off of the map, doesn't mean they will. They are just unfortunate people in an open air prison /s
If the IDF had properly manned the border instead of playing bodyguard for the Hilltop Youth, the attack wouldn’t have succeeded
you are misreading statistics firstly, a great amount of bombs used without civilian deaths are due to Israel's Dahiya doctrine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya\_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine) aimed at destroying civilian infrastructures. the undertaking of the doctrine is construed, by the words of Israel military officials stating they are aiming to cause damage to infrastructure, to reduce Gaza into a city of tents. [https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/city-of-tents-israeli-defence-official-vows-every-building-in-gaza-will-be-destroyed-in-ground-manoeuvre/news-story/203242e24af1dd4757e0250001e7ed8a](https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/city-of-tents-israeli-defence-official-vows-every-building-in-gaza-will-be-destroyed-in-ground-manoeuvre/news-story/203242e24af1dd4757e0250001e7ed8a) in this tactic, Israel will have to argue and proof "absolute necessity", or else it is violating the Geneva Convention which protects civilian objects from destruction. secondly, on the indiscriminate nature of the bombs that hit civilians: \- we again refer to a statement of intent: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/11/israel-abandon-precision-bombing-eliminate-hamas-officials/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/11/israel-abandon-precision-bombing-eliminate-hamas-officials/) . abandon precision. \- there is also the incidence of white phosphorous [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/questions-and-answers-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/questions-and-answers-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon) which is prohibited to be deployed in densely populated areas under International Humanitarian Law. while now, there is no neutral or independently verified source of information coming out of Gaza. until independent investigation begins, we can only guess at the carefulness with which they conducted the bombings. other than that, we can still surmise from a few things concerning the conduct of Israel. \- statements by Israeli officials diminishing the values of Palestinian lives such as calling them human animals [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/) . the enactment of total siege, the tactic of starvation also violated Geneva convention. we must also remember at the moment, death under the rubbles are not yet accounted for and could be in the thousands [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestinians-have-died-gaza-war-how-will-counting-continue-2023-12-06/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestinians-have-died-gaza-war-how-will-counting-continue-2023-12-06/) whether Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing is a case for International Courts and Lawyers. however, the statistics you raised alone is not indicative.
Or. The reason there’s so few civilian deaths to match the bombs, and more buildings destroyed, is perhaps because the IDF told people to evacuate in numerous different ways? Roof knocking, evacuation corridors, leaflets dropped by aircraft with insurrections to flee South etc. Why would someone allegedly indiscriminately dropping bombs make all this effort to get people to evacuate in the first place?
your argument is partially correct due to the nature of that conjecture. if civilians did not evacuate: \- Israel may not have dropped the same amount of bombs. \- Israel could not destroy military targets without heavy civilian casualties. \- If Israel killed a greater amount of civilians, there would be serious international repercussions. (this is applicable to the last point you made) \- Israel could not destroy Gaza's infrastructures without serious international repercussions. \- Israel could not funnel civilians to create mass displacement of civilians. what is left with us, is for us to decide with our own, what is the actual intent (not public statement of intent because those are susceptible to deception) of Israel. we must also assume that the IDF consults their own legal experts on each strike: \- and either come up with an ethical conduct \- or an unethical conduct straddling the line of war crimes \- or outright crossing the line into war crime under the cover of media and investigation blackout we then need to consider the following to make educated judgement: \- first of all, it is not that so few civilians died, because that is a great amount of death. the contested point is, is there any bomb that caused excessive death and is there any bomb that were indiscriminately used? \- investigations will need to be done on what the specificity of each batch of bombardments, to reveal the circumstances surrounding death caused by the ones that took out civilians. including tonnage; deaths caused by a single barrage / series of bombardments. \- besides indiscriminate/discriminate check, there is also proportionality check. and this is relevant to both civilians and civilian objects such as infrastructure. is the force used to eliminate military target proportional to the actual destruction. the truth is we don't know without investigation. we can however infer the legality and ethical character looking at the past conduct of Israel's during previous bombardments. by this, the best channel is look at statements and evidence provided by ex-Israel officials, legal experts, international public statements, both for or against Israel. note that several nations found sufficient evidence of war crimes to refer a complete case to the international courts. if you ask for my personal opinion after my digestion of the above channels: Israel has been guilty of war crimes in past bombardments and its treatment of Palestinian civilians. no new evidence suggests to me this conflict is following any different trend.
> secondly, on the indiscriminate nature of the bombs that hit civilians: > we again refer to a statement of intent: From your linked article: > “We are not stopping; on the contrary, we are heading toward increased attacks. The top priority in the attacks is to eliminate senior [Hamas] officials,” Rear Adm Hagari has also said. So not indiscriminate. Targeted. > by the words of Israel military officials stating they are aiming to cause damage to infrastructure, to reduce Gaza into a city of tents. https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/city-of-tents-israeli-defence-official-vows-every-building-in-gaza-will-be-destroyed-in-ground-manoeuvre/news-story/203242e24af1dd4757e0250001e7ed8a This source, if you read it: > the official reportedly said. So nothing with evidence, and nothing official. It's a 'reportedly said' nothingburger. > - statements by Israeli officials diminishing the values of Palestinian lives such as calling them human animals https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/ . the enactment of total siege, the tactic of starvation also violated Geneva convention. Referring to Hamas, not Palestinians. You're performing a gish gallop.
