"Noooo, us? No, we would NEVER do a genocide! Here, look at these testimonies from OUR experts! Ignore the UN, Amnesty, WHO, B'Tselem, Doctors Without Borders, and especially the PRCS"
"Noooo, us? No, we would NEVER do a genocide! Here, look at these testimonies from OUR experts! Ignore the UN, Amnesty, WHO, B'Tselem, Doctors Without Borders, and especially the PRCS"
You're viewing part of a thread.
as well as 373 security forces
Even including police, that's a 32% civilian casualty ratio. Israel's current civilian casualty ratio is between 20%-38%.
I ask again, what is the lowest civilian casualty ratio that suggests genocide to you? How many of the attacked locations have to be civilian targets in which only civilians were killed before you'll admit that maybe Israel's response of wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity does not retroactively justify Hamas's attempts at the wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity?
Israel’s current civilian casualty ratio is between 20%-38%.
Israel is killing 70% women and children. How the hell are you even going to 38%? Even 20% is an absurd claim. It's likely around 95-98%.
I already explained the rest multiple times I don't have time for repeated IDF trolling.
Israel is killing 70% women and children. How the hell are you even going to 38%? Even 20% is an absurd claim. It’s likely around 95-98%.
The numbers are intended the other way around. The 32% I cited for Hamas suggests 68% of the deaths are civilians; the 20-38% I suggested for Israel suggests 80%-62% of Israel's genocidal campaign are civilian deaths. I can see how you'd get the other interpretation.
I already explained the rest multiple times I don’t have time for repeated IDF trolling.
Explained is a cute word for 'dismissed because targeting civilians hurts the hero-worship for Hamas you're cultivating'
I think you have good points, but can I ask why you always jump to the assumption that people are hero-worshipping Hamas?
Part of it is that I see Hamas apologia often on here, people saying shit like "October 7 was legitimate resistance!" and "Hamas doesn't target civilians!"
Part of it is that phrasing things in stark terms forces examination of the issue - people can brush off "I think your estimate is too low" and then continue peddling the same nonsense elsewhere - or even in the same conversation - without ever bothering to actually consider the implications of their position.
Part of it is just frustration.
Hmmm. What I see here is that the person disagreed with you because they depend on the Gaza ministry as a source (whose numbers are considered accurate since before the war) and you depend on some other third party source only provided later on to me (and not the person you were having the discussion with).
It's good to consider when one is right and when one is assuming too much about other people.
Edits: typos from autocorrect
My problem, though, as I mentioned, wasn't with their numbers. It was a fundamental disagreement on concepts
I ask again, what is the lowest civilian casualty ratio that suggests genocide to you? How many of the attacked locations have to be civilian targets in which only civilians were killed before you'll admit that maybe Israel's response of wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity does not retroactively justify Hamas's attempts at the wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity?
Gonna be honest here, I think this sounds disingenuous.
Considering they said
No it was pretty clear that they were not trying eradicate everyone. You don’t get 33% military kills when you’re going for genocide.
I really don't think it's a disingenuous question to ask what the lowest civilian casualty ratio they'd accept for genocide was
I ask again, what is the lowest civilian casualty ratio that suggests genocide to you?
Your question (at least to me as a reader) seems to imply that you regard that person as a genocide-denier. It doesn't sound like a question based on good faith, more like a question that would have an incorrect answer no matter what they say because the implication seems to be that they are a genocide-denier, not that you are actually trying to understand their point better.
You also said:
How many of the attacked locations have to be civilian targets in which only civilians were killed before you’ll admit that maybe Israel’s response of wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity does not retroactively justify Hamas’s attempts at the wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity?
I am yet to see where @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world even does that in the slightest... It's almost like with this question, the discussion shifts from "can we identify this as a genocide" to "Ahh, so you seem to think this is an excuse for Hamas' actions!"
Your question (at least to me as a reader) seems to imply that you regard that person as a genocide-denier.
The poster denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas on the grounds of 'only' 67% civilian casualties. They're more of a 'genocide desire denier'
It doesn’t sound like a question based on good faith, more like a question that would have an incorrect answer no matter what they say because the implication seems to be that they are a genocide-denier, not that you are actually trying to understand their point better.
