Estimating the Death Toll of the War on Gaza (dataactivists.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by ashar@infosec.pub to c/world@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An analysis of the Gaza MoH methodology, the exacerbating challenges it faces as the war continues, and estimates from independent researchers and humanitarian organisations.

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 weeks ago

According to these conservative estimates, today we are beyond 200.000 dead.

From a population of 2 million. Israel has killed 10% of the population and shows no sign of slowing down. When Israel or its allies claim this is about self-defense that is a lie. This is about extermination.

[-] Threeme2189@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 weeks ago

From a population of 2 million. Israel has killed 10% of the population and shows no sign of slowing down.

Actually, according to the graph in this PDF, they have slowed down since the beginning of the war. I guess that's what happens when there are less and less terrorists walking around.

https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Gaza_casualties_info-graphic_12_March_2024.pdf

[-] ashar@infosec.pub 1 points 3 weeks ago

The killing according to the Gaza Ministry of Health statistics seems to be slowing down, but this is because the MoH is maintaining a very high bar for recording the deaths. The attacks on the population is continuing at what seems to be the same rate.

from: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/how-gaza-health-ministry-counts-dead "The Ministry of Health is committed to registering only those who reach its hospitals or other emergency medical care facilities in the Gaza Strip. Consequently, the number of martyrs announced by the ministry does not necessarily represent the total number of casualties but only those that have been officially documented."

Given that state of the hospitals is dire (they have all been bombed and attacked), the slow down in recording of deaths correlates with and is due to the destruction of the MoH and general civilian infrastructure. The reduction in rate of killing recorded does not align with the rate of actual killing.

[-] ashar@infosec.pub 2 points 3 weeks ago

The Economist had a good (probably unintentional) illustration of this.

[-] febra@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago

Proving what we've all been saying for months now. Israel is committing a genocide with the support of the "civilized" west.

[+] DarthJon@lemmy.world -21 points 3 weeks ago

Theorizing a large number of hypothetical deaths from indirect causes does not prove genocide.

[-] febra@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

Oh yeah cause the genocidal intent hasn't been shown over and over again through the public statements put out there by sitting members of the Israeli government. We must all suffer from collective amnesia.

[+] DarthJon@lemmy.world -13 points 3 weeks ago

Comments by extremists in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic terror attack don't establish genocidal intent. The actions over the past year clearly aren't in line with those comments.

[-] febra@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

"immediate aftermath"

They're still making those comments up to this day. They're even attending conferences on settling Gaza where expelling Palestinians from their ancestral lands is a commonly discussed and widespread idea, which in turn constitutes ethnic cleansing and in combination with their statements and actions can amount to genocide.

I won't discuss why water is wet. The fact that Israel is committing a genocide has been discussed by various UN officials, ICC officials, and experts on genocide. Go argue with them.

[-] ashar@infosec.pub 4 points 3 weeks ago

Sir, your president is quoted in the genocide case (South Africa vs Israel) as one of the inciters to genocide.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago

First of all, he's not my president. I'm not Israeli.

Second, comments made by certain people in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic terror attack aren't proof of genocidal intent. He has clarified his position since then.

Also, have you ever wondered why South Africa of all countries brought the case to the ICJ? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that they entertained Hamas leaders as visiting dignitaries a month before they submitted the case?

[-] ashar@infosec.pub 1 points 3 weeks ago

Also, have you ever wondered why South Africa of all countries brought the case to the ICJ? Probably because they are deeply offended by the Israeli apartheid and they are even more against genocide?

Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that they entertained Hamas leaders as visiting dignitaries a month before they submitted the case? Um, yes. Why would they not do this?

Ah, you classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation.... Since South Africa regards Hamas to be a resistance movement (and this is the position of most of the world), coordinating with them would be sensible.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

LOL, it is not the position of most of the world that Hamas is a resistance movement. It is only the position of radical Islamists and Western leftist anarchists.

They are an organization that formed for the purpose of committing genocide and they have been responsible for the barbaric murder of thousands of civilians. They are as terrorist as you can get.

By the way, there is mounting evidence that support among Gazans for peaceful coexistence with Israel is much higher than previously thought. Evidence, for example, that Hamas has been fudging the numbers on their surveys that show otherwise, recent surveys that show much more positive results, and with the death of Sinwar and damage to Hamas, Gazans are starting to speak out against them. If that is indeed true, it destroys the whole "resistance" and "decolonization" narrative since they wouldn't actually represent the people for whom they claim to be resisting.

[-] ashar@infosec.pub 10 points 3 weeks ago

I wonder why Israel does not allow journalists into Gaza and has killed more than 170 Palestinian journalists?

[-] febra@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

It's because Israel must really love the freedom of the press!

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Israel doesn't even allow humanitarian workers to enter Gaza. Which is a warcrime if anyone is counting.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Stop with the genocide denial

Genocide

De-Gaza: A Year of Israel’s Genocide and the Collapse of World Order - Euro-Med Monitor Report see Chapter 2 and 3

On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention. As an emergency measure, it ordered Israel ensure that its army refrained from genocidal acts against Palestinians.

The ICJ reported, as part of its decisions in March and May, that the situation in Gaza had deteriorated and that Israel had failed to abide by its order in January.

Israel's war on Gaza: What the international courts have said

So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.

