Sanders Says US Gaza Aid Airdrops 'No Substitute for Sustained Ground Deliveries'

“Israel MUST open the borders and allow the United Nations to deliver supplies in sufficient quantities.”

“The United States, which has helped fund the Israeli military for years, cannot sit back and allow hundreds of thousands of innocent children to starve to death,” Sanders (Vt.) said in a statement. “As a result of Israeli bombing and restrictions on humanitarian aid, the people of Gaza are facing an unprecedented humanitarian disaster.”

Israeli forces have killed more than 30,200 Palestinians in Gaza—most of them women and children—while wounding over 71,300 others and displacing around 90% of the besieged enclave’s 2.3 million people. Children are now starving to death, and experts say adults, especially elders and other vulnerable people, will soon follow absent urgent intervention.

guacupado,

Everyone hates the world police until they need the world police.

abuttandahalf,

The United States is the world police. Fucking no one needs the United States. They’re the ones sending the bombs dropping on Palestinian’s heads and the bullets ripping off their limbs. Without the us Israel wouldn’t fucking exist right now.

Linkerbaan, (edited )
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Getting America to lift the siege on Gaza cause by America is not “needing them”.

tastysnacks,

America is not the cause. Everybody is responsible for their own decisions and actions. The Israelis are not children.

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Who vetoed the UN ceasefire last week?

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

Yeah they dropped something like 30,000 meals.

For more than two million.

A fucking joke. That’s more likely to start fights between hungry people than to help.

tryptaminev,

Given that Israel justifies the recent massacre in this way, this seems to be part of the plan to commit genocide, while preserving some sort of deniability.

Tinidril,

That’s why these are air drops. Short of Hamas (ineffectively) firing rockets at US aircraft, airdrops eliminate the risk of incidents like the flour riots.

tryptaminev,

In Gaza live more than 2 million people, of which almost everyone is facing starvation right now, while having no access to clean water and the medical infrastructure is practically nonexistent. To provide everyone with the bare minimum, you’d need to drop in about 20 kg per person and day. That would be a kilo of rice/flour/potatoes, another kilo of protein and vitamin sources, 15 litres of drinking water and the rest being hygienic supplies, medical supplies, blankets, tents, clothes…

That makes up 40.000 tonnes of daily deliveries. That is equal to about 4.000 normal trucks that need to enter Gaza every single day, or about 3 trucks every single minute.

That is the scale we are talking about. If the US used all their 450 CH-47 helicopters for this mission, with each one being able to load about a 10 tonne load, they’d be flying nonstop. And there is no way to station these off of one aircraft carrier. It would be a huge logistics mission, requiring the use of a proper land supplied air field nearby. And if you think, the US has better transport options, the C-130 line can only load 6 pallets at a time, so effectively not more, while requiring even better airfields.

Sanders is absolutely right. Air-Drops are nothing but a thin veil to pretend doing something about the issue. But the only way to provide sustained relief is through an extensive ground transport mission.

If you want just a rough idea of what we are actually talking about in terms of logistics here, have a look at the Berlin airlift That was about the same number of people, although they had access to clean drinking water.

Tinidril,

And the US is required to do all of that ourselves? This isn’t a “tax dollars” thing, it’s just that it seems a little insane to here zero criticism of countries sending in zero supplies while the US is the great Satan for bringing in what it can while negotiating to bring in more by other methods.

Yes, ground is best, but that has serious risks. Those convoys would need to be protected by soldiers. Should they be IDF? We know why that’s not a great idea. Should they be US? What happens if they clash with Hamas? Is the US going to be pulled into the conflict? It sounds like bringing is supplies by sea is coming soon, and I know it’s not soon enough.

I totally get how bad things are, and it makes me sick. However, I also know that it’s totally possible to make things worse. This still has the ability to spread outside Gaza to a regional conflict.

Just in case it needs to be said, fuck Israel and Netanyaho. Also, in any conversation, “Bernie is right” is almost being redundant as far as I’m concerned. We absolutely need to do more, but the realities of the situation have to be navigated carefully.

tryptaminev,

The US is the single strongest supporter and protector of Israel. The US is sending billions of weapons to Israel and has continued to do so. The US continues to veto resolutions against the genocide in the UN security council.

The responsibility is by no means exclusive to the US, but given the share of responsibility of the US for enabling this genocide, their share in resolving it, must be equally high. There used to be an effective means of providing aid to Gaza. The UNRWA. But the US and other Israel supporters like Germany decided to sabotage it, the day after the ICJ ruled that Gaza needs more humanitarian aid to prevent a genocide. The sabotage remains on unproven accusations of Israel against a laughably small number of UNRWA employees.

