[TalEs]

> pretty low amount of collateral damage for fighting in an urbanized area. Keep in mind the "civilian" casualties numbers for Palestine come from Hamas-controlled entities

I am not sure about what you mean by "pretty low" collateral damage when almost half of the infrastructure of Gaza has been damaged or destroyed, including historical and heritage sites. More than 17,000 Palestinians have been killed, around 70% being women and children. I guess those "civillian" casualties are militants to you.

It is also disingenuous to say that the casualty numbers cannot be trusted as they are from "Hamas-controlled" entities when historically the numbers the Gazan health ministry gave has tallied with Israeli numbers in every war prior. It is like conflating that the FDA cannot be trusted if Trump said not to get vaccines, because they are under the same government. Different agencies are not held to the same standard and they might not have the same goals, Hamas is mainly a military wing, while the Gazan health ministry cares for the health and survival of their people.

Also, Israel keeps track of every person born and dead in Gaza, they have state-wide surveillance there, they could have chosen to send in surgical strike forces and taken out the militants strategically, but instead chose to carry out one of the heaviest bombardments in the current decades. Netanyahu has also said their military won't leave Gaza, after the war. Seems like they plan to expand their West Bank Occupation operations to Gaza.

[mlyle]

> 17,000 Palestinians have been killed, around 70% being women and children.

Unfortunately, 1) these numbers come from Hamas; 2) count militants; 3) a large fraction of "children" appear to be militants.

> while the Gazan health ministry cares for the health and survival of their people.

Every real government tracks civilian and military deaths separately. Here we're given one misleading lump of a number (that includes significant incentive to lie).

> Also, Israel keeps track of every person born and dead in Gaza, they have state-wide surveillance there, they could have chosen to send in surgical strike forces and taken out the militants strategically,

I think this is unrealistic and any effort to do so would be suicide.

> Netanyahu has also said their military won't leave Gaza, after the war.

Netanyahu has said just about every possible thing depending upon whom he's been talking to. There's no disagreement he and his government are trash.

[TalEs]

> 1) these numbers come from Hamas

Let me reiterate that the numbers have been accurate so far and for previous conflicts, you can't just brush it away by saying "Hamas said". I can also say "IDF said" and brush everything away, but when there is evidence time and time again that they are accurate, you can't erase them away. Moving on...

I am not sure why you don't consider infrastructure as collateral damage too. That would too shallow of an analysis to forgo. Without infrastructure, like hospitals, power plants, water desalination plants/water towers and even homes, that the IDF has been destroying, there would be no electricity, water, sanitation, healthcare and shelter for the civilians that are left alive after all the bombings. It is already a humanitarian crisis situation, but the loss of infrastructure is almost amounting to a genocide, because there is no support structure left for the people, who are already barricaded in and have no chance to flee. They will just die from dehydration, disease, malnutrition or the weather, if the bombs don't get to them first. I also don't mean the definition of "genocide" that has happened after the successful killing of thousands of people, I mean genocide that shouldn't and cannot happen, because we can't let it happen. "Never again" applies to all human beings. Also the "aid" that is going in, is not enough to sustain the civilians, hundreds of trucks need to go in daily but that many trucks may only go in, in a week.

> 3) a large fraction of "children" appear to be militants.

If you think it's justified to kill women and the "children", than you are no better than the supposed militia you are fighting. I am not sure what to say, further than that. Even B'Tselem would have a stroke hearing that.

> I think this is unrealistic and any effort to do so would be suicide.

I also don't think the carpet bombing is justified and more could have been done. A combined operation from ground and air would have been better, than full air bombardment.

I am not sure how Netanyahu is not in jail after his corruption charges from 2019, who in Israel keeps allowing him back in power if they hate him so much? Just a rhetorical question.

[mlyle]

> If you think it's justified to kill women and the "children", than you are no better than the supposed militia you are fighting.

I'm just going to stick to one point, because I've been trying to say it and it hasn't been heard. When you define "children" in a way that it includes a big fraction-- perhaps a majority of those-- taking up arms, it stops being a useful measure.

Israel's current estimate is a lower bound of "over 7,000" militants killed. The algorithm they use to determine someone is a militant is:

- found dead with a weapon

- or over 14 years old and male at a rocket launch site, a Hamas tunnel, or in a position which was firing upon the IDF

- or if you're known to Shin Bet as a Hamas/PIJ/etc member

- or if you're over 14, male, and killed with a large group of people meeting criteria above.

It's obviously imperfect; it overcounts in some ways and undercounts in others.

This means a lot of 14..18 males are counted both as "children" and "Hamas militants"

[DanBC]

> Unfortunately, 1) these numbers come from Hamas

The official Israeli count is higher than the Hamas count.

[mlyle]

We're talking about the demographic fractions. The official Israeli counts support that they're killing militants to civilians at a ratio of 2:1 --- which is horrible, but better than warfare in urban areas usually achieves

It is probably not as favorable of a ratio as Israel states), but not as terrible as the Gaza Health Ministry numbers that imply substantially all of the casualties are civilians.

Unfortunately, Israel's adversary has chosen a set of tactics that put civilians in greater danger.

[dragonwriter]

> The official Israeli counts support that they're killing militants to civilians at a ratio of 2:1 --- which is horrible, but better than warfare in urban areas usually achieves

Official counts by a party to the conflict also are invariably better than what the actual war they are prosecuting achieves.

[mlyle]

Of course-- this is a point already made in my comment-- "It is probably not as favorable of a ratio as Israel states". We obviously cannot simply take the numbers from either Israel or Hamas.