4 ms·

> Israel has the means to kill Palestinians and it doesn't. This has to be one of the most startling claims I've ever seen on HN. Here's a graph that slightly

> Israel has the means to kill Palestinians and it doesn't. This has to be one of the most startling claims I've ever seen on HN. Here's a graph that slightly contradicts your claim. https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/charts/ https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/charts/ This makes it very hard to take anything else you say at face value.

tasn 3y ago
Not to belittle 30,000 casualties (terrible still), if this is the death toll in 23 years, which is based on Hammas reported number, includes "militants" (terrorists) and many other deaths, and all while fighting in a very densely populated area against a group using civilians as human shields: the Israeli death machine is doing a very poor job. Edit: I looked at this source closer, this is a random blog by an obvious biased source (general credibility aside). Using pictures of Palestinians in the header, saying that there's strong evidence that Israel is behind the bombing at the hospital parking lot, and still claiming that there were ~500 casualties there. Again, going back to the lame death machine argument: on one hand Israel is bad and using precise bombs that take down building, but on the other they somehow attacked a hospital parking lot with a weak bomb that caused little to no damage? Nevermind the ample evidence to the contrary of these claims, just this should give you a hint by how unlikely it is.
- drcongo 3y ago
  You seem to have gotten a little side tracked. You claimed that Israel doesn't kill Palestinians - have you got a reputable source for this obviously false claim?
  - tasn 3y ago
    This was said in response to claims of intentional genocide, not civilian damage.
    - drcongo 3y ago
      No, you've introduced the word "intentional" there. You were responding to a post about genocide and apartheid by downplaying it and claiming Israel doesn't kill Palestinians.
      - tasn 3y ago
        > I really don't want to get into politics on HN, but there is no genocide nor apartheid, this is just Hammas propaganda. Israel has the means to kill Palestinians and it doesn't. This is the full quote you originally cut. It is obvious that this refers to killing in the context genocide (the same way the rest of the text refers to apartheid). Even if you originally thought in earnest that I meant any killing (which is obviously ridiculous), I made it clear multiple times that this was not what I meant.
ethbr1 3y ago
Israel has one of the most modern militaries in the world, with a deep reserve system. If their goal was to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties, it would be a lot worse. Gaza is an incredibly densely populated area, within range of Israeli artillery, with complete Israeli air and naval superiority. If Israel wanted to, it likely has the conventional means to flatten every structure in Gaza. Given there are ~2.5M people there, that would produce orders of magnitude greater casualties. Right now... they're definitely not doing that. At the same time, civilian collateral deaths apparently aren't a hard line for them, if they believe they're attacking a Hamas target. So, somewhere in the middle.
- drcongo 3y ago
  Who said anything about "maximizing Palestinian civilian casualties"? The GP claimed that Isreal doesn't kill Palestinians, which it quite clearly does.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Do you not see a difference between targeting civilians and collateral civilians deaths during a military conflict? Or are just being pedantic?
    - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
      In theory, there is obviously a difference between the two things you mentioned. However, from what we can see happening in reality, there is no indication that Israel's military makes that distinction. See this article for a summary of the destruction up to November 12: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-inflicts-catastrophic-damage-infrastructure-economy-2023-11-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-inflicts-... Let us assume that Israel is truthful about every claim they made about Hamas being inside or under pretty much every school, hospital, religious object, and other building that is normally protected from being attacked by the international law of war, and let us assume that their indiscriminate destruction of such objects is legitimate. Does that naturally extend to also include over 45% residential housing units (from the article) absolutely needing to be destroyed or damaged? From the article: "An Israeli reporter who was taken to see the Gazan town of Beit Hanoun by the Israeli military reported on Sunday that "barely a single inhabitable building remains standing". More than 52,000 people had lived there before the war." Was the killing of more than 4500 children also absolutely unavoidable, and not just a part of a campaign of vengeful destruction and killing to satisfy bloodlust that is bordering on genocide? The reports from the ground just don't match the stated goals of the Israeli government and military, nor their stated excuses for so much bloodshed. Let us for the moment pretend that naming killed innocent civilians 'collateral damage' somehow makes their killing okay, and that saying that "Hamas hides among civilians and uses them as human shields" somehow makes it okay to just bomb all those civilians, hoping to also get some militants in the process. We can all make a very good guess that had Hamas fled inside an Israeli city and hid among that city's population, there wouldn't have been indiscriminate bombing of that city with all the killed Israeli citizens being merely proclaimed collateral damage and "oh well, hamas used them as human shield, so we had to bomb them to death". There would have been very precise military action involving a lot of ground fighting, in order to actually minimize civilian deaths, because then it would be civilians that they actually care about. Palestinians, on the other hand... unfortunate human shields and all. Their deaths seem welcome, if anything. And that's genocidal intent.

