15 ms·

10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare workers is ridiculously high. Would be int

10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare workers is ridiculously high. Would be interesting to see what the death rates for journalists, medics, soldiers, etc was in afghan war, iraq war, vietnam war, etc. I highly doubt any reaches 10%.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> 10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare workers is ridiculously high. Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire. That makes comparing casualty rates incredibly difficult. (To my knowledge, nobody else has done this so comprehensively. Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated. Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.)
- licebmi__at__ 3y ago
  >Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated. I'm wondering by what metric do you define success.
  - hersko 3y ago
    A lot of civilians being killed by the enemy driving global condemnation.
    - falcor84 3y ago
      Are there any other examples from history where the goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to maximize the destruction of their own side? If so, what were the outcomes of these?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Are there any other examples from history where the goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to maximize the destruction of their own side? Every false flag operation designed to rally support for a conflict.
        falcor84 3y ago
        I'm not quite clear on what you're implying here, but in any case I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged war rather than an isolated false flag operation.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged war rather than an isolated false flag operation During the Chinese civil war, the Maoists let the Nationalists take a shellacking when convenient. And while I wouldn’t say America was conducive to civilian deaths on “our” side in Vietnam or Afghanistan, it clearly wasn’t something we optimised for: our priority was protecting our troops. Hamas is a paramilitary. It serves its own forces. The civilians of Palestine aren’t “its” people; they’re a battlefield element.
        falcor84 3y ago
        Apologies for my ignorance, but aren't Hamas literally the government of Gaza? Have they been renounced by the population in favor of any other government?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > aren't Hamas literally the government of Gaza? The Kims are the government of North Korea. That doesn’t mean they serve its people. > Have they been renounced by the population in favor of any other government? Difficult to tell. Hamas did away with elections in their 2007 coup [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I mean, they have managed to hurt israel's position on the world stage & economy quite significantly relative to their actual military power. Hardly seems worth it to me, but i guess you could argue that is success of a sort.
  - eli_gottlieb 3y ago
    The first time in Palestinian history that they took and held Israeli territory after 1948 for any length of time.
- hmcq6 3y ago
  This is unfounded. I'm still waiting on a single shred of evidence to drop about the AP building from 2-3 years ago https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israel-palestinian-conflict-fe452147166f55ba5a9d32e6ba8b53d7 https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israe... > Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete. Even if Hamas was fighting from hospitals and schools that is not how this works. Israel would be required to give those schools and hospitals warning first which they have not been doing. And assuming (incorrectly) that Israel was following the rules of engagement and giving the civilians warning, why are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs? Why not guided bombs?
  - nsguy 3y ago
    Israel has ordered hospitals to evacuate, e.g.: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-rescind-order-to-evacuate-al-quds-hospital-israel-says-its-used-as-hamas-command-center/ https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-resc... I think you're generally wrong on the "they have not been doing" comment. Israel has been giving warnings, and those warnings were intentionally being ignored to maximize the damage to Israel's reputation. But if you have some comprehensive data here I'd be interested in seeing it. From my observation the pattern has been Israel giving warnings/ordering evacuations with the response being "it can't be done" only to end with significantly more difficult conditions. Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals) which was again pushed back on as "impossible" or physically prevented by Hamas which in turn caused increased civilian casualty rates and the eventual almost full evacuation under significantly more difficult conditions. The use of the terminology "refugee camps" is also confusing. Some of what the media refers to as "refugee camps" are permanent settlements, effectively cities, where the population consists of many 1948 refugees. Not what most people think about when they hear "refugee camps". As to why heavy bombs are used I'm not an expert but potentially to penetrate deeper and there might be other reasons. All that said, I think it should be acknowledged that some of the methods Israel is using are likely to try and achieve some psychological advantage against the enemy. I don't think this that's necessarily a violation of international law given that warnings were given. It's within the realm of what I would call a military objective (demoralizing the enemy forces and destroying their infrastructure).