Aid convoys don’t need to be protected by soldiers, if enough aid enters Gaza. The people are not “animals” or “plundering” or “rioting” or whatever terminology is used by pro Israeli propaganda. They are starving people desperate for food. Provide enough food and there is no fighting about it.

SomeAmateur, (edited )

Gotta start somewhere. I bet the airdrops are a stop gap while the trucks get organized.

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

🤡

FiniteBanjo,

A better solution would be to use the SDVs to deliver supplies directly, it’s been done before in Africa.

mlg,
@mlg@lemmy.world avatar

If I had a nickel for every “baby step” and “I bet next Biden will” comment, I’d have enough to refund UNRWA again.

SomeAmateur,

I mean yeah it’s a bet not prophecy. I leave that to NCD

Tinidril,

According to UNRWA, the number of Palestinians currently in need of food assistance is more like 500k. 30k is a good start, especially when you consider that it was just the first drop. Negotiations are reportedly going well to start bringing in boats, but time will tell if Israel is as open to that as they claim.

Any boots on the ground, even those protecting aid workers, carry a risk of more incidents like the flour riots, so that’s not going to happen without operational coordination agreements. Israel would love it if there were an incident between American soldiers and Palestinians. It would be a propaganda goldmine.

queermunist, (edited )
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

All 2+ million are in need of food assistance. 550k aren’t just in need of food assistance, they’re close to famine and famine is different. That’s when you literally die from starvation and it can take weeks of food assistance to recover from famine.

Also what the fuck are you talking about with this “flour riot” bullshit? It was a massacre. Fuck off trying to blame Palestinians for it.

Tinidril,

Flour massacre is fair. I’m not exactly stumping for Israel when I say that they would love to use another incident involving US troops as propaganda. Ultimately, Israel is at fault for their deaths no matter how it occurred.

Again, this was just the first drop, so the number of people needing food immediately is what’s relevant. Air drops are a terribly inefficient way to do this, but they are also the safest for everyone. The air drops are expected to accelerate, and other methods of delivery are being negotiated. The appropriate response is “great, but we need more, and we need to make them unnecessary.” Calling them “a fucking joke” is as likely to contribute to ending deliveries as it is to encourage accelerated deliveries.

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

The safest way to do this would be to force Israel to stop doing genocide.

Tinidril,

I appreciate (and share) the desire, but the idea that the US can force Israel to leave Gaza isn’t realistic.

US support for Israel is done in pursuit of US interests. Those interests aren’t going away, and are neither particularly sinister nor altruistic. Israel depends on aid but, under Netanyaho, it doesn’t care where that aid comes from. If the US pulls out, Russia has multiple incentives to take it’s place. That is not an acceptable outcome for America, and would arguably be a disaster for Palestine too.

I do not argue that the Biden administration has done everything it should to restrain Israel but, from a cold foreign policy perspective, the leverage the US has is far more limited than people think.

Of course the US always has the capability to project military force into the situation, and Israel has no realistic means to resist that. However, I don’t see where support would come from for such a move. It’s not there internationally, domestically, or even popular with supporters of Palestine.

Revan343,

How about air bombings? And not against Gaza.

ShadyGrove,

I don’t think killing more people is the answer here.

catloaf,

It doesn’t appear they’re going to stop willingly. We went to war to stop Nazi Germany.

Revan343, (edited )

America went to war because Japan bombed them, they were A-OK with Germany’s genocide until they were actually pulled into it.

This is not an argument against intervening in Israel’s genocide, just a note on historical accuracy

catloaf,

I meant “we” more referring to the Allied forces going to war against Nazi Germany’s invasions of Poland, France, etc., like Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

But yeah, nobody cared about the genocide when it was domestic to Germany.

Revan343, (edited )

Some people just need killing. Generally it’s the people in charge; bombing Israeli cities would be a pointless tragedy, but directed strikes against political and military targets are frankly long overdue.

But none of that is going to happen, because the west supports Israel’s genocide, so we’ll just keep shipping them weapons instead

mellowheat, (edited )

Killing more right people might be. Like killing the Hamas leaders who’re living luxuriously in Qatar. I’m sure Mossad would gladly do it if they could.

GhostFence,

How about snatching aid from Israel until they stop this genocide? That’ll hit them harder.

Revan343,

Harder than bombing whatever building Bibi is in? No, it won’t.