tasn 3y ago

Not to belittle 30,000 casualties (terrible still), if this is the death toll in 23 years, which is based on Hammas reported number, includes "militants" (terrorists) and many other deaths, and all while fighting in a very densely populated area against a group using civilians as human shields: the Israeli death machine is doing a very poor job. Edit: I looked at this source closer, this is a random blog by an obvious biased source (general credibility aside). Using pictures of Palestinians in the header, saying that there's strong evidence that Israel is behind the bombing at the hospital parking lot, and still claiming that there were ~500 casualties there. Again, going back to the lame death machine argument: on one hand Israel is bad and using precise bombs that take down building, but on the other they somehow attacked a hospital parking lot with a weak bomb that caused little to no damage? Nevermind the ample evidence to the contrary of these claims, just this should give you a hint by how unlikely it is.

drcongo 3y ago
You seem to have gotten a little side tracked. You claimed that Israel doesn't kill Palestinians - have you got a reputable source for this obviously false claim?
- tasn 3y ago
  This was said in response to claims of intentional genocide, not civilian damage.
  - drcongo 3y ago
    No, you've introduced the word "intentional" there. You were responding to a post about genocide and apartheid by downplaying it and claiming Israel doesn't kill Palestinians.
    - tasn 3y ago
      > I really don't want to get into politics on HN, but there is no genocide nor apartheid, this is just Hammas propaganda. Israel has the means to kill Palestinians and it doesn't. This is the full quote you originally cut. It is obvious that this refers to killing in the context genocide (the same way the rest of the text refers to apartheid). Even if you originally thought in earnest that I meant any killing (which is obviously ridiculous), I made it clear multiple times that this was not what I meant.

ethbr1 3y ago

Israel has one of the most modern militaries in the world, with a deep reserve system. If their goal was to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties, it would be a lot worse. Gaza is an incredibly densely populated area, within range of Israeli artillery, with complete Israeli air and naval superiority. If Israel wanted to, it likely has the conventional means to flatten every structure in Gaza. Given there are ~2.5M people there, that would produce orders of magnitude greater casualties. Right now... they're definitely not doing that. At the same time, civilian collateral deaths apparently aren't a hard line for them, if they believe they're attacking a Hamas target. So, somewhere in the middle.

drcongo 3y ago
Who said anything about "maximizing Palestinian civilian casualties"? The GP claimed that Isreal doesn't kill Palestinians, which it quite clearly does.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Do you not see a difference between targeting civilians and collateral civilians deaths during a military conflict? Or are just being pedantic?
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
    In theory, there is obviously a difference between the two things you mentioned. However, from what we can see happening in reality, there is no indication that Israel's military makes that distinction. See this article for a summary of the destruction up to November 12: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-inflicts-catastrophic-damage-infrastructure-economy-2023-11-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-inflicts-... Let us assume that Israel is truthful about every claim they made about Hamas being inside or under pretty much every school, hospital, religious object, and other building that is normally protected from being attacked by the international law of war, and let us assume that their indiscriminate destruction of such objects is legitimate. Does that naturally extend to also include over 45% residential housing units (from the article) absolutely needing to be destroyed or damaged? From the article: "An Israeli reporter who was taken to see the Gazan town of Beit Hanoun by the Israeli military reported on Sunday that "barely a single inhabitable building remains standing". More than 52,000 people had lived there before the war." Was the killing of more than 4500 children also absolutely unavoidable, and not just a part of a campaign of vengeful destruction and killing to satisfy bloodlust that is bordering on genocide? The reports from the ground just don't match the stated goals of the Israeli government and military, nor their stated excuses for so much bloodshed. Let us for the moment pretend that naming killed innocent civilians 'collateral damage' somehow makes their killing okay, and that saying that "Hamas hides among civilians and uses them as human shields" somehow makes it okay to just bomb all those civilians, hoping to also get some militants in the process. We can all make a very good guess that had Hamas fled inside an Israeli city and hid among that city's population, there wouldn't have been indiscriminate bombing of that city with all the killed Israeli citizens being merely proclaimed collateral damage and "oh well, hamas used them as human shield, so we had to bomb them to death". There would have been very precise military action involving a lot of ground fighting, in order to actually minimize civilian deaths, because then it would be civilians that they actually care about. Palestinians, on the other hand... unfortunate human shields and all. Their deaths seem welcome, if anything. And that's genocidal intent.