Horseshit, don’t equate this with collateral damage. The difference is nations generally minimize civilian death, not make it the sole purpose of the offense. It wouldn’t be a war crime otherwise.
A study covered by Ha’aretz: the civilian deaths account for 61% of deaths from air strikes in Gaza.
This makes the Gaza slaughter more fatal to civilians than any other conflict in the entire 20th Century. The century that included many genocides and both world wars.
In which major war nations tried to minimize collateral damage? Because in wars like Russia, Afganistan, Syria and many others, you cannot say there was someone who tried to minimize collateral damage. They simply wanted to win and usually at any cost.
And it’s considerably more than WW1. In WW1, the percentage was 41%. For WW2, estimates differ a bit, varying from 60-67%.
The current Gaza-conflict percentage stands at 61%, and it appears to be rising.
I do see I have to rectify myself a bit. I saw a headline stating it was higher than all 20th century conflicts, but the article contained a line stating it was higher than the average of all 20th century conflicts (which is about 50%). Small but significant detail, mea culpa.
Regardless of that, it’s higher than WW1 by a huge margin and it’s about as high as WW2 (which had death camps that civilians were sent to). If the IDF has reached that level of civilian casualties, any claims that they do their best to avoid targeting civilians have been effectively debunked.
Collective punishment is terrible but unfortunately is present in every war. It’s never a fight only between soldiers.
Oh, it’s “unfortunate” is it? Sounds like you want us to think it’s a thing that just happened and not a decision made at the top.
What,you’ve never heard the term justifiable genocide?
-This guy
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
What,you’ve never heard the term justifiable genocide?
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Horseshit, don’t equate this with collateral damage. The difference is nations generally minimize civilian death, not make it the sole purpose of the offense. It wouldn’t be a war crime otherwise.
A study covered by Ha’aretz: the civilian deaths account for 61% of deaths from air strikes in Gaza.
This makes the Gaza slaughter more fatal to civilians than any other conflict in the entire 20th Century. The century that included many genocides and both world wars.
In which major war nations tried to minimize collateral damage? Because in wars like Russia, Afganistan, Syria and many others, you cannot say there was someone who tried to minimize collateral damage. They simply wanted to win and usually at any cost.
The Israel-Gaza conflict has a larger percentage of civilian deaths than any other 20th century conflict, as was researched by Israeli universities.
Pretty much because it lasts longer than any other 20th century conflict.
Also, is it also more than WW1 and WW2?
For the percentage the duration does not matter.
And it’s considerably more than WW1. In WW1, the percentage was 41%. For WW2, estimates differ a bit, varying from 60-67%.
The current Gaza-conflict percentage stands at 61%, and it appears to be rising.
I do see I have to rectify myself a bit. I saw a headline stating it was higher than all 20th century conflicts, but the article contained a line stating it was higher than the average of all 20th century conflicts (which is about 50%). Small but significant detail, mea culpa.
Regardless of that, it’s higher than WW1 by a huge margin and it’s about as high as WW2 (which had death camps that civilians were sent to). If the IDF has reached that level of civilian casualties, any claims that they do their best to avoid targeting civilians have been effectively debunked.
Just following orders boss!