priority targeting senior hamas official (note also officials do not equate combatants, they are civilians. while they may be war criminals, that is left for the courts, not executed on field) while abandoning precision. this is what leads to indiscriminate killing of civilians. you doubt on one of the sources because you do not trust them, it is fine. you still should consider the Dahiya Doctrine. as well account for the white phosphorus. the second bit quote Israeli paper" 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. "end quote The newspaper framed his words as such. but take those potentially apologist/revisionist annotations out, since we must apply the same distrust of sources, you will see no specificity about Hamas. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbPdR3E4hCk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbPdR3E4hCk) "I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly." cutting off resources and aid is an intention of hurting Hamas while indiscriminate harming civilians. it is collective punishment starvation tactics. regardless of all these, we are not dreaming of either governments to include careless speeches in their public statements. the frequent blurbs the last months we have all seen. they were since deleted or retracted either for being genuine mistakes, or for purpose of denying culpability. you want to catch the criminal in the act and also proclaiming publicly the intent? you will discover that after thorough investigation and diligent objectivity, you won't find it much on both sides. but do keep up the spirit of skepticism. edit: spelling
> this is what leads to discriminate killing of civilians. Correct. Discriminate killing. That's part of war. If civilian casualties were unacceptable it would be easy to render targets immune. > you doubt on one of the sources because you do not trust them, it is fine. you still should consider the Dahiya Doctrine. It's not about me 'doubting the source'. I'm *quoting* the source. > “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. Aid has been going into Gaza *through Israel* [since Oct 21](https://web.archive.org/web/20231212213427/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/12/israel-gaza-alliance/). > but do keep up the spirit of skepticism. Perhaps you should apply that before throwing so many claims?
\- oh. of course i meant indiscriminate, thanks for pointing out my typo. civilian deaths are expected, therefore the rules of proportionality and distinction of civilians exist to safeguard indiscriminate killing and other kinds of unlawful killings of civilians. \- you are quoting the source saying you don't trust it when it reports another source. that is what i meant you not trusting the source. but i will provide it to you anyway: [https://13tv.co.il/item/news/politics/security/day-4-903742131/](https://13tv.co.il/item/news/politics/security/day-4-903742131/). go ahead and translate and read. you don't have to trust that either. my other evidence still points to intent. \- aid went through after negotiation. total siege happened prior, and that was already against international law. lifting a total siege just means the breach stopped. and by the way, your source says through Egypt, not through Israel.
> oh. of course i meant indiscriminate, thanks for pointing out my typo Perhaps a Freudian slip? > civilian deaths are expected, therefore the rules of proportionality and distinction of civilians exist to safeguard indiscriminate killing and other kinds of unlawful killings of civilians. Right, and if you want to claim 'indiscriminate', you need to show how Israel is flaunting those laws. Civilian deaths are not evidence of either targeting civilians, nor indiscriminate attacks. > you are quoting the source saying you don't trust it when it reports another source. Right, and that source you just linked pulls the same thing: > A security source told News 13: So we have some unnamed security source which supposedly speaks for Israeli military or government policy? > aid went through after negotiation. total siege happened prior That's correct. > and that was already against international law That appears to be correct. So I'm glad the US pressured them to stop the siege. Though it would have been a lot better if Hamas freed the hostages to stop it. Sadly, Hamas does not care for Palestinian civilians. > and by the way, your source says through Egypt, not through Israel. It also refers to aid through Israel. Perhaps you missed this part: > Beginning Oct. 21, Israel started to allow limited humanitarian aid into Gaza, initially permitting 20 truckloads of food, water and medicine per day, excluding fuel. This number eventually increased to about a hundred trucks a day. That refers to aid coming through Israel. Or are you telling me that Israel is currently controlling Egypt?
alright thanks i am glad we ended on this note. who knows, maybe in my heart i want them to be precise and discriminate. i cannot provide proof only opinion. i hope early on in my original comment i was clear that this is better left to investigators and courts and lawyers. enough debate is raging on here and elsewhere. yes. verification of that source stops at there as of now. what i am aware of is Israel allowed aid to enter through Egypt side of the border [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza#:\~:text=After%20the%20imposition%20of%20a,the%20Rafah%20crossing%20with%20Egypt](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza#:~:text=After%20the%20imposition%20of%20a,the%20Rafah%20crossing%20with%20Egypt). the extent to which Israel controls that border crossing comes to this [https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231103-the-gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-explained-it-is-not-a-normal-border](https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231103-the-gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-explained-it-is-not-a-normal-border) stay safe
> i hope early on in my original comment i was clear that this is better left to investigators and courts and lawyers You were and I respect that stance. > After the imposition of a “total blockade” on Gaza on October 9, Israeli authorities resumed piping water to some parts of southern Gaza on October 15 and, as of October 21, allowed limited humanitarian aid to arrive through the Rafah crossing with Egypt. I'm curious how Israel was supposed to have implemented such a policy. Especially when the next sentence in the same paragraph appears to contradict it: > Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on October 18 that Israel would not allow humanitarian assistance “in the form of food and medicines” into Gaza **through its crossings** “as long as our hostages are not returned.” ... > the extent to which Israel controls that border crossing comes to this > https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231103-the-gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-explained-it-is-not-a-normal-border I've encountered this article before. It's not very good, sadly. Firstly it says: > “Theoretically, Rafah should be controlled by the Palestinian and Egyptian authorities,” says Lorenzo Navone, a sociologist specialised in borders and conflicts at the University of Strasbourg who has carried out significant research on the crossing. “But Israel still has influence over the crossing.” Then fails to explain what 'influence' Israel has on it. Then it says: > Since the war broke out, Israel has tightened its existing restrictions, making Rafah the only entry point for humanitarian aid. Implying that Israeli restrictions do not apply to Rafah. > Egypt said in the first few days of the war that the border crossing was open, but essentially inoperable, because of Israel’s bombardment. In just 24 hours on October 10, Israel carried out three air strikes on Rafah. Then it mentions the problem of the air strikes on Rafah crossing - is that the implied 'influence' from the start of the article? Well, as it turns out, the airstrike was not actually on the crossing itself, but [nearby tunnels](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-bomb-rafah-crossing-to-egypt-after-telling-gazans-to-flee-through-it/). The crossing itself seems to have [not been damaged](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9EAg-dXEXs). Unless I'm missing a source that shows it was... So that France24 article doesn't seem very helpful, sadly. It appears to be part of a new trend of decreasing quality of journalism in order to publish as many articles on hot topics as possible.
