Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[pood]

You claimed the bombardment was indiscriminate. If it were indiscriminate the expected result would be at most the same percent of Hamas killed as civilians and in practice the percent of Hamas killed would be far lower due to their tunnels. The fact that the ratio is skewed 20:1 (by Hamas data, more like 50:1 by Israeli data) is a clear rebuttal to it being indiscriminate.

Let me reiterate what I wrote earlier, with an addition in bold:

So Israel has killed one percent of the Gazan population. In five months.

I wonder how the U.S. would feel if a foreign invader came here and killed 3.4 million people in five months. None too happy, I’d think.

Addition: But, since the killing of 3.4 million Americans in five months was not INDISCRIMINATE, why, that’s perfectly OK, then. Carry on killing as you are!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

By Hamas' own data the kill rate of terrorists is 20x the kill rate of civilians. That's an undisputed low value for the ratio. Reality is probably something like 40x but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Could you please cite Hamas source that says it is 20+x to 1? That number seems remarkably impossible. Areas would need to be void of civilians to manage that. I mean, it is possible we were talking 100 dead Hamas over a period of 1 year, but 10k to 15k in several months... and but a pittance is civilian casualties?

Please read more carefully.

I'm saying that by Hamas numbers Israel has killed 20% of the terrorists (6,000 of 30,000) but 1% of the population (30,000 of a bit over 3M) as a whole. That's being very selective and clearly refutes the "indiscriminate" claim.

That wasn't clear at all. It is also a bizarre metric to be comparing. It'd be like saying well, 300,000 Gazans were killed, but that is half of the rate of Hamas that was killed. It is a meaningless metric designed to mask quantities.

Please pay attention, I explained why I was saying it. Is this another case of being unable to comprehend blasphemy?

You claimed the bombardment was indiscriminate.

When did I say that?

One thing that occurred to me that would be another reason Netanyahu doesn't want to stop the attacks is that if the fighting stops, Gazans can try and return home.

You're blinded by your faith. Israel doesn't want war, Israel wants not to be attacked. The only way they can get relative peace is to smash Hamas' ability to attack.

Stop equating Netanyahu with Israel.

 

[laughing dog]

So Israel has killed one percent of the Gazan population. In five months.
I wonder how the U.S. would feel if a foreign invader came here and killed 3.4 million people in five months. None too happy, I’d think.

Classic "reverse victim and offender". You are forgetting (or ignoring) that Gaza started this war by invading Israel and murdering >1,200 people and kidnaping 100s of others.

Gaza did no such thing. Hamas - an usurper - did it.

 

[laughing dog]

Moral equivalency got nothing to do with negotiation. No. I recognize the reality of negotiating. If both parties are serious, they will bargain which means ignoring the bluster and bigotry. If at least one is not, nothing will happen.
I have lots if experience negotiating. If course not as much was at stake, but the same basic principles apply - neither hide had much trust in the other, and one side was out to obliterate the other organization.

In my view, the report you cite is evidence someone is trying to scuttle any ceasefire negotiations.

The problem here is that the core demand of each side is effectively the death of the other side.

You're locked in a room with someone, there's a gun on the table. Negotiate who will eat a bullet.

You seem to feel it's possible, present how you will solve this?

There is nothing to solve because your hypothetical is nonsense.

You negotiate. Negotiating does not guarantee success.

 

[ZiprHead]

You claimed the bombardment was indiscriminate. If it were indiscriminate the expected result would be at most the same percent of Hamas killed as civilians and in practice the percent of Hamas killed would be far lower due to their tunnels. The fact that the ratio is skewed 20:1 (by Hamas data, more like 50:1 by Israeli data) is a clear rebuttal to it being indiscriminate.

Dropping 2,000 pound bombs that completely destroys entire city blocks in one fell swoop is pretty indiscriminant in my book.

 

[laughing dog]

Multiple people have described possible better ways. Please either learn to read or more accurately make your point.

Last I knew zero was not a valid value for "multiple".

