3 ms·

No source offhand and can't look now, but it's just statements made by IDF spokespersons. The 18k number is from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, and doesn'

by edanm 3y ago

No source offhand and can't look now, but it's just statements made by IDF spokespersons. The 18k number is from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, and doesn't break down the numbers into civilians vs combatants. I didn't quite understand your calculation or last sentence.

tmnvix 3y ago
Thanks. The assumptions I am working on: - 18,000 Palestinians have lost their lives - Gazan health authority figures are in the realms of reality given numbers reported compared with numbers confirmed in past conflicts (my inclination here is to assume they are possibly under-counting due to many still buried under rubble - though I could be wrong here and these are somehow already added to the tally) - 50% are women and children (50% as a conservative convenience given that most reporting I have seen is over 60%) - No women or children are being counted as enemy combatants (definitely not true - I have seen footage of female Hamas militants during hostage handovers - but again I assume for convenience that their numbers are not significant) My calculation is that if 1/3 of Palestinian deaths have somehow been confirmed as militants/combatants then of a total of 18,000 that leaves 9,000 Palestinian men that have lost their lives. If the 2:1 ratio is correct then the number of combatants that have been killed must be 6,000. This seems unlikely to me because I cannot see why the 'collateral damage' suffered by the male population should be so different from the wider population when under 2% of a population of 2 million people are Hamas militants (by what I recall was the highest estimate of 40,000 given by the IDF at the outset). In other words if the total ratio is around 2:1, I think it is highly unlikely that the ratio for the male population is around 1:2. What makes male Palestinians so special that they should suffer so much less collateral damage?

by edanm 3y ago

tmnvix 3y ago

Thanks. The assumptions I am working on: - 18,000 Palestinians have lost their lives - Gazan health authority figures are in the realms of reality given numbers reported compared with numbers confirmed in past conflicts (my inclination here is to assume they are possibly under-counting due to many still buried under rubble - though I could be wrong here and these are somehow already added to the tally) - 50% are women and children (50% as a conservative convenience given that most reporting I have seen is over 60%) - No women or children are being counted as enemy combatants (definitely not true - I have seen footage of female Hamas militants during hostage handovers - but again I assume for convenience that their numbers are not significant) My calculation is that if 1/3 of Palestinian deaths have somehow been confirmed as militants/combatants then of a total of 18,000 that leaves 9,000 Palestinian men that have lost their lives. If the 2:1 ratio is correct then the number of combatants that have been killed must be 6,000. This seems unlikely to me because I cannot see why the 'collateral damage' suffered by the male population should be so different from the wider population when under 2% of a population of 2 million people are Hamas militants (by what I recall was the highest estimate of 40,000 given by the IDF at the outset). In other words if the total ratio is around 2:1, I think it is highly unlikely that the ratio for the male population is around 1:2. What makes male Palestinians so special that they should suffer so much less collateral damage?