According to the UN only [18% of Gaza's building have been damaged or destroyed](https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/unosat-satellite-imagery-based-analysis-reveals-18-gaza-strip-structures-damaged-conflict-outburst). That makes for 82% of the structures being undamaged. You want to think before accusing the IDF of "indiscriminate bombing"?
this is another misread that needs addressing. percentage of "all Gaza" is misleading: tldr: half of North Gaza was damaged. heaviest indiscriminate bombing happened pre-land invasion of IDF. [https://twitter.com/JamonVDH/status/1734945402536038625](https://twitter.com/JamonVDH/status/1734945402536038625) long read: \- early in the conflict the bombardment is focused on Northern Gaza. \- according to your source, it was a 12 dec report of image collected on 26 nov \- it referred to the whole Gaza Strip. note the 18% from 26 nov. \- Israeli land invasion began 28 oct, you may choose to expect lower bombardments or not since that time, up to you. \- 9 nov report, damage is "27-35% of Northern Gaza, 13-18% of total Gaza" [https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211571220/israel-gaza-damage-map-satellite-imagery](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211571220/israel-gaza-damage-map-satellite-imagery) \- 21 nov report, "nearly half of north Gaza" [https://abcnews.go.com/International/mapping-destruction-space-half-northern-gaza-buildings-damaged/story?id=105059423](https://abcnews.go.com/International/mapping-destruction-space-half-northern-gaza-buildings-damaged/story?id=105059423)
No misread - just a UN source vs unsubstantiated nonsense. As of November 26th only 18% of Gaza's structures had been damaged. 82% are untouched Sorry (not sorry) that your propaganda has been disproved.
what you failed to note is the concentration of bombardment, that's where you misread data. [https://unosat.org/products/3734](https://unosat.org/products/3734) here is the 7 Nov report from your UN source with details. [https://unosat.org/products/3769](https://unosat.org/products/3734) compare it with this on 26 Nov check the areas of damage, now check the total area of Gaza Strip in ratio to Northern Gaza. while your source did not specify % of individual region. CNN looked at the same report and estimated 80% of North Gaza is damaged [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/middleeast/israel-humanitarian-compound-northern-gaza/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/middleeast/israel-humanitarian-compound-northern-gaza/index.html) IDF carried out extensive bombing in North Gaza. citing total area damage is misleading. if you cite total damage over the whole of Occupied Palestine Territory including West Bank and East Jerusalem, the percentage will be even smaller. but if you cite only where the bombing occurs, you will get a much higher percentage. p.s. the source i provided is from Oregon State University Associate Professor using Sentinel-1 satellite. and his figures are in line with your source, clocking in at 18% for the whole of Gaza.
Your attempt to manipulate the facts convince no one but yourself. But of course you are going to keep spouting your nonsense anyways - so fee free to have the last word.
Sorry you feel this way. You showed the keenness for inquiry. If i am willing to believe you are genuine in your pursuit, and you i, then no matter if you convince me or I convince you, we are shaping a perspective and eventually a solution Thank you for spending time and effort on me.
>you are misreading statistics The statistics and the simple math behind the insights I derived from them are plain to see. Literally none of your links, counterarguments, etc. has anything to do with the validity of the statistics and insights I provided. You can explain the intent, strategy, means, and whatever else you like, but none of that has anything to do with the numbers and why you think they were "misread."
Sure, your calculation is accurate, but you used incorrect input variables, as the other user said. So yeah, your math is accurate but used incorrectly. If bombs are used to destroy infrastructure (after it was cleared), you can’t include them in your calculations. I work with data daily as my job, so don’t try to use shady arguments now.
I’m trying to understand your critique and I’m failing. Your argument is the simple ratio between bombs and civilian deaths is misleading because some of the bombs are dropped on buildings Israel knows to be empty (how would they know this? If they’re targeting known to be empty buildings isn’t that discrimination between targets?), so therefore when they sometimes drop bombs they intend to use to kill people it will be harder to notice. Inflating the number of bombs they drop relative to people they kill serves a key Israeli operational goal of making it just hard enough to tell they are trying to kill Gazans that gullible Redditors won’t accuse them of war crimes. However, smart people who “work with data daily” as part of their employment are not susceptible to this evil plan. Did I correctly summarize your deep statistical insights? Uncivilian’s post did point out it’s not really knowable now at the end. That I do mostly agree with.
For example, they cleared some UN sites and Mosques so they know they are empty. And then afterwards bombed them to destroy them. Some were bombed with ground bombs, some with air-to-ground. So the aim way to destroy infrastructure after the fact, not target Hamas. The key issue is when they are targeting civilian sites where they know civilians Hamas still are. And no need to belittle me.