Multiple people have described impossible better ways.

To quote someone on this forum - your saying do does not make it so.

 

[Bomb#20]

... I would take issue with your new claim that the “dominant majority” of Palestinians — I take it, by “dominant majority,” you are referring to Palestinians, or specifically residents of Gaza — are “violently anti-Jewish bigots.” ... I see no evidence whatever that this majority consists of “anti-Jewish bigots,” either. Anti-ISRAEL, maybe, but that’s not the same as “anti-Jewish bigotry,” ...

You're carefully distinguishing between Jews on the one hand and Israel on the other. ... But if you are proposing that the dominant majority of residents of Gaza make the same sort of mental distinction between Jews and Israel that you make, how do you propose that they learned to do that? ... do you see any evidence whatever that Palestinian culture has grown substantially more liberal since that time?

Regardless of your interpretation of their beliefs, have Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death while living in Israel? If one basketball team pulls out guns and shoots their opposing basketball team dead, does that give the right to the fans of the dead basketball team to kill the fans of the aggressors?

aa

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it? Two earlier posters were having an argument over whether most Gazans are anti-Jewish bigots. Do you feel that anti-Jewish bigotry not being a capital crime has bearing on which of them is right?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

Al Jazeera used to be a good source. But now they are controlled by Qatar--and Qatar has been funding Hamas.

It was always owned by the Qatari royal family. Right from the start they've had a sacred policy of not involving themselves in what Al-Jazeera is reporting about. They have editorial autonomy. It's always been like that.

Yes, the Qatari royal family and government funds Hamas.

And they also understand that a news publication only has value if it is free to write whatever they want to. Al-Jazeera has a degree of freeedom news publications driven by the need to generate add revenue, doesn't have. BBC is another one.

I think you are unncessarily critical of them.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

I'm not trying to ignore what is happening. I was pointing out the claim of "indiscriminate" is totally bogus. If it were truly indiscriminate you would see a lower percentage of terrorist dead (because they have the tunnels to hide in) than civilian dead. Instead, even by their own data the odds of a terrorist dying are 20x the odds of a civilian dying.

And note that the Palestinian dead count has problems. Partially from being bogus, partially from Hamas:

IDF says it did not open fire at aid convoy in Gaza but claims Palestinian gunmen were responsible

The first aid ship has reached Gaza since the beginning of the war, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office says it has approved "plans for action" in Rafah.

www.cnn.com

Which is far more consistent with what I would have expected to happen than the initial reports were. Hamas does not want aid reaching the people, shooting up those trying to get the aid is not at all unexpected.

The numbers supplied by Hamas are at best lies. At worst random. Hamas do not have the data with which to inform anyone of how it's going.

Israel most likely have accurate data. I'm convinced that Isarael has better records on the Palestinians than either the PA or Hamas does. But they also have an incentive to downplay Palestinian losses. So can't be trusted either.

How the fuck do we calculate percentages in this mess of a conflict? Percentages of what fantsy number someone pulled out of their ass?

If a journalist on site thinks it looks like indiscrimitate bombing then it's perfectly fine that they print that. No matter the truth.

Journalism isn't perfect. It's just the best we can do.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

Al Jazeera used to be a good source. But now they are controlled by Qatar--and Qatar has been funding Hamas.

It was always owned by the Qatari royal family. Right from the start they've had a sacred policy of not involving themselves in what Al-Jazeera is reporting about. They have editorial autonomy. It's always been like that.

Yes, the Qatari royal family and government funds Hamas.

And they also understand that a news publication only has value if it is free to write whatever they want to. Al-Jazeera has a degree of freeedom news publications driven by the need to generate add revenue, doesn't have. BBC is another one.

I think you are unncessarily critical of them.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

I'm not trying to ignore what is happening. I was pointing out the claim of "indiscriminate" is totally bogus. If it were truly indiscriminate you would see a lower percentage of terrorist dead (because they have the tunnels to hide in) than civilian dead. Instead, even by their own data the odds of a terrorist dying are 20x the odds of a civilian dying.