Still, best to stop sending them ‘aid’ anyways

lennybird,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

Based on US intelligence of Hamas casualties, 80% of those 30,000 are civilians. 80%. >50% are below the age of 18.

DreamDrifter,

There’s one fact I like to drop on people before discussing my views on Gaza

The average age is roughly 18.

Just let the sink in… It doesn’t mean there’s no one older, but 1 60 year old would offset 3 infants, more than 6 10 year olds, or a whole classroom of teenagers. Humans frequently live to that age without medical care and living in terrible conditions, if you die earlier then that, there’s probably a specific cause you can point to

DolphinMath, (edited )

The 25,000 number given Lloyd Austin wasn’t based on US intelligence.

WASHINGTON, Feb 29 (Reuters)

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told Congress on Thursday that more than 25,000 women and children had been killed by Israel in Gaza since October 7, but the Pentagon later clarified that estimate, saying the figure came from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, not U.S. intelligence.

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

But Gaza health minestery has already said they counted at least 30.000 bodies. Does Loyd Austin have a week brain delay?

DolphinMath,

Even the Hama-run health ministry in Gaza isn’t claiming that Israel directly killed 30,000 women and children. The claim I see repeated is that the “majority” of casualties are women and children. They also don’t differentiate between combatants and non-combatants.

Additionally, all casualties are counted as victims of “Israeli aggression,” regardless of how they were killed. Meaning, if Hamas or the Islamic Jihad misfires a rocket, or accidentally shoots a bystander, it is counted the same as if an IDF soldier pulled the trigger.

Source

Personally, I am increasingly concerned with deaths from disease, dehydration, and starvation. Effectively delivering and distributing humanity aid needs to be a top priority.

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Of course aid should be a top priority. But even if supposedly Hamas did everything you said (which they didn’t as the BBC wrote an article detailing the fire came from israel), the aid one is one you cannot possibly attribute to Hamas.

The only one responsible for the little children that already starved to in Gaza to death is israel .

DolphinMath,

Of course aid should be a top priority. But even if supposedly Hamas did everything you said (which they didn’t as the BBC wrote an article detailing the fire came from israel), the aid one is one you cannot possibly attribute to Hamas.

Uh, did I miss something?

When in my comment did I say what Hamas did?

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Your claim directly implies that Hamas is killing civilians which we know they don’t. The only party that is willing to kill their own civilians is israel

DolphinMath,

Hamas has at the very least accidentally killed civilians, but I don’t think we’ll come to an understanding on this.

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Sure they might have. That amount will be negligible and I don’t see how it has any relevance to this current situation.

Revan343, (edited )

I wouldn’t differentiate between combatants and non-combatants either. The assumption that every military aged male in Palestine is a combatant is probably close to correct, as military-aged men are going to be the most likely to take up arms to defend their home

Fuck Israel, btw, if that didn’t get across in the last paragraph. Jerusalem needs a well-placed suitcase nuke; hit the people in charge, not the people in general

Edit: The combatant/non-combatant distinction isn’t particularly useful when discussing an area that has been militarily invaded; of course the people who live there will try to fight back against their invaders, whether they’re trained military or not. If America decided to invade my country, you can be damned sure I’d kill any of their soldiers I met in the smoke pit outside the bar, and they’d call it murder

underisk, (edited )
@underisk@lemmy.ml avatar

Hamas-run is sure a weaselly way of implicating disinformation. Their numbers have been consistently confirmed to be very accurate and trustworthy. Which is probably why Israel keeps bombing all those hospitals; so the deaths will stop being tallied accurately.

Do you prepend all information coming out of Israeli institutions with “Likud-run” or everything that comes from the US with “democrat run”?

DolphinMath, (edited )

It’s a factual and neutral statement. Hamas has been governing Gaza since they were elected in 2006. Any governmental officials in Gaza hold power because Hamas gave it to them. They are not, and could never be a neutral party.

Statements about Israeli officials, intelligence, and the IDF are the same.

In the US these same news outlets do refer to officials as Democratic or Republican frequently. Hell, they even talk about which judges were appointed by which president. Similar reporting happens with different government officials throughout Europe as well.

underisk, (edited )
@underisk@lemmy.ml avatar

That man consciously chose to put the phrase “hamas-run” in there. What do you propose is the reasoning for doing so, if not to call into question the accuracy of the numbers through that association? It is absolutely not a neutral statement; context exists.

I have never once seen the phrase “Likud-run” next to any of the statements, tallies, or intelligence from Israel that the media reprints without any fact-checking or investigation.