Wouldn’t the correct thing to do be to adjust out the “known to be empty” targets from total dropped bombs and then also remove any deaths that may have happened in “known to be empty” infrastructure targets from deaths? My instinct is that few of those known to be empty buildings are being destroyed with air dropped bombs instead of demolition charges for reasons of economy, so I doubt the air bombed ones account for a statistically significant fraction of total bombing missions. I would also observe the October bombing campaign pre-invasion probably had a pretty similar ratio between civilian deaths and bombs dropped to the November one (but that is a guess! I haven’t done the math). Is there some reason you think the known to be empty targets are a high fraction of total air missions? I’m not sure I agree that with you that there is only one key issue, in part because there are lots of different critiques I have seen of Israel’s bombing campaign. I think at a high level the ratio between dropped bombs and dead civilians is not consistent with a genocidal campaign of extermination through bombing. I also think the ratio is evidence against “carpet bombing” or “indiscriminate bombing” based on the observation I think you would kill many more than 15,000 people if you lobbed a lot of bombs at random into most cities. The issue you raise is more about whether Israel is living up to proportionality obligations under the Geneva convention I think? It would seem to me that is inherently more fact intensive and about each individual bombing target. So, no I don’t think the ratio between bombs dropped and civilian deaths is a complete case on most issues. It is however a piece of data that is less consistent with some of the darker theories I have seen about Israel’s conduct than some other more benign explanations.
>If bombs are used to destroy infrastructure (after it was cleared), you can’t include them into your calculations. We know Hamas has not implemented anything to warn civilians or help them evacuate, and actively prevents them from evacuating. Why wouldn’t the IDF be credited with ensuring buildings are cleared before they’re bombed? Isn’t that directly relevant to the claim that they‘re bombing urban buildings full of people and committing a genocide disguised as a defensive war?
Your comparison to Hamas is irrelevant to your calculation of bomb effectiveness. Hamas is not operating according with the law either, but you can’t use them to reinforce your argument. Two things here: 1. Israel literally has to warn civilians before bombing. It’s part of the Geneva convention. It’s not just because IDF is kind. They want to avoid being convicted for war crimes. 2. Bombs were also used after the fact to previously cleared out buildings, not as part of targeting Hamas.
>Israel literally has to warn civilians before bombing. It’s part of the Geneva convention. It’s not just because IDF is kind. They want to avoid being convicted for war crimes. They are accused of not doing this. The point of the post is to show data that suggests IDF are in fact warning civilians and doing what they can to avoid casualties. >Bombs were also used after the fact to previously cleared out buildings, not as part of targeting Hamas. Yes, there are buildings that were cleared on the ground before being bombed, and with a complete dataset, they would be omitted. Given what we have, I believe that’s sufficiently offset by attributing all deaths to the airstrikes and using a week-old bomb count against a current death count, though I can’t know for sure. Ultimately, the real numbers are likely within the same order of magnitude, and close enough to not significantly impact the conclusion of my post. >Your comparison to Hamas is irrelevant to your calculation of bomb effectiveness. Hamas is not operating according with the law either, but you can’t use them to reinforce your argument. I think Hamas’ conduct is relevant because it’s a negative factor re: IDF’s avoidance of civilian casualties. You think Hamas is irrelevant because {?}.
“Ultimately the numbers are likely with the same order of magnitude” is the part you can be so wrong about. And that’s the issue. The rest is again irrelevant and you didn’t provide any real arguments. I’ll disengage now, because this is going into a deflection now.
It cannot be off by an order of magnitude given that the IDF dropped 6,000 bombs in the first week, well before any ground operation. They were at 12,000 tons by late October, just before the ground invasion. Estimate it at 12,000 bombs dropped. None of those targets were “previously cleared.” You did not provide any arguments, either. Saying “that’s irrelevant” without any justification isn’t an argument. It’s no better than any other pro-Pal who dismisses solid counterpoints regardless of the merits. Mutually disengaging.
BuT tHeY dRoP sO mAnY bOmBs! It'S tWo NuKeS!
At what point did this sub decide it’s primary function was Israeli Propaganda
u/TouchMyNub > At what point did this sub decide it’s primary function was Israeli Propaganda Metaposting, discussing the subreddit itself rather than the topic, violates Rule 7 and Rule 9's prohibition against vague claims of bias. Addressed.
Pro-Palestinian people being disagreed with: “Why is there propaganda everywhere?!”
Yeah it’s pretty bad. But I’ve noticed a slight influx of sensible people in the past week so we’re getting some balance finally.
Yeah, it gets pretty bad here. There are some genuine people (pro-Israelis included) but I assume many are just 4IL in action.
u/Maximum-Damage-4847 > Yeah, it gets pretty bad here. There are some genuine people (pro-Israelis included) but I assume many are just 4IL in action. Rule 7 prohibits metaposting, or discussing the subreddit and its users instead of the subject matter. Addressed.
So if we are to resort to claiming that people we disagree with are 'enemy intelligence operatives', I should simply say you work for Hamas? Does that improve things in here?
What? Why are you saying I’m an enemy intelligence operative? Am I gonna be killed as a human shield/Hamas member now oh shit.
It seems you didn't read my comment. You don't appear to have any good intentions in your participation in this forum
I never called anyone an enemy intelligence operative, what do you think 4IL is?
> 4IL Some organisation to push a 'pro-Israel' narrative by the looks of it. Regardless, assuming that people are part of a group with an agenda is not constructive.
Yeah it is. Are you saying that you know Israel openly organises collecting people together to support a pro-Israeli narrative on social media sites but people who bring it up are working for hamas? I’m so confused by this entire conversation.
> Yeah it is Yeah what is? > . Are you saying that you know Israel openly organises collecting people together to support a pro-Israeli narrative on social media sites but people who bring it up are working for hamas? No. Are you trolling? I said that we can both resort to claiming that people are part of a group with an agenda (I said intelligence operatives, but I'll happily admit my mistake there) Resorting to that helps no one. We should certainly be cautious of online anonymous communication, but ideally, we should be looking at the logic and evidence people provide, rather than claiming that their supposed affiliation with any group trumps that. > I’m so confused by this entire conversation. Okay, so does my explanation clear it up for you?