It does lack a correct answer. By claiming 33% military casualties is too few for genocide, any answer they give can be used against them, because that's a ridiculous claim. If they claim something lower, they contradict themselves. If they claim something higher, they run the risk of having to answer the question of whether other genocides with that criteria weren't then, genocides - knowing that the only viable answer is not genocide denial, but acquiescence to the point that that's a stupid fucking criteria to use.
It lacks a correct answer because the position it is addressing, whether the proportion of soldiers to civilians killed can invalidate genocidal intent, is ridiculous.
Answering does not inherently imply genocide denial.
I am yet to see where @Linkerbaan even does that in the slightest… It’s almost like with this question, the discussion shifts from “can we identify this as a genocide” to “Ahh, so you seem to think this is an excuse for Hamas’ actions!”
The commenter literally denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas, and uses Israel's current genocide as an excuse for that position.
I suggested for Israel suggests 80%-62% of Israel’s genocidal campaign are civilian deaths. I can see how you’d get the other interpretation.
70% of Palestinians killed are owmen and children.
62% civilian deaths for israel means that you're saying 100% of Palestinian men are Hamas and 8% of Palestinian women and children are Hamas. Either I'm still not understanding your claim or it's a very stupid claim.
Explained is a cute word for ‘dismissed because targeting civilians hurts the hero-worship for Hamas you’re cultivating’
The IDF has already admitted there's no babies in ovens, no pregnant women with bellies cut open, and many news outlets are throwing the rape stories out of the window because of credibility issues.
You want Hamas to be some evil monster org. They did some bad stuff sure but you're comparing them to actual genocidal maniacs like the Nazis or israel.
By the newest math, Netanyahu now says 75% of Hamas has been eliminated (citation needed of course because the IDF lies through their teeth at every chance). If we take the generous assumption of Hamas being made up of 30,000 fighters, how many civilians killed is Netanyahu claiming are Hamas?
And I think the most hilarious thing with Israel is that they claim to both being hugely successful but also that "lots more needs to be done". If the end goal is making Gaza unlivable (we are almost there!), then this kind of rhetoric will buy them enough time to finish the job.
Oh yeah wait, I forgot! Israel claims everyone is Hamas... Everyone who works a government job is working for (K)HAMAS, every garbage man is a (K)HAMAS operative because they work for a (K)HAMAS-run municipality, every volunteer at the library is in a (K)HAMAS LIBRARY, hence okay to kill. They even blew up the Gaza archive building, maybe the archives were (K)HAMAS? Or maybe they are trying to eliminate these people and any means of them surviving 🙃
Even on ToI, they had this ridiculous news report about how "KHAMAS POLICE RETURNS TO NORTHERN GAZA AND CREATE MAKESHIFT CENTERS TO DISTRIBUTE PAY"
Bro, those are the actual fucking Police! They claim Hamas is both in the tunnels and not in the tunnels simultaneously so they can cover more surface area for murder.
The way that most Western people implicate everyone with the slightest relation to Hamas of being soldiers, is the same (or more extreme) than implicating every IDF reservist shot on Oct7 was an IDF soldier instead of a non-combatant.
62% civilian deaths for israel means that you’re saying 100% of Palestinian men are Hamas and 8% of Palestinian women and children are Hamas. Either I’m still not understanding your claim or it’s a very stupid claim.
I'm just citing the range of third party sources. Although I don't think female participation in hostilities is ridiculous considering Hamas has used women in previous operations, 100% of Palestinian men obviously is. Take the 80% if you prefer - it's still not that far off from the 68% of Hamas.
The IDF has already admitted there’s no babies in ovens, no pregnant women with bellies cut open,
I don't see where I claimed that? I claimed Hamas has intentionally targeted and murdered civilians on ethnic grounds, which is incontrovertible.
and many news outlets are throwing the rape stories out of the window because of credibility issues.
Believe all women (unless they're Israeli), huh?
You want Hamas to be some evil monster org. They did some bad stuff sure but you’re comparing them to actual genocidal maniacs like the Nazis or israel.
"They did some bad stuff"
Ah, yes, just a little light genocide, a bit of a massacre based on the ethnicity of the victims, please don't worry about it.
What are your third party sources?