DolphinMath, (edited )

The author likely made the choice to include “Hamas-run” for factual accuracy and neutrality. Merely writing “Gaza health ministry”, would imply a neutral 3rd party. Any official in Gaza is appointed by Hamas and cannot be neutral. As such, it is fair to question the accuracy of the numbers provided.

That said, while their numbers are not something I would take at face value, their death count is still the best one we have.

underisk, (edited )
@underisk@lemmy.ml avatar

I see, so providing context is conjuring up the image of a boogeyman and using it to call into question the exact death toll of a genocide, but not looking into the accuracy of those numbers or the record of those who provided them and how they held up over time. It’s not really fair to question accuracy when they have no history of fabrication or misreporting in the entire time they’ve been “hamas-run”.

You seem very insistent that neutral facts are just de-facto unassailable but there are so many ways to present “neutral facts” in a way that is absolutely biased. The most simple of which is simply curating which “neutral facts” you choose to present. What important context is provided here other than a flimsy bullshit reason to question the legitimacy of something which has no reasonable justification for being questioned? Why isn’t the context that they have been providing accurate reporting for literal decades also being mentioned when the very thing being questioned is the accuracy of the numbers and not their political association?

DolphinMath, (edited )

Providing context is accurately identifying your source of information. When the IDF gives a statement, that is cited as well, often mentioning the Netanyahu government in-tandem.

For some up-to-date reporting on this subject, I’d like to share this recent NPR piece.

The Gaza health ministry has relied entirely on “reliable media sources” for ~13,000 of the ~30,000 reported deaths so far. ~17,000 of the deaths were input electronically from a hospital.

In addition, “Gaza’s health ministry says 70% of those killed in the territory are women and children. Its most recent breakdown of casualties recorded in hospitals shows women and children make up 58% of those deaths. Al-Qudra could not explain the discrepancy.”

So according to the Hamas-run Gaza heath ministry, “reliable media sources” report that 86% of those killed are women and children, but hospital staff report that only 58% are women and children. This discrepancy is significant and it’s clear that the non-hospital sources skew the data overall.

In addition, they intentionally assign all deaths to “Israeli aggression,” and do not differentiate between combatants and non-combatants.

All that to say, I think it is a perfect valid approach to specify that Hamas runs the health ministry when their numbers cannot be independently confirmed and appear to have significant distortions.

underisk, (edited )
@underisk@lemmy.ml avatar

Their numbers have repeatedly been independently confirmed and shown to be largely accurate in the past. They have never given any cause to doubt them and calling into question their methodology now is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst.

I’m glad, at least, that we seem to have agreed that the addition of “hamas-run” is purely meant to cast doubt on the numbers but you seem to think this is justified despite all evidence to the contrary. Even the article you linked seems to reach the conclusion that the numbers are likely mostly accurate, if not under counted. It’s far more likely that any discrepancies that may exist are due to the difficulties of maintaining a health system while a hostile nation bombs your health infrastructure into rubble rather than a literally unprecedented manipulation of the data by Hamas.

In addition, they intentionally assign all deaths to “Israeli aggression,”

Here’s some context for you, from your article:

the death toll only includes people killed by the “occupation bombardment,” Boyza says. The health ministry describes its casualty figures as those resulting from “Israeli aggression.”

I guess you didn’t need this lesson on how to lie by omission with “neutral facts”; you already knew what you were doing.

DolphinMath,

Their numbers have repeatedly been independently confirmed and shown to be largely accurate in the past. They have never given any cause to doubt them and calling into question their methodology now is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst.

Or maybe there are significant deviations from their previous methodology, that skews their numbers to make it look like Israel is intentionally targeting women and children? It may or may not be malicious, but the bias in their counting is clear as day.

I’m glad, at least, that we seem to have agreed that the addition of “hamas-run” is purely meant to cast doubt on the numbers but you seem to think this is justified despite all evidence to the contrary.

Cast doubt? No. Provide context and showcase potential bias? Yes. I suspect the overall numbers are roughly correct (potentially even undercounted), but their updated methodology shows significant deviation from the past in terms of who they say is being killed. All that to say, I would not blindly trust their data.

the death toll only includes people killed by the “occupation bombardment,” Boyza says. The health ministry describes its casualty figures as those resulting from “Israeli aggression.”

Yes. I did read that and I suspect there is a translation issue. Clearly when people die in incidents like February 29th, their deaths are added to the count. It’s not merely "occupation bombardment.”

I guess you didn’t need this lesson on how to lie by omission with “neutral facts”; you already knew what you were doing.