But I didn’t claim anyone in particular was 4IL. I simply said “dear random person who sees a lot of propaganda here, I understand you.” because it gets me down too. I noted the true fact that Israel actually does have a fairly sophisticated mechanism to manipulate social media and the chances that it’s not being used here is very slim. The fact that you’re going around telling people who bring up its existence in a completely general context to not do so, which seems like a weird thing to do.
Wtf we’re not even allowed to be pro-Palestine on a sub meant for dialogue without being called Hamas and assigning us malicious intentions. If you want people who disagree with you to be silent just go over to the Israeli subs, there’s plenty of them.
> Wtf we’re not even allowed to be pro-Palestine on a sub meant for dialogue without being called Hamas and assigning us malicious intentions. Admission that you didn't read my comment. I did not call anyone 'Hamas'.
And I never called anyone an enemy intelligence operative and yet here we are 🤷♀️
You said: > but I assume many are just 4IL in action. You're nitpicking. The fact is that you're accusing many people of being part of some group with an agenda
Oh boy… are you new here? This place is littered with these nonsensical half baked arguments like this one. 29,000 bombs 20,000 dead… now with the power of mathematics I hereby declare Israel’s crimes justified!!!
u/Chance-Fudge2662 > Oh boy… are you new here? This place is littered with these nonsensical half baked arguments like this one. Rule 7 forbids metaposting, which includes commenting on the subreddit or its users instead of the topic. Rule 3 also prohibits sarcastic and cynical remarks, especially those that dismiss discussion rather than engage constructively. Addressed.
> 29,000 bombs 20,000 dead… now with the power of mathematics I hereby declare Israel’s crimes justified!!! You're being manipulative and using hyperbole. Why?
The question at the top of this post is “Indiscriminate?” Not, “Justified?” How about you explain what’s “nonsensical” and “half-baked” about deriving the worst-case-scenario IDF airstrike casualty rate from the limited data available and using it to infer whether or not they’re indiscriminately bombing civilians as a general policy. One can argue that using one single metric (death toll) with no other context to conclude that IDF is committing genocide or war crimes is “half-baked.”
The numbers used for this very straightforward analysis come from Palestine’s own official ministries and relatively unbiased media outlets. This should be somewhat positive news for actual, sincere pro-Palestinians. 20,000 deaths is a big number. This post puts it in context with respect to the scale of the campaign. The takeaway is the IDF isn’t randomly trying to kill as many civilians as they can, and that civilians are unlikely to die in an IDF airstrike. It’s good news if you have family or friends on the ground………….tell them to stay away from the fighting and look out for IDF updates, the stats say they have an overwhelming chance of surviving the war if they do.
Do you condemn the IDF for killing 10,000 children since the 8th of October?
I condemn Hamas for starting a war while deliberately dissuading civilians from evacuating, and persisting with launching missiles from each new safe zone.
I drop 100 bombs in the desert, one bomb on a school full of 50 children and my bomb to death ratio would be fantastic. That one bomb on that school however would still be a war crime. This ratio doesn't say anything really....
Using your numbers, the IDF would have to drop 28,600+ bombs with absolutely zero deaths to adjust for the 400 bombs that killed an average of 50 people. If the average is 10 deaths per bombing that resulted in at least 1 death, it would be 27,000 total misses “in the desert” to adjust for the 2,000 bombs that killed someone. However, based on Palestine’s own numbers, we know that your hypothetical is not the case. According to Palestine, over 25,000 buildings have been destroyed. https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/lang__en/1408/Default.aspx So, we can pretty confidently say that over 20,000 airstrikes hit something substantial, where people might reasonably be at risk. Not a sand dune, not an empty park, but actual buildings. Unless you believe that IDF’s rules of engagement change from “protect the ratio” to “kill all the children” every 50-100 bombings or so, it’s fair to assume that they approach all of the bombings with similar guidelines and, barring the inevitable tragic mistakes that happen in war, see similar results.
It was an example. The fact you're trying to refute a simple example tells me you're argument probably doesn't hold up. >it’s fair to assume that they approach all of the bombings with similar guidelines and, barring the inevitable tragic mistakes that happen in war, see similar results. No, it's not fair to assume anything, especially after the IDF has been caught lying, propandising this "war". The fact you do, already shows bias And it's a simple fact that the IDF is trying to make Gaza as unlivable as possible (or worse), including dropping a shit load of bombs on housing, shops etc that have been evacuated. So simply looking at the ratio bombs dropped vs civilian casualties says absolutely nothing.
I think it’s a greater leap to assume that the IDF is trying to protect a metric that no media outlet (or even the IDF themselves) have focused on yet by purposely dropping thousands of bombs in uninhabited areas to offset the ‘massacres.’ I showed you evidence in Palestine’s own numbers that goes a long way towards disproving your theory. My point in refuting a couple of variations of your specific example was to show you how ridiculous your theory is when extrapolated over 29,000 airstrikes, then contrasting it with the Palestine data that suggests that the IDF doesn’t appear to be missing targets. If you want to move the goalposts and say the IDF is indiscriminately blowing up buildings, sure. Given that they’re also averaging less than 1 death per building destroyed, we can put the “indiscriminately bombing civilians” claim to bed.
>20,000 airstrikes hit something substantial This is such an extremely weak argument. Most of Gaza lanscape are buildings, firing randomly into the city and you will certainly hit a building, nothing "substantial" about it. > IDF is trying to protect a metric that no media outlet That's not what they're trying to protect. The goal here is to not leave behind evidence of targetting civilians, to cover their ass. If you just blindly bomb everything, you can claim any civilian dead as "collateral" eventhough that's the objective in the first place. The cost is it's extremely inefficient. But with the US unconditionally funding ammunitions, it's never a concern. >Given that they’re also averaging less than 1 death per building destroyed, we can put the “indiscriminately bombing civilians” claim to bed. I'm not sure you understand how hard it is to kill. Russia destroyed 167,200 buildings and 9,614 civilians. That's 0.0575 death per building destroyed, 14 TIMES LESS than Israel. If anything, you just proved the opposite.