And note that the Palestinian dead count has problems. Partially from being bogus, partially from Hamas:

IDF says it did not open fire at aid convoy in Gaza but claims Palestinian gunmen were responsible

The first aid ship has reached Gaza since the beginning of the war, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office says it has approved "plans for action" in Rafah.

www.cnn.com

Which is far more consistent with what I would have expected to happen than the initial reports were. Hamas does not want aid reaching the people, shooting up those trying to get the aid is not at all unexpected.

The numbers supplied by Hamas are at best lies. At worst random. Hamas do not have the data with which to inform anyone of how it's going.

Israel most likely have accurate data. I'm convinced that Isarael has better records on the Palestinians than either the PA or Hamas does. But they also have an incentive to downplay Palestinian losses. So can't be trusted either.

How the fuck do we calculate percentages in this mess of a conflict? Percentages of what fantsy number someone pulled out of their ass?

If a journalist on site thinks it looks like indiscrimitate bombing then it's perfectly fine that they print that. No matter the truth.

Journalism isn't perfect. It's just the best we can do.

Agreed. We can't believe Hamas's numbers.

MSN

The big issue is that Hamas considers its killed soldiers as civilians. Taking them out of their inflated numbers, the combat to civilian death ratio is about 1:2. I agree with the author of this article that any death of a civilian is a tragedy. However, civilians usually make up 90% of deaths from combat (according to united nations). Israel is far better at limiting civilian deaths in urban warfare than the rest of the world (better than the US; far better than Russia). The goal should really be to stop wars.

 

[repoman]

Are you talking about the US and Russia recently or are you including the heinous era of WWII?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are you talking about the US and Russia recently or are you including the heinous era of WWII?

WW2 was off the charts heinous regarding civilian deaths. Most militaries are far better today. I'm not sure how the UN calculated their numbers. In Afghanistan, the combatant to civilian death toll was about 1:1.14 (53,000 combatants killed; 46,000 civilians). Link:

https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-loss-better-peace

Again, it appears that in Gaza the ratio is higher at 1:2. But I think that in Gaza the civilian population is far tighter and closer to the fighters than in Afghistan.

 

[laughing dog]

... I would take issue with your new claim that the “dominant majority” of Palestinians — I take it, by “dominant majority,” you are referring to Palestinians, or specifically residents of Gaza — are “violently anti-Jewish bigots.” ... I see no evidence whatever that this majority consists of “anti-Jewish bigots,” either. Anti-ISRAEL, maybe, but that’s not the same as “anti-Jewish bigotry,” ...

You're carefully distinguishing between Jews on the one hand and Israel on the other. ... But if you are proposing that the dominant majority of residents of Gaza make the same sort of mental distinction between Jews and Israel that you make, how do you propose that they learned to do that? ... do you see any evidence whatever that Palestinian culture has grown substantially more liberal since that time?

Regardless of your interpretation of their beliefs, have Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death while living in Israel? If one basketball team pulls out guns and shoots their opposing basketball team dead, does that give the right to the fans of the dead basketball team to kill the fans of the aggressors?

aa

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "Meh, shit happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

 

[TomC]

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No

That choice was made by Gazans. Hamas and everybody else who allowed the combination of huge terrorist attack and the use of human shields.
The international community helped a lot as well. From directly funding Hamas to delivering humanitarian aid to Hamas and letting them decide how to distribute it.

The attitude of "Meh, shit happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

So does dismissing the agency of Gazan civilians. It's a common tacit assumption in this conversation, that Gazans as a group had no control over a tiny group of terrorists who ran everything.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No

That choice was made by Gazans. Hamas and everybody else who allowed the combination of huge terrorist attack and the use of human shields.
The international community helped a lot as well. From directly funding Hamas to delivering humanitarian aid to Hamas and letting them decide how to distribute it.

