Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[Ghost Patrol]

The Lancet is now Hamas propaganda.

Any publication that doesn’t board the junket train is Hamas.

 

[Jazny]

The IDF accept Hamas Health numbers. Everyone accepts them but Zio social media propagandists, and they are now unable to function - the actual count is massively higher.

The Lancet is now Hamas propaganda.

The levels of reading comprehension in this thread is insanely low for some reason. Ghost Patrol made a post saying zionists don't trust the Hamas numbers. So "instead" let's refer to the "Lancet's estimation". Which if he read the correspondence letter that was published in the Lancet that he linked to, he would know is based on the Hamas number, but just way more speculative Good job, Ghost Patrol!

Ok, so the zionists don’t believe the hamas numbers. Lets instead refer to The Lancet’s estimation….

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The levels of reading comprehension in this thread is insanely low for some reason. Ghost Patrol made a post saying zionists don't trust the Hamas numbers. So "instead" let's refer to the "Lancet's estimation". Which if he read the correspondence letter that was published in the Lancet that he linked to, he would know is based on the Hamas number, but just way more speculative Good job, Ghost Patrol!

World respected medical journal says that the Hamas provided casualty numbers are way too low.

Do you think thats because of all the people IDF have left buried under the rubble?

 

[Zidane98]

The Lancet is now Hamas propaganda.

It may not be Hamas propaganda although I don't see anywhere what sources The Lancet cites for its figures. Also very dodgy to say "up to 186000" deaths as one could simply say if the final figure ended up being 39000 that would technically fall under the "up to 186000" category. It is disinformation effectively.

Also, "The Lancet" does have a history of hugely overinflating fatality statistics. It didn't take much time to cross reference and research this. I wonder why the original poster who quoted them didn't do the same.

This report on The Lancet's study into Iraq war fatalities is telling:

Fudged statistics on the Iraq War death toll are still circulating today

If journal editors fail to retract or properly flag data revealed as inaccurate, they leave open the possibility that it’ll be cited for years to come.

theconversation.com

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

It may not be Hamas propaganda although I don't see anywhere what sources The Lancet cites for its figures. Also very dodgy to say "up to 186000" deaths as one could simply say if the final figure ended up being 39000 that would technically fall under the "up to 186000" category. It is disinformation effectively.

Also, "The Lancet" does have a history of hugely overinflating fatality statistics. It didn't take much time to cross reference and research this. I wonder why the original poster who quoted them didn't do the same.

This report on The Lancet's study into Iraq war fatalities is telling:

Fudged statistics on the Iraq War death toll are still circulating today

If journal editors fail to retract or properly flag data revealed as inaccurate, they leave open the possibility that it’ll be cited for years to come.

theconversation.com

Mate you claimed 11% of Hamas rockets have killed Gazans, you can't pull anyone up on stats.

 

[faible]

It may not be Hamas propaganda although I don't see anywhere what sources The Lancet cites for its figures. Also very dodgy to say "up to 186000" deaths as one could simply say if the final figure ended up being 39000 that would technically fall under the "up to 186000" category. It is disinformation effectively.

Also, "The Lancet" does have a history of hugely overinflating fatality statistics. It didn't take much time to cross reference and research this. I wonder why the original poster who quoted them didn't do the same.

This report on The Lancet's study into Iraq war fatalities is telling:

Fudged statistics on the Iraq War death toll are still circulating today

If journal editors fail to retract or properly flag data revealed as inaccurate, they leave open the possibility that it’ll be cited for years to come.

theconversation.com

I suspect the real death toll is higher than the reported figure. There's almost certainly a substantial amount of bodies buried under rubble that aren't accounted for given the scale of destruction in Gaza. They may not have anyone else left alive to know they're dead, or given the mass displacement, may be presumed missing or dead but not 'known' to be so.

Who knows if the reported figure the Lancet uses is accurate, but given even the US and IDF have reportedly used the Gaza Health Ministry figure are their starting point (disputing the make-up of civilians vs militants moreso than the number) I'd say it's certainly in the ballpark of an accurate minimum figure.

 

[Zidane98]

Mate you claimed 11% of Hamas rockets have killed Gazans, you can't pull anyone up on stats.

Incorrect, I cited PIJ/Hamas internal documents that showed of all the rockets they fired at Israel since Oct 7 over 11% had impacted within Gaza.