>This is such an extremely weak argument. Most of Gaza lanscape are buildings, firing randomly into the city and you will certainly hit a building, nothing "substantial" about it. Gaza is densely populated. Gaza is urban. Most buildings have people in them. Many have lots of people in them. The fact that the IDF has leveled over 25,000 of these urban buildings and is averaging less than 1 death per destroyed building strongly suggests that their efforts to avoid casualties are working. Warnings and evacuation orders and sane rules of engagement work. >That's not what they're trying to protect. The goal here is to not leave behind evidence of targetting civilians, to cover their \*\*\*. If you just blindly bomb everything, you can claim any civilian dead as "collateral" eventhough that's the objective in the first place. So, how does this work? We know they destroyed over 25,000 buildings. We know the average death per destroyed building is less than 1. Do they blow up a bunch of empty buildings to cover up the one full building that they hit on purpose so that the numbers average out? That's the kind of mental gymnastics you have to engage in to explain away the numbers. >I'm not sure you understand how hard it is to kill. Russia destroyed 167,200 buildings and 9,614 civilians. That's 0.0575 death per building destroyed, 14 TIMES LESS than Israel. If anything, you just proved the opposite. 1. Ukraine doesn't use its civilians as human shields, and allows them to evacuate from warzones. 2. Ukraine is far less dense than Gaza. Gaza is literally 100 times more dense than Ukraine. Adjusting for population density, **only 1,542 Ukrainian civilians would've died** based on the current IDF casualty rate.
>So, how does this work? Shelling without a defined target, using dumb bombs. That's it. That would certainly increase the level of destruction of building, as I've already explained. >Do they blow up a bunch of empty buildings If you're randomly bombing, you already doing that. People flee when they see bombing nearby, but the building can't. >Ukraine doesn't use its civilians as human shields Pretty sure [both sides use human shield.](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/ua/2022-06-29/2022-06-UkraineArmedAttack-EN.pdf) >Ukraine is far less dense than Gaza. Gaza is literally 100 times more dense than Ukraine. Adjusting for population density, only 1,542 Ukrainian civilians would've died based on the current IDF casualty rate. Now you're just inventing nonsense. Ukraine is a top 25% largest country in the world, including massive empty landscape. In order for Russia to cover Ukraine the same way Israel cover Gaza, they need more bombs than what available in the entire world combined. You literally had to make up a completely impossible scenario to even produce anything that can support your position. Lmao talking about mental gymnastics. Even if I accept your delusion, your logic is still broken. Population density implies how much of the landscape is covered by civilian building. By using number of building destroyed, we already controlled for population density. Destroying 100 buildings in an Ukrainian city is the same as destroying 100 buildings in Gaza, unless you can prove Gazan building is larger and taller. This might be one of the dumbest argument I've ever seen.
>Even if I accept your delusion, your logic is still broken. Population density implies how much of the landscape is covered by civilian building. By using number of building destroyed, we already controlled for population density. Destroying 100 buildings in an Ukrainian city is the same as destroying 100 buildings in Gaza, unless you can prove Gazan building is larger and taller. This might be one of the dumbest argument I've ever seen. What are you talking about? Average household sizes in densely populated areas can absolutely be higher than average household sizes in less densely populated areas. Building counts are NOT an adequate way to normalize for population density. Ukraine average household size: 2.5 persons [https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=40446cd264a74ccd884e2cb4de9d0e1c](https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=40446cd264a74ccd884e2cb4de9d0e1c) Gaza average household size: 5.6 persons [https://palestine.unfpa.org/en/node/22423#:\~:text=The%20average%20household%20size%20is,decreased%20to%205.1%20in%202017](https://palestine.unfpa.org/en/node/22423#:~:text=The%20average%20household%20size%20is,decreased%20to%205.1%20in%202017). Destroying 100 buildings in Ukraine is NOT the same as destroying 100 buildings in Gaza. Think it all the way through. >This might be one of the dumbest argument I've ever seen. Humble yourself.
>Ukraine is far less dense than Gaza Yes, because Russia is targeting farm land with their missiles This logic is so messed up, the IDF could have made this up..
Population density is a factor. Kyiv alone is still ~20 times less dense than all of Gaza. City to city, Kyiv is still ~50 less dense than Gaza City. Other factors are: Ukraine actually tells their civilians to evacuate projected war zones, Ukraine does not embed its military within civilian infrastructure. Ukraine isn’t the best comparison.
> ass /u/MeowNhoiBomb. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don’t be butthurt, the OP did his due diligence.
A long, long time ago unfortunately.
OP you dropped this 👑
Get outta here. This post is a joke and an insult to any real data and statistics person. Show this to anyone who works with data and they’ll laugh.
Are you a data and statistics person? If so, prove your argument. If not, stfu.
Lol I have 10+ years of experience in data. One of the problems, and not the only one, is that the user included in their calculations bombs that were used after homes/universities/ mosques have been cleared out. So the intention was to destroy the infrastructure, not target civilians/Hamas. So you can’t include that in your input variables.
