You must log in or register to comment.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Counting the dead is a challenge in any war zone, and doctors in Gaza say the death toll is likely to be significantly higher as it does not include bodies buried under the rubble of destroyed buildings or those not taken to hospitals.
In worldwide conflicts between 2011 and 2021, on average 90% of fatalities were civilians when explosive weapons were used on populated areas, according to the research and advocacy group Action on Armed Violence.
These unguided bombs “can miss their target by up to 30m, which is the difference between hitting a Hamas HQ and an apartment packed with civilians”, says Mr Garlasco, who has worked on three previous wars in Gaza and is now a military adviser for the Dutch peace organisation PAX.
“Entire neighbourhoods, where children used to play and go to school, have been turned into stacks of rubble, with no life in them,” said Adele Khodr, Unicef’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa.
By contrast, US-led coalition air and artillery strikes killed fewer than 20 civilians per day, on average, during the four-month offensive to drive IS out of the Syrian city of Raqqa in 2017, according to Amnesty International.
News agency AFP reported that senior Israeli officials had suggested Israel had killed two Palestinian civilians for every one Hamas fighter.
The original article contains 1,395 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
lol come on, bot. You didn’t even provide the number of “unintended” (quoted because I’m sure they just don’t really give a shit) casualties the Israelis are causing.
From the article: it’s ~300/day
Where does it say 300 “unintended” casualties a day? The only reference I can find in the article is an average of 300 a day total.
Civilian casualties are generally implicitly considered to be unintentional. I’m just saying that I don’t think the IDF is putting much effort at all into minimizing civilian casualties.
Yeah, the article doesn’t specify 300 civilian deaths, it’s all encompassing. Casualties also includes injuries, not just deaths.
From the top of the article:
On average, nearly 300 people have been killed each day since the start of the conflict, excluding the seven-day ceasefire, data from Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry indicates. The World Health Organization’s regional emergency director Richard Brennan says he considers these casualty figures trustworthy.
Your “akshually” reaction could be charitably described as grating and diversionary. Don’t be an ass.
Cool, so your entire post was calling out the bot for not including a word that doesn’t appear anywhere in the article and isn’t correct for describing what is stated in the article. Got it. Not really sure what you’re getting at here, are you mad at the bot for not lying to make it fit your views on the conflict? 300 isn’t the “unintended” figure, it is the total figure. It’s also an average for a wildly varying number across the last several months. Any way you look at it though it doesn’t represent only “unintended” deaths because that is literally not what the article says.
I’m not playing this game with you.
By contrast, US-led coalition air and artillery strikes killed fewer than 20 civilians per day, on average, during the four-month offensive to drive IS out of the Syrian city of Raqqa in 2017, according to Amnesty International. It is unclear how many civilians lived there at the time, but UN officials estimated that there were between 50,000 and 100,000.
There are more than two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza so 300 people a day dying in Gaza is a smaller fraction of the population than 20 people a day dying in Raqqa.
And an Associated Press investigation suggested that between 9,000 and 11,000 civilians were killed in the nine-month battle between US-backed Iraqi forces and IS for the Iraqi city of Mosul which ended in 2017.
This amounts to an estimated fewer-than-40 civilian deaths per day, on average. Mosul had an estimated population of less than two million people when IS captured the city in 2014.
This, on the other hand, is a remarkably low number of casualties compared to Raqqa. About 0.5% of the civilian population dead compared to somewhere between 2.5% and 5%. Why was Mosul so much less bloody than Raqqa, given that those battles were fought by similar armies at about the same time? Is the current conflict an outlier compared to them? By the numbers, it’s more dangerous for civilians than Mosul but less than Raqqa.
I really dont understand the point of this kind of math. What is it suppose to demostrate?
I don’t think the article does a good job of comparing the numbers from Gaza to those of other recent battles in the region. The way Raqqa is presented is just wrong, with “in contrast” used to imply that that battle was safer for civilians when it in fact wasn’t.
My own math is very crude, because I’m just working with the numbers given in this article. I think a good analysis would include more factors, like the number of combatants involved. Even then, some things are going to be difficult to count accurately or even to quantify at all. It’s hard to do arithmetic on how many people are killed every day without appearing callous, and I don’t think I succeed, but that arithmetic is still necessary to understand what’s going on.
You didn’t answer my question: what were you trying to prove?
As I did already say, I’m trying to prove that the casualty data as presented in the article gives the incorrect impression that “by contrast” the battle in Gaza is unusually dangerous for civilians by comparing absolute numbers of daily casualties to those from a battle for a much smaller city which actually involved killing a larger fraction of that city’s civilians. The article is overall shallow, low-effort, and misleading.
The article might be low-effort, but you’re not putting much more effort either. I was hoping there was something behind all those numbera but no, it’s more or less "Stalin killed more people how bad Hitler could be?”. Thanks for your contribution.