Don't forget the gov't of Israel under Netanhuyu that funneled aid to Hamas. Given that undeniable fact, are you willing to say Israel is getting what it deserves or are you going to deny the agency of Israel? If you do, you are tacitly admitting your argument is bs.

The attitude of "Meh, shit happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

So does dismissing the agency of Gazan civilians. It's a common tacit assumption in this conversation, that Gazans as a group had no control over a tiny group of terrorists who ran everything.
Tom

Illogical claptrap. Over half the population of Gaza are children.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

Al Jazeera used to be a good source. But now they are controlled by Qatar--and Qatar has been funding Hamas.

It was always owned by the Qatari royal family. Right from the start they've had a sacred policy of not involving themselves in what Al-Jazeera is reporting about. They have editorial autonomy. It's always been like that.

Yes, the Qatari royal family and government funds Hamas.

And they also understand that a news publication only has value if it is free to write whatever they want to. Al-Jazeera has a degree of freeedom news publications driven by the need to generate add revenue, doesn't have. BBC is another one.

I think you are unncessarily critical of them.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

I'm not trying to ignore what is happening. I was pointing out the claim of "indiscriminate" is totally bogus. If it were truly indiscriminate you would see a lower percentage of terrorist dead (because they have the tunnels to hide in) than civilian dead. Instead, even by their own data the odds of a terrorist dying are 20x the odds of a civilian dying.

And note that the Palestinian dead count has problems. Partially from being bogus, partially from Hamas:

IDF says it did not open fire at aid convoy in Gaza but claims Palestinian gunmen were responsible

The first aid ship has reached Gaza since the beginning of the war, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office says it has approved "plans for action" in Rafah.

www.cnn.com

Which is far more consistent with what I would have expected to happen than the initial reports were. Hamas does not want aid reaching the people, shooting up those trying to get the aid is not at all unexpected.

The numbers supplied by Hamas are at best lies. At worst random. Hamas do not have the data with which to inform anyone of how it's going.

Israel most likely have accurate data. I'm convinced that Isarael has better records on the Palestinians than either the PA or Hamas does. But they also have an incentive to downplay Palestinian losses. So can't be trusted either.

How the fuck do we calculate percentages in this mess of a conflict? Percentages of what fantsy number someone pulled out of their ass?

If a journalist on site thinks it looks like indiscrimitate bombing then it's perfectly fine that they print that. No matter the truth.

Journalism isn't perfect. It's just the best we can do.

Agreed. We can't believe Hamas's numbers.

MSN

The big issue is that Hamas considers its killed soldiers as civilians. Taking them out of their inflated numbers, the combat to civilian death ratio is about 1:2. I agree with the author of this article that any death of a civilian is a tragedy. However, civilians usually make up 90% of deaths from combat (according to united nations). Israel is far better at limiting civilian deaths in urban warfare than the rest of the world (better than the US; far better than Russia). The goal should really be to stop wars.

What is a Palestinian civilian and a fighter is a bit blurry. And Hamas has wide popular support by the Palestinians. I have close Palestinian friends, and the warped shit that comes out of their mouths is a strong indicator of the degree the Palestinians support Hamas.

I think the biggest factor in this conflict is the Palestinian widespread antisemitism. Irrational antisemitism. Hating Jews is normal among Palestinians. That’s what makes this so difficult for the Jews to manage the conflict. There's no room for negotiation. If the only deal Hamas is open for is an eradication of the Jewish state and to murder all Jews, there's not much for Israel to do other than what they are doing right now.

If ones world view is so damn warped as the Palestinians world view is, yes, then numbers will be untrustworthy. I think Hamas genuinely think that Palestinian civilians are fighters by default and vice versa. I don't think they're lying when they confuse the numbers. I think they are this deluded

 

[pood]

I think the biggest factor in this conflict is the Palestinian widespread antisemitism. Irrational antisemitism. Hating Jews is normal among Palestinians. That’s what makes this so difficult for the Jews to manage the conflict.