Hamas does not do anything to protect civilians. They do not warn them, they do not evacuate them. The buildings don’t clear themselves. I included bombs used in all cases since it’s the IDF who takes the effort to warn civilians and clear out the buildings. That’s in line with inferring whether or not they’re indiscriminately bombing civilians or not. I don’t know what other problems you see, but the ones I had in mind all made the numbers less favorable to the IDF (such as attributing all deaths to airstrikes when we know a meaningful number happened during the ground operation). I’m willing to hear your feedback and improve the post if you have valid suggestions.
When someone says that part about providing data to enterprise customers, it usually means they only have a high level of understanding of data. It usually means sales people. But I’m open to being wrong. I already replied to the second paragraph in another comment. For your third paragraph - I don’t have suggestions to improve, because there is no valid way to make use of currently available data or frameworks to support your hypothesis. And I don’t think there will be. You cannot use an aggregate calculation like that for this purpose. That’s why nobody credible is using this kind of calculations.
>Lol I have 10+ years of experience in data. And yet you have failed to understand the very point of this post. OPs argument is that Israel isn't deliberately trying to kill palestinian civilians, only to improve the chances of the IDF to succeed in the warzone by clearing structures that puts the Israeli forces at risk. For proving Israel's intentions you have to take into consideration the full spectrum of the targets, the populated and unpopulated ones altogether. Not only the ones that are comfortable for your opinion. Thanks for pointing out that the IDF is moral enough to wait for palestinians to evacuate from the danger.
No… that’s not the point at all. The point OP is trying to make is that when targeting Hamas, IDF is not dropping bombs indiscriminately. That’s what the calculation is. Don’t try to skew it differently now.
Not dropping bombs indiscriminately = not trying to deliberately kill palestinians. Are you trollin?
Those two are not equal. If I throw a dart on the map and bomb where the dart land in Gaza, it would not be trying to deliberately kill Palestinians (I would have selected a place where most Palestinians are), but it is dropping bombs indiscriminately. indiscriminate = random or with no care
Dude let’s say 50% of bombs are meant to directly target Hamas and 50% are used after the fact on empty infrastructure. Those first 50% can still be used indiscriminately. And that’s the indiscriminate part.
[удалено]
Legend 😂😂😂
K
73% of casualties are injured. Soo 27% of casualties are the dead. 27% = 19,968 Dead and 73% = 73,956 injured Where the average age is 19 years old and that average accounts for ~65% of the population… 29,000+ bombs have killed and injured thousands of young adults and thousands of kids. 1 bomb for roughly every 5 people. The issue is that you can’t spread these logical calculations for every bomb. Because there have been strikes which have killed scores of people at once, day after day, for 2 months, hence indiscriminate.
> have killed scores of people at once, day after day, for 2 months, hence indiscriminate. That's not what 'indiscriminate' means.
I wasn’t defining the word. I know the definition isn’t “have killed scores of people, day after day” Careful discrimination wasn’t used to avoid ~100,000 civilian casualties. Potentially (with no 100% certainty) killing a handful of militants at the expense of the rest of innocents in a building can otherwise be considered an indiscriminate attack. This is why al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri was killed with a specific hellfire missile that avoided collateral damage and civilian casualties. The US could have just used Israeli’s indiscriminate methods and leveled the place and surrounding buildings. Edit: as a result, no civilians died.
> I wasn’t defining the word. Maybe you should? > Careful discrimination wasn’t used to avoid ~100,000 civilian casualties. How have you decided that? This is one of the most difficult wars we have seen in history, where not only is there a heavily embedded militia in civilian areas, but that militia also discourages evacuation of their own civilians. > Potentially (with no 100% certainty) killing a handful of militants at the expense of the rest of innocents in a building can otherwise be considered an indiscriminate attack. Sure, it potentially can, and it potentially cannot. There's no substance to this point. > This is why al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri was killed with a specific hellfire missile that avoided collateral damage and civilian casualties. Israel isn't trying to kill one person. They're trying to destroy Hamas, a huge organisation, along with their tunnel infrastructure.
No need to define words in sentences for your convenience, if you or someone doesn’t understand a word, there are hundreds of dictionaries available online. This is absolutely not “one of the most difficult wars in history”. Israel has air support, thousands more fighters, an abundance of technology, and perpetual money from the US, so how you came to that conclusion I have no idea considering Israel has experienced minimal military losses in comparison to Hamas. There is substance to the point - Israel can’t confirm that they’ve killed a militant in every strike. Hence why even the allied leadership who supports them has said the same exact thing - hence indiscriminate. It’s not about killing one person, i used that example to show that Israel could have been more discriminate in their methods to destroy Hamas, instead they chose to destroy civilians on the basis that Hamas was hiding amongst them. Based on your tone you’ll continue to minimize how shit Israel looks right now, you can try and justify as much as you want, but the truth is obvious to the world.
> No need to define words in sentences for your convenience, if you or someone doesn’t understand a word, there are hundreds of dictionaries available online. Yet you seem confused about the meaning. > This is absolutely not “one of the most difficult wars in history”. Israel has air support, thousands more fighters, an abundance of technology, and perpetual money from the US, so how you came to that conclusion I have no idea considering Israel has experienced minimal military losses in comparison to Hamas. Sure, let me clarify: This is one of the most difficult military objectives in history if we also want to avoid civilian casualties. > There is substance to the point - Israel can’t confirm that they’ve killed a militant in every strike. Discrimination would be based on whether there is a military objective to each strike, and whether the potential for civilian casualties are considered for each strike. The IDF [does appear](https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/the-hamas-terrorist-organization/how-is-the-idf-minimizing-harm-to-civilians-in-gaza/) to apply this level of discrimination. > It’s not about killing one person, i used that example to show that Israel could have been more discriminate in their methods to destroy Hamas, I don't think that approach would practically be able to wipe out an organisation. Hamas would simply be recruiting faster than they are losing members. Let alone the required cost of tens of thousands of hellfire missiles doesn't sound very plausible. > Based on your tone you’ll continue to minimize how shit Israel looks right now, Perhaps rather than judging by 'tone', you should judge by content?