We know that they have killed Gazans, this has been happening for years. We don't know how many as the statistics for that aren't exactly forthcoming from the Hamas politburo social media department. Clearly you don't seem too concerned by Hamas murdering Gazan citizens so there isn't much too discuss really.

 

[Jazny]

World respected medical journal says that the Hamas provided casualty numbers are way too low.

Do you think thats because of all the people IDF have left buried under the rubble?

It's a non-externally peer reviewed correspondence letter that has been published in the Lancet. It is not arguing that 180k people have already died in the conflict, it is estimating out based on assumptions from previous conflicts what the indirect death toll might be in years to come as an indirect result of the conflict.

Where they even got this figure of 3 to 15 indirect deaths per violent death in conflict is a mystery, I have tried to go through the sources, but their references are so bad, it just links to a 311 page World Drug Report document from 2008? I wasnt able to see anything in the document to support it, but maybe its in there somewhere. It would fail if it was a first year essay.

 

[Zidane98]

It's a non-externally peer reviewed correspondence letter that has been published in the Lancet. It is not arguing that 180k people have already died in the conflict, it is estimating out based on assumptions from previous conflicts what the indirect death toll might be in years to come as an indirect result of the conflict.

Where they even got this figure of 3 to 15 indirect deaths per violent death in conflict is a mystery, I have tried to go through the sources, but their references are so bad, it just links to a 311 page World Drug Report document from 2008? I wasnt able to see anything in the document to support it, but maybe its in there somewhere. It would fail if it was a first year essay.

View attachment 2042418

It is clear those who have quoted The Lancet have made no attempt to fact check and verify sources relating to the report.


To suggest 15 indirect deaths per violent deaths obviously needs quantification and factual information to back up such a claim.

 

[faible]

It's a non-externally peer reviewed correspondence letter that has been published in the Lancet. It is not arguing that 180k people have already died in the conflict, it is estimating out based on assumptions from previous conflicts what the indirect death toll might be in years to come as an indirect result of the conflict.

Where they even got this figure of 3 to 15 indirect deaths per violent death in conflict is a mystery, I have tried to go through the sources, but their references are so bad, it just links to a 311 page World Drug Report document from 2008? I wasnt able to see anything in the document to support it, but maybe its in there somewhere. It would fail if it was a first year essay.

View attachment 2042418

The hyperlink doesn't correspond to the name of the document, so I suspect it's linked wrong.

https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/Global-Burden-of-Armed-Violence-full-report.pdf

That would be my guess as to what the proper document was meant to be, the title is similar (uses 'armed violence' instead of 'armed conflict', it's published in 2008, and references the 4:1 ratio.

Lancet:

Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death

Linked article, page 42:

A conservative ratio of 4:1 indirect to direct deaths

 

[DapperDon]

Incorrect, I cited PIJ/Hamas internal documents that showed of all the rockets they fired at Israel since Oct 7 over 11% had impacted within Gaza.

We know that they have killed Gazans, this has been happening for years. We don't know how many as the statistics for that aren't exactly forthcoming from the Hamas politburo social media department. Clearly you don't seem too concerned by Hamas murdering Gazan citizens so there isn't much too discuss really.

So it's ok to use Hamas data when it's a number you're ok with?

 

[Zidane98]

So it's ok to use Hamas data when it's a number you're ok with?

It is a number I am not ok with at all. It is horrific.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Incorrect, I cited PIJ/Hamas internal documents that showed of all the rockets they fired at Israel since Oct 7 over 11% had impacted within Gaza.

We know that they have killed Gazans, this has been happening for years. We don't know how many as the statistics for that aren't exactly forthcoming from the Hamas politburo social media department. Clearly you don't seem too concerned by Hamas murdering Gazan citizens so there isn't much too discuss really.

Hmmm

Over 11% of Hamas rockets launched at Israel have murdered Gazan civilians.

 

[DapperDon]

It is a number I am not ok with at all. It is horrific.

I mean that you seem ok to use Hamas data when it suits your agenda.

When not, it's just Hamas propaganda

 

[Jazny]

The hyperlink doesn't correspond to the name of the document, so I suspect it's linked wrong.

https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/Global-Burden-of-Armed-Violence-full-report.pdf

That would be my guess as to what the proper document was meant to be, the title is similar (uses 'armed violence' instead of 'armed conflict', it's published in 2008, and references the 4:1 ratio.