- phone8675309 3y ago
  > Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire. This has not stopped the IDF
  - sgift 3y ago
    Yes, and if you look up the rules of war you will see that if you base your operations there the enemy is allowed to attack it. Besides a desire to not kill your civilian population that's another reason countries don't do that. But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
    - tacomonstrous 3y ago
      >But Hamas doesn't care for civilians. Neither does the IDF by all available evidence.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        IDF cares for their civilians more, and to protect them they unfortunately have to accept Palestinian civilian casualties, there are no other way.
        SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        yes, right. Lately they preemptively killed civilians when they were in a line for flour, because they were caring for civilians, and therefore prevented them from overeating.
        zelphirkalt 3y ago
        After so many dead Palestinians whether combatants or not, compared to the number of killed Israelis, there is no other way? Laughable. Don't buy into IDF propaganda too much.
        Vecr 3y ago
        You have to think about the exploitability of your strategy. Both the IDF and Hamas optimize for a low exploitability number (though, Israel, really, you need to stagger your religious holidays, this is the second time this kind of thing has happened...), having a "kill count limiter" (in a value less than the mid single digit millions) is obviously a bad strategy and is extremely exploitable.
- redeeman 3y ago
  [flagged]
- immibis 3y ago
  What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian targets if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian targets? The point of any fighter using human shields is that the enemy doesn't fire because they don't want to hurt the human shields. If they're willing to kill the human shields, they don't help you, so why bother with them? This apparent myth rubs me the same way as "there's no food because Hamas is stealing it" - really? All of it? For what purpose?
  - Scarblac 3y ago
    > What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian targets if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian targets Getting international opinion to turn against Israel. Thats the way Hamas can survive this, getting enough pressure on Israel to make them stop.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      One, Hamas isn't doing this. No proof beyond the inevitable effects of fighting in one of the most densly populated areas on this planet. Two, Israel is doing an incredible good job at putting the pressure on themselves right now.
      - cnlevy 3y ago
        > One, Hamas isn't doing this Sinwar himself said it : Then a courier arrived with a message from Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, saying, in effect: Don’t worry, we have the Israelis right where we want them. Hamas’s fighters, the Al-Qassam Brigades, were doing fine, the upbeat message said. The militants were ready for Israel’s expected assault on Rafah, a city on Gaza’s southern edge. High civilian casualties would add to the worldwide pressure on Israel to stop the war, Sinwar’s message said, according to people informed about the meeting. Source https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-thinks-it-could-win-gaza-war-with-israel-6254a8c6 https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-thinks-it-could-...
      - fortzi 3y ago
        > One, Hamas isn't doing this. You sound confident, stating it like it's a fact. Care to share your sources?
- redeeman 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kaba0 3y ago
    > forbid military age men from leaving the country You mean like it happens in most wars?
    - redeeman 3y ago
      funny, I dont recall 25 year olds forbidden from leaving the US during the last how many years and countless wars? I also dont see a general notice in israel to not leave the country. But even if it happens other places, it does not change what it is
  - Vecr 3y ago
    It's likely he would not be allowed to leave by internal forces. Obviously he could try to sneak away but that's what the Russia aligned guy did back in 2014...
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  > Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete. Interesting. I wonder whether genocide of all people seriously harmed by IDF since Oct 7 should also be added to the list of war crimes obsoleted in this recent war. It only makes sense, since all these people are enemies of the state of Israel with a very high probability of causing harm to the civilians living there in the future. Geneva conventions are really showing their age in the past few months.
boringg 3y ago
Whats the confidence in the underlying data giving 10%?
- Qem 3y ago
  That assumes upper bound of published figures, 130. Lower bound is about 90. If 130 is 10%, 90 would be 7%. In my estimation post I took conservatively wikipedia's count, close to the lower bound.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> 10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare workers is ridiculously high. Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire. That makes comparing casualty rates incredibly difficult. (To my knowledge, nobody else has done this so comprehensively. Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated. Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.)