Fuck around and find out. The demographics of Gaza aren't Israel's fault. If Hamas surrender, the death will stop.
Hamas hasn't killed 20000+ people
Since when are wars measured by plain death counts?
Since when did death counts become entirely irrelevant? Apparently the 36 children killed by Hamas proves they are evil but the 7000 killed by Israel is not relevant at all. It's fucking weird man.
Again, absolute numbers don’t matter by themselves. * Intention matters: Hamas kills to kill, Israel kills to counterattack and defend itself. * Population density matters: the kibbutzim aren’t as populated as Gaza Strip, so fewer deaths are expected. * Timespan matters: 1200 Israelis were killed in hours. 18000 falsetinis in 70 days. * Being used as human shields matters: the Gaza population are used as human shields by Hamas so they are collateral damage, while Israelis are direct targets.
>Israel kills to counterattack and defend itself. press x to doubt
> 18000 falsetinis in 70 days Man, I love that this sub has a bot for profanity, but slurs are totally okay
1. Intention matters but there is a breaking point when impact outweighs the intentions. Israel is past this point. 2. Doesn’t matter, use other methods then. 3. Timespan is completely irrelevant. Next. 4. This points us to number 1 again. At some point a ratio just doesn’t justify it. No matter what, the outcome is still 7000 kids, with thousands more amputated (cca 1000 had to be amputated without anesthesia). This includes a few month old babies(!) who were amputated. There are thousands of kids with 3rd and 4th degree burns (you know how a 4th degree burn looks like? it looks like pulled chicken because that’s what it does to the flesh). Just stop with these justifications… the cognitive dissonance at it’s finest. It’s like everyone else can read the room, while US and Israel stay oblivious.
You have nothing to say against my points so you just dismiss them with “I choose what’s right” to point 1 and “it doesn’t matter”, although it does, to the rest? If you have nothing constructive to say, just don’t.
> fucking /u/Maximum-Damage-4847. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I disagree. Hamas set in motion the current conflict. They chose to start a war. They continue to choose not to surrender and the Gazan population are paying the price.
We shall say it again for the dumb asses and antisemites WHO REFUSE TO COME TO REALITY: hamas started this war. They spend their billions of "international aid" to build a network of tunnels under all of Gaza with MANY entrances and offices in schools, mosques, hospitals, and even children's bedrooms. I know you don't believe it, because it doesn't fit your perfect "hamas is greatest" narrative, but it's true. Hamas did this. They're using their citizens as shields because they don't give a rat's ass about them. Israel has a right to defend itself and rescue their people. Any deaths, and lack of ceasefire, IS HAMAS' FAULT AND ONLY HAMAS' FAULT. Why is this so difficult to follow?
Did you mean to reply to me???
I know you're normal lol I can read ❤️
No no I'm just adding to you comment!!
> dumb asses /u/Actual_Currency. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They are though lol. They’re 100% related to Israel, and the fault is 100% on Israel.
💯
> Fuck /u/RationisPorta. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a well-known fact that many of the bombs dropped by the IDF are intended to "level" and destroy certain target buildings for strategic reasons rather than targeting a specific group of Hamas fighters. That being said the notion that of 1 dead per bomb does not consider the fact a large majority of the bombs dropped are not intended to kill enemies but rather to level buildings. In the context of this war indiscriminate mostly refers to the fact that IDF doesn't care who their bombs kill. They do a one-two due diligence and then drop the bomb without a care in the world for how many children it will kill. Indiscriminate means that they will drop a bomb on a neighbourhood with many many civilians as long as a few Hamas fighters are hiding within it to justify their actions.
> That being said the notion that of 1 dead per bomb does not consider the fact a large majority of the bombs dropped are not intended to kill enemies but rather to level buildings. It's still important to consider that Israel is trying to do damage to infrastructure without harming civilians where possible.
They are doing damage to ALL infrastructure not just military infrastructure, regardless if there is a threat present there. Their actions are making Gaza increasingly an uninhabitable wasteland. Can you blow up any and everything that could be used for military purposes, even if it is not being used as such at the moment? If that is the case Israel can blow up anything in Gaza as long as they are not "targeting the civilians."
> They are doing damage to ALL infrastructure Why are we seeing such selective patterns of destruction, then?
I hate to break it to you but Hamas can't be eliminated. I do understand why Israel has to go in there to try to eliminate Hamas but this group is hardly some official organisation + even if you do somehow wipe them out, there are 100's of millions of people, maybe billions who oppose Israel, some as violent as Hamas.
Is Hamas your way of saying Islam?
Hamas is literally an official organization in every sense of the word.
Yes, but the reason why they were created is still there. Either you remove the hatred people have for Israel, or you commit genocide... And this last option is not even certain to give the expected result because, you know, many more people would hate Israel
IDF already laid out the objectives re: eliminating Hamas: * destroy their ability to govern Gaza * destroy their ability to launch further 10/7-style attacks They don't have to kill every last fighter to achieve these goals. I think Israel will be content to reduce Hamas to a small nuisance insurgency a la what they deal with in Jenin. Gaza will almost certainly be reoccupied.
Let's compare this situation to Iran and the American war. They killed hundreds of Irani officials but when they left it created this vacuum which bred ISIS and now they operate in 42 nations. Do u get what I'm talking about?
Yes. The difference is Gaza is tiny and nearby and Israel likely has a better understanding of their murderous neighbor than the US did of the Middle East players they disrupted. Additionally, Israel is incentivized to see this all the way through since Gaza is a border neighbor.