Lancet:

Linked article, page 42:

Good catch. That's probably the article the authors meant to cite or at least where the figure comes from. Pretty bad mistake from the author that you wouldn't expect in a first year's essay, but it happens I guess.

It's an average and obviously the real number varies drastically conflict to conflict. It's also an average that spans years after the conflict ends. The authors are using that number to conclude it is "not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza".

It seems pretty implausible, especially considering the ratio of indirect to violent deaths given in the 6 month projections from the study that the author's cite give drastically lower direct to indirect death estimates for this specific conflict over that limited span.

https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/gaza_projections_report.pdf

What evidence does he have to apply the 4-1 ratio figure to the current conflict and ignore the estimates and projections from the article he cites? ... the answer is none. It's not a very good argument, and you certainly can't use that argument to estimate there has been 186,000 or more deaths to date in the current conflict, which seems to be what GP is doing or at least the twitter post he linked to did.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Good catch. That's probably the article the authors meant to cite or at least where the figure comes from. Pretty bad mistake from the author that you wouldn't expect in a first year's essay, but it happens I guess.

It's an average and obviously the real number varies drastically conflict to conflict. It's also an average that spans years after the conflict ends. The authors are using that number to conclude it is "not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza".

It seems pretty implausible, especially considering the ratio of indirect to violent deaths given in the 6 month projections from the study that the author's cite give drastically lower direct to indirect death estimates for this specific conflict over that limited span.

https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/gaza_projections_report.pdf

What evidence does he have to apply the 4-1 ratio figure to the current conflict and ignore the estimates and projections from the article he cites? ... the answer is none. It's not a very good argument, and you certainly can't use that argument to estimate there has been 186,000 or more deaths to date in the current conflict, which seems to be what GP is doing or at least the twitter post he linked to did.

I’d certainly take the word of a first year Lancet cadet over the IDF spokesman or Chip Le Grand, for example.

 

[Jazny]

I’d certainly take the word of a first year Lancet cadet over the IDF spokesman or Chip Le Grand, for example.

You realise you aren't forced into a situation where you have to take one or the other? Also, who cares about their word or integrity? Just look at their argument.

 

[Zidane98]

Gaza school hit in deadly Israeli strike as ceasefire talks continue

At least 16 people are dead after an Israeli strike on a school sheltering displaced Palestinian families in central Gaza, the Palestinian health ministry says.

www.abc.net.au

Speaking of murdered civilians. This doesn't seem great.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-says-its-waiting-israeli-response-ceasefire-proposal-2024-07-07/

This also doesn't seem great.

Doesn't seem great at all because Hamas are not dropping their demands and do not accept the last ceasefire resolution that was passed by the UNSC

Hamas rejects report that it dropped key demand in possible cease-fire deal

The militant group – which controlled Gaza before triggering the war with an Oct. 7 attack on Israel – has reportedly given initial approval of the cease-fire deal.

www.cbsnews.com

Source is CBS news who are rated as highly credible:

CBS News - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

They also have reporters based in Gaza .

 

[faible]

Doesn't seem great at all because Hamas are not dropping their demands and do not accept the last ceasefire resolution that was passed by the UNSC

Hamas rejects report that it dropped key demand in possible cease-fire deal

The militant group – which controlled Gaza before triggering the war with an Oct. 7 attack on Israel – has reportedly given initial approval of the cease-fire deal.

www.cbsnews.com

Source is CBS news who are rated as highly credible:

CBS News - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

They also have reporters based in Gaza .

Some relevant points from the article:

What it appears Hamas want from Israel:

The official said the militant group - which controlled Gaza before triggering the war with an Oct. 7 attack on Israel - has not dropped the demand that Israel give an up-front commitment for a complete end to the war.

Hamas still wants "written guarantees" from mediators that Israel will continue to negotiate a permanent cease-fire deal once the first phase goes into effect, the officials said.

The Hamas representative told The Associated Press the group's approval came after it received "verbal commitments and guarantees" from the mediators that the war won't be resumed and that negotiations will continue until a permanent cease-fire is reached.

"Now we want these guarantees on paper," he said.