“A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza

More than 800 scholars of international law and genocide have signed a public statement arguing that the Israeli military may be committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the total siege and relentless airstrikes continue to inflict devastation on the occupied territory.

800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza

An independent United Nations expert warned Monday that "Israel's genocidal violence risks leaking out of Gaza and into the occupied Palestinian territory as a whole" as Western governments, corporations, and other institutions keep up their support for the Israeli military, which stands accused of grave war crimes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

UN Expert Says Impunity for Israel Must End as 'Genocidal Violence' Spreads to West Bank

Our documentation encompasses over 500 incitements of violence and genocidal incitement, appearing in the forms of social media posts, television interviews, and official statements from Israeli politicians, army personnel, journalists, and other influential personalities.

Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide – Continuously Updated

Others: AP News, Time, Reuters, Vox, CBC

Deliberate Attacks on Civilians

Israel deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so:

Israel also targets Israeli Soldiers and Civilians to prevent them being leveraged as hostages, known as the Hannibal Directive. Which was also used on Oct 7th.

[+] DarthJon@lemmy.world -13 points 3 weeks ago

Stop with the genocide accusations. It's offensive to people who have actually suffered genocides.

[-] febra@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

My ancestors did. They went through the Holocaust. Israel is committing a genocide.

[+] DarthJon@lemmy.world -9 points 3 weeks ago

It isn't a genocide just because you say it is.

And it is nothing like the Holocaust. Not even remotely similar. There is literally nothing, not a single thing, that is similar.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

Similarly, it isn't not a genocide just because the perpetrators say it isn't.

Many experts and scholars do make the claim that this is genocide, and frankly a significant section of the world that doesn't have a direct vested interest (i.e. not involved) seems to be of the opinion that it is.

[+] DarthJon@lemmy.world -6 points 3 weeks ago

Most people are painfully ignorant about Israel and soak up the propaganda they see on TikTok.

An accusation of genocide is a pretty serious accusation and the onus is on people who make the accusation to prove the case. You don't get to call it genocide just because you hate Israel.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

No, but as I said plenty of experts and scholars are calling it one. I believe the ICJ said that it is "plausible," which I taken to mean that it is inconclusive. Consider that this was many months ago before the more recent escalations.

For my own part, I'm neither an expert nor do I have enough reliable, unbiased information to make any sort of assertion on the topic. Reasonably, I can only defer to the experts and try to filter out sources that have a vested interested (in either direction). There are experts saying both yes and no, so it really comes down to who you trust.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago

Newsflash: lots of these "experts" hate Israel. Same reason why they seem single-mindedly focused on such a tiny country with all the other atrocities and human rights abuses happening around the world. Did you know that just yesterday the Turkish military was bombing the Kurds?

And no, the ICJ did not rule that it is plausible Israel is committing genocide. This is a popular misconception. The former head of the ICJ clarified the ruling: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919

"Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court."

In other words, the court basically said the case can move forward. That's it.

Unfortunately, there is no unbiased information about Israel. Even the so-called experts are biased. Israel is arguably the most divisive country on the planet (which seems odd for such a tiny country of only 9 million citizens) and anybody writing about it does so because they have strong opinions about it.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

Well, nothing is going to convince you that Israel might (not necessarily is, but might) be committing genocide since you are just going to claim that experts from multiple nations and walks of life sre biased.

In other words, the court basically said the case can move forward. That’s it.

One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn't been dismissed, but it hasn't rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.

nd anybody writing about it does so because they have strong opinions about it.

You do appear to have already made up your mind on this matter. You have other comments authoritatively proclaiming that Israel is not guilty.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago

Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don't support it. By the way, did you know that during the 2014 war in Gaza, when the death toll was around 2500, people were accusing Israel of committing genocide then too? Anti-Zionists deliberately stretch the bounds of these concepts to make Israel a pariah. Just keep throwing accusations around and eventually something will stick. And even if it doesn't, Israel's enemies will continue to believe it anyway. This is a longstanding part of their propaganda strategy.

One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it hasn’t rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.>

No, it literally means nothing other than, "We, the ICJ, can hear this case."

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don't support it.

Ignoring every fact you don't like usually does that.

Besides the point of arguing if or isn't a genocide, you have to admit its pretty fucking bad that Israel is doing something that looks so much like one right?

Even if not genocide they shouldn't be bombing, killing, or starving their neighbors

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago

Like I said, people were screaming genocide in 2014 when the war lasted 2 weeks and the death toll was miniscule. Meaningless.

They were violently attacked and they have the right to respond with military force, the same right that any sovereign nation has. It's one thing to question whether Israel could be doing more to prevent civilian casualties, but if your starting point is that Israel just shouldn't respond at all, then your position is simply unreasonable to begin with.

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

See this is again you ignoring what is happening. A response is not destroy everything.

Death toll isn't the issue. It's their systematic destruction of the country. Their schools, hospitals, infrastructure and records.

It meets all the criteria. Even your response is just Israel can kill everyone and it would be justified even while being the ones lording over the Palestinians.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago

Gaza isn't a country, it's a tiny enclave. War is very destructive. The best way to avoid it is to not start wars.

[-] febra@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Oh yeah, the singularity of the Holocaust. The same kind of thinking that empowers Germany to aide countries in committing all kinds of atrocities all around the world just because those will never be THE Holocaust, so it's okay.

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024

88 points (91.5% liked)

World News

39019 readers

2193 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.