licebmi__at__ 3y ago
>Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated. I'm wondering by what metric do you define success.
- hersko 3y ago
  A lot of civilians being killed by the enemy driving global condemnation.
  - falcor84 3y ago
    Are there any other examples from history where the goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to maximize the destruction of their own side? If so, what were the outcomes of these?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Are there any other examples from history where the goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to maximize the destruction of their own side? Every false flag operation designed to rally support for a conflict.
      - falcor84 3y ago
        I'm not quite clear on what you're implying here, but in any case I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged war rather than an isolated false flag operation.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged war rather than an isolated false flag operation During the Chinese civil war, the Maoists let the Nationalists take a shellacking when convenient. And while I wouldn’t say America was conducive to civilian deaths on “our” side in Vietnam or Afghanistan, it clearly wasn’t something we optimised for: our priority was protecting our troops. Hamas is a paramilitary. It serves its own forces. The civilians of Palestine aren’t “its” people; they’re a battlefield element.
        falcor84 3y ago
        Apologies for my ignorance, but aren't Hamas literally the government of Gaza? Have they been renounced by the population in favor of any other government?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > aren't Hamas literally the government of Gaza? The Kims are the government of North Korea. That doesn’t mean they serve its people. > Have they been renounced by the population in favor of any other government? Difficult to tell. Hamas did away with elections in their 2007 coup [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
- bawolff 3y ago
  I mean, they have managed to hurt israel's position on the world stage & economy quite significantly relative to their actual military power. Hardly seems worth it to me, but i guess you could argue that is success of a sort.
- eli_gottlieb 3y ago
  The first time in Palestinian history that they took and held Israeli territory after 1948 for any length of time.
hmcq6 3y ago
This is unfounded. I'm still waiting on a single shred of evidence to drop about the AP building from 2-3 years ago https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israel-palestinian-conflict-fe452147166f55ba5a9d32e6ba8b53d7 https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israe... > Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete. Even if Hamas was fighting from hospitals and schools that is not how this works. Israel would be required to give those schools and hospitals warning first which they have not been doing. And assuming (incorrectly) that Israel was following the rules of engagement and giving the civilians warning, why are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs? Why not guided bombs?
- nsguy 3y ago
  Israel has ordered hospitals to evacuate, e.g.: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-rescind-order-to-evacuate-al-quds-hospital-israel-says-its-used-as-hamas-command-center/ https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-resc... I think you're generally wrong on the "they have not been doing" comment. Israel has been giving warnings, and those warnings were intentionally being ignored to maximize the damage to Israel's reputation. But if you have some comprehensive data here I'd be interested in seeing it. From my observation the pattern has been Israel giving warnings/ordering evacuations with the response being "it can't be done" only to end with significantly more difficult conditions. Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals) which was again pushed back on as "impossible" or physically prevented by Hamas which in turn caused increased civilian casualty rates and the eventual almost full evacuation under significantly more difficult conditions. The use of the terminology "refugee camps" is also confusing. Some of what the media refers to as "refugee camps" are permanent settlements, effectively cities, where the population consists of many 1948 refugees. Not what most people think about when they hear "refugee camps". As to why heavy bombs are used I'm not an expert but potentially to penetrate deeper and there might be other reasons. All that said, I think it should be acknowledged that some of the methods Israel is using are likely to try and achieve some psychological advantage against the enemy. I don't think this that's necessarily a violation of international law given that warnings were given. It's within the realm of what I would call a military objective (demoralizing the enemy forces and destroying their infrastructure).
phone8675309 3y ago
> Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire. This has not stopped the IDF
- sgift 3y ago
  Yes, and if you look up the rules of war you will see that if you base your operations there the enemy is allowed to attack it. Besides a desire to not kill your civilian population that's another reason countries don't do that. But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
  - tacomonstrous 3y ago
    >But Hamas doesn't care for civilians. Neither does the IDF by all available evidence.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      IDF cares for their civilians more, and to protect them they unfortunately have to accept Palestinian civilian casualties, there are no other way.
      - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        yes, right. Lately they preemptively killed civilians when they were in a line for flour, because they were caring for civilians, and therefore prevented them from overeating.
      - zelphirkalt 3y ago
        After so many dead Palestinians whether combatants or not, compared to the number of killed Israelis, there is no other way? Laughable. Don't buy into IDF propaganda too much.
        Vecr 3y ago
        You have to think about the exploitability of your strategy. Both the IDF and Hamas optimize for a low exploitability number (though, Israel, really, you need to stagger your religious holidays, this is the second time this kind of thing has happened...), having a "kill count limiter" (in a value less than the mid single digit millions) is obviously a bad strategy and is extremely exploitable.
redeeman 3y ago
[flagged]
immibis 3y ago
What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian targets if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian targets? The point of any fighter using human shields is that the enemy doesn't fire because they don't want to hurt the human shields. If they're willing to kill the human shields, they don't help you, so why bother with them? This apparent myth rubs me the same way as "there's no food because Hamas is stealing it" - really? All of it? For what purpose?
- Scarblac 3y ago
  > What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian targets if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian targets Getting international opinion to turn against Israel. Thats the way Hamas can survive this, getting enough pressure on Israel to make them stop.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    One, Hamas isn't doing this. No proof beyond the inevitable effects of fighting in one of the most densly populated areas on this planet. Two, Israel is doing an incredible good job at putting the pressure on themselves right now.
    - cnlevy 3y ago
      > One, Hamas isn't doing this Sinwar himself said it : Then a courier arrived with a message from Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, saying, in effect: Don’t worry, we have the Israelis right where we want them. Hamas’s fighters, the Al-Qassam Brigades, were doing fine, the upbeat message said. The militants were ready for Israel’s expected assault on Rafah, a city on Gaza’s southern edge. High civilian casualties would add to the worldwide pressure on Israel to stop the war, Sinwar’s message said, according to people informed about the meeting. Source https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-thinks-it-could-win-gaza-war-with-israel-6254a8c6 https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-thinks-it-could-...
    - fortzi 3y ago
      > One, Hamas isn't doing this. You sound confident, stating it like it's a fact. Care to share your sources?
redeeman 3y ago
[flagged]
- kaba0 3y ago
  > forbid military age men from leaving the country You mean like it happens in most wars?
  - redeeman 3y ago
    funny, I dont recall 25 year olds forbidden from leaving the US during the last how many years and countless wars? I also dont see a general notice in israel to not leave the country. But even if it happens other places, it does not change what it is
- Vecr 3y ago
  It's likely he would not be allowed to leave by internal forces. Obviously he could try to sneak away but that's what the Russia aligned guy did back in 2014...
Aerbil313 3y ago
> Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete. Interesting. I wonder whether genocide of all people seriously harmed by IDF since Oct 7 should also be added to the list of war crimes obsoleted in this recent war. It only makes sense, since all these people are enemies of the state of Israel with a very high probability of causing harm to the civilians living there in the future. Geneva conventions are really showing their age in the past few months.

boringg 3y ago

Whats the confidence in the underlying data giving 10%?

Qem 3y ago
That assumes upper bound of published figures, 130. Lower bound is about 90. If 130 is 10%, 90 would be 7%. In my estimation post I took conservatively wikipedia's count, close to the lower bound.