What it appears Netanyahu's position on a permanent cease-fire is:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to pause the fighting but not end it until Israel reaches its goals of destroying Hamas' military and governing capabilities and returning all hostages held by the militant group.

Other members of the far-right coalition appear to be completely unwilling to agree to any ceasefire:

Netanyahu is under pressure from Israel's closest ally – the United States – to negotiate a ceasefire, but at home, two far-right wing members of his cabinet have threatened to bring down the governing coalition if he agrees to a truce.

Not great at all.

 

[Zidane98]

Some relevant points from the article:

What it appears Hamas want from Israel:





What it appears Netanyahu's position on a permanent cease-fire is:



Other members of the far-right coalition appear to be completely unwilling to agree to any ceasefire:



Not great at all.

All this aside why would someone not accept the UNSC resolution for a 6 week ceasefire with a view to a permanent end to hostilities over no cease fire at all? Any ceasefire is better than no cease fire unless you are Hamas it seems.

 

[faible]

All this aside why would someone not accept the UNSC resolution for a 6 week ceasefire with a view to a permanent end to hostilities over no cease fire at all? Any ceasefire is better than no cease fire unless you are Hamas it seems.

From the article:

Hamas has expressed concern Israel will restart the war after the hostages are released.

I assume this might be why. They likely have one chance to negotiate a meaningful ceasefire. And yes, I assume the Hamas negotiators are well removed from the people of Gaza being slaughtered.

 

[Zidane98]

From the article:



I assume this might be why. They likely have one chance to negotiate a meaningful ceasefire. And yes, I assume the Hamas negotiators are well removed from the people of Gaza being slaughtered.

Makes sense

Hamas official vows to 'repeat' Oct 7 attack repeatedly to teach Israel a lesson

Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas's political bureau, praised a recent attack in Israel and expressed the intent to carry out similar assaults with the aim of eliminating Israel. He made these comments in an interview with Lebanese Television channel LBC, as reported by The Times of Israel.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Sounds like Hamas want a guarantee of no military action in the future no matter in the event they decide to follow up with another Oct 7 style attack.

I'd also venture to say it is Iran driving this as they've got Hezbollah and themselves attacking Israel from two other sides.

 

[faible]

Makes sense

Hamas official vows to 'repeat' Oct 7 attack repeatedly to teach Israel a lesson

Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas's political bureau, praised a recent attack in Israel and expressed the intent to carry out similar assaults with the aim of eliminating Israel. He made these comments in an interview with Lebanese Television channel LBC, as reported by The Times of Israel.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Sounds like Hamas want a guarantee of no military action in the future no matter in the event they decide to follow up with another Oct 7 style attack.

I'd also venture to say it is Iran driving this as they've got Hezbollah and themselves attacking Israel from two other sides.

That article could easily be written about the actions of Israel. The whole point of a ceasefire agreement is to enable a pathway out, which is a long-term process.

Japan or Germany Post-WW2 for example. A multi-national rebuilding process and Statehood. Otherwise the exact same conditions will remain in place that will see armed groups rise up again.

 

[Kurve]

I'd also venture to say it is Iran driving this as they've got Hezbollah and themselves attacking Israel from two other sides.

With Iran backing Hamas and their leadership, who I acknowledge are well removed from the people on the ground in Gaza and who have proved time and again, they don't care how many men, women and children are killed, there's no incentive for them to make a peace deal. Particularly not when they refer to and can see the turmoil it's creating in the west and the rising and sustained anger against Israel.

 

[Zidane98]

That article could easily be written about the actions of Israel. The whole point of a ceasefire agreement is to enable a pathway out, which is a long-term process.

Japan or Germany Post-WW2 for example. A multi-national rebuilding process and Statehood. Otherwise the exact same conditions will remain in place that will see armed groups rise up again.

Yes it is, and the latest ceasefire resolution which was the first one passed by the UNSC did exactly that by offering a phased end to the war, hostages returned and a initial cease fire with commitments to a longer term ceasefire.


I see no issue with not taking that deal right now. It stops pain and suffering on both sides. Then a future statehood solution can be worked on with eventually a permanent 2 state solution to be decided on for the 3rd time since 1948. I'd expect severe punishment and consequences for either side if they do not accept the eventual permanent two state solution with full independence for both sides.