What makes it so hard to manage the conflict is precisely that Palestinians do not hate Jews. They hate the people who stole their land, who happened to be Jewish. If Hindus had stolen their land, they would hate them too, while expressing their hatred with anti-Hindu invective.

At bottom this has little to do with religion at all, IMO.

 

[Bomb#20]

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "... happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar by now with your limitless ability to conflate collateral damage with the deliberate targeting of noncombatants. But the fact that the distinction is evidently completely immaterial in your mind does not make it at all reasonable for you to incessantly project your own brain malfunction onto your opponents. The distinction is not immaterial in the rest of our minds, and every time you make inferences about others by assuming it's just as unimportant to them as it is to you, you are reasoning fallaciously and thereby reaching idiotic conclusions. So no, the attitude of “It’s war and civilians get killed” is not evidence that the objects of your invective are targeting civilians, or are assuming the civilians deserve it, or are targeting civilians because they think they deserve it.

It's war, and civilians die during wars. Its glory is all moonshine and all that.
Many German civilians, including children, died and suffered during the last stages of WWII as well. That does not mean that the Allied invasion of Germany was "collective punishment". ...

ignoring the inept analogy with WW2, if the justification for death of civilians is “It’s war and civilians get killed”, then why the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war?

Because the Israeli civilians were not collateral damage. They were deliberately targeted. Duh! You are not stupid, so why do you write such drivel?

 

[laughing dog]

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "... happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar by now with your limitless ability to conflate collateral damage with the deliberate targeting of noncombatants. But the fact that the distinction is evidently completely immaterial in your mind does not make it at all reasonable for you to incessantly project your own brain malfunction onto your opponents. The distinction is not immaterial in the rest of our minds, and every time you make inferences about others by assuming it's just as unimportant to them as it is to you, you are reasoning fallaciously and thereby reaching idiotic conclusions. So no, the attitude of “It’s war and civilians get killed” is not evidence that the objects of your invective are targeting civilians, or are assuming the civilians deserve it, or are targeting civilians because they think they deserve it.

Nowhere did I mention targeting civilians. In fact, if you actually bothered to read the part of your response I was responding to, you'd notice there was not mention of targeting of civilians.

It's war, and civilians die during wars. Its glory is all moonshine and all that.
Many German civilians, including children, died and suffered during the last stages of WWII as well. That does not mean that the Allied invasion of Germany was "collective punishment". ...

ignoring the inept analogy with WW2, if the justification for death of civilians is “It’s war and civilians get killed”, then why the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war?

Because the Israeli civilians were not collateral damage. They were deliberately targeted. Duh! You are not stupid, so why do you write such drivel?

Dead is dead. Intent means nothing to the dead. If the IDF literally killed every single Gazan civilian in their attempts to eliminate Hamas, according to your reasoning, that extirpation of Gazans is ok because it was "unintentional".

Please, I know it is hard, but try thinking before you respond.

 

[Copernicus]

...
The real trouble is that there is a vastly larger number of mouths and stomachs in Gaza than the few trucks allowed to enter through Kerem Shalom every day can feed. So famine is another method of killing innocent Palestinians, and I doubt that those who control the number of trucks going in are unaware of that. It will take about a month for the US to get its temporary aid port built, so it would be appropriate to stop all arms shipments to Israel at least until we can get enough food into the area so that they can survive long enough to be killed and injured by the weapons we supply the Israelis with.

Kerem Shalom is not saturated. And it's meaningless, anyway, because Hamas takes what comes through.

Did I say Kerem Shalom was saturated? As for Hamas taking what comes through, that is simply not true. Israel itself admits that, so why are you exaggerating?

 

[pood]

So no, the attitude of “It’s war and civilians get killed” is not evidence that the objects of your invective are targeting civilians, or are assuming the civilians deserve it, or are targeting civilians because they think they deserve it.\

No, of course Israel isn’t targeting civilians. And that’s just in October! It’s much worse now, and now, of course, in addition to targeting civilians, Israel is causing mass starvation among them.