I’m not lying or omitting facts. You keep repeating the term “neutral facts,” but I have never once expressed that is what I want. I’m ok with bias as long as it is factual. Reading multiple perspectives is helpful in understanding complex topics.

underisk, (edited )
@underisk@lemmy.ml avatar

The only complexity is caused by the specters of doubt you’ve invented to justify your own biases. You’ve given one example of a single potentially misreported demographic statistic that is tangentially related at best to the death toll number we’re discussing and that somehow represents a shift from decades of established methodology that has consistently reported accurately literally every single time this exact same shit has happened. Israel themselves trust the numbers out of Gaza!

Yes. I did read that and I suspect there is a translation issue

If you thought it was a translation issue why did you cite it as evidence for your argument rather than discarding the whole thing as an unreliable source? You seem have no issue doing that when it comes to the information from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry.

I keep repeating neutral facts to try and drive home how fucking absurd that phrase is. It’s tautological; facts are all neutral: they are descriptions of reality. How you present facts and frame them determines bias, not the facts themselves. Do you think people are manipulated and propagandized with only lies?

You keep insisting that it’s mere the addition of context but it’s not because it’s only the subset of context that presents the situation in a certain perspective rather than providing the whole picture. If you’re so concerned about gathering different perspectives I think you’d be more eager to insist on the additional context of Gazas historical integrity in these matters alongside the political affiliation of its government and the state of its healthcare infrastructure. Instead you’re keen to just let the incomplete picture painted by “Hamas-run” slide because you agree with the intent behind adding it. Which is to cast doubt, not illuminate context.

DolphinMath,

The only complexity is caused by the specters of doubt you’ve invented to justify your own biases.

K.

You’ve given one example of a single potentially misreported demographic statistic that is tangentially related at best to the death toll number we’re discussing and that somehow represents a shift from decades of established methodology that has consistently reported accurately literally every single time this exact same shit has happened.

Look, the specific numbers have been off since they started relying on media sources. It’s not just “a single potentially misreported demographic statistic,” it’s a series of misreported incidents causing a dramatic demographic skew. That doesn’t mean the overall number of deaths is that far off. It could potentially be a case of the media ignoring the deaths of adult men.

Israel themselves trust the numbers out of Gaza!

To a point, maybe. Israeli officials constantly disputes the numbers in public.

If you thought it was a translation issue why did you cite it as evidence for your argument rather than discarding the whole thing as an unreliable source? You seem have no issue doing that when it comes to the information from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry.

You keep jumping to extremes and putting words in my mouth. I’ve never said we should “disregard the whole thing as an unreliable source” when it comes to the Gaza health ministry. Their data is a valuable resource, even if they are not a neutral third party.

I keep repeating neutral facts to try and drive home how fucking absurd that phrase is. It’s tautological; facts are all neutral: they are descriptions of reality. How you present facts and frame them determines bias, not the facts themselves. Do you think people are manipulated and propagandized with only lies?

Ah, so you were just being redundant by saying “neutral facts,” got it.

In response to the rest of that, I would say that the best lies are blended together with truth.

underisk, (edited )
@underisk@lemmy.ml avatar

You keep jumping to extremes and putting words in my mouth. I’ve never said we should “disregard the whole thing as an unreliable source” when it comes to the Gaza health ministry. Their data is a valuable resource, even if they are not a neutral third party.

I meant “whole thing” as in the whole quote. You cited part of a quote you apparently believed to have been incorrectly translated and instead of finding another source for that translation or a corroborating statement you just presented it without any kind of caveat about what you believed to be a potential inaccuracy. Apparently, it’s fine to omit context that calls accuracy into question but only when it supports your disingenuous arguments.

Ah, so you were just being redundant by saying “neutral facts,” got it.

Sorry, I thought when you said “It’s a factual and neutral statement.” what you meant was that it’s neutrality was intrinsic to it’s factual nature, rather than just listing that it was both factual and neutral. In my defense, I assumed this because you made this statement in a context where no one has questioned the factual accuracy of “hamas-run”. If that was not your intent then please feel free to ignore all the points I made regarding the inherent neutrality of facts.

DolphinMath, (edited )

Honestly, I originally pulled the “Israeli aggression” quote from this AP article. It was also included in the NPR article I linked, but it is a widely reported fact.

The Health Ministry doesn’t report how Palestinians were killed, whether from Israeli airstrikes and artillery barrages or other means, like errant Palestinian rocket fire. It describes all casualties as victims of “Israeli aggression.”

We also have documented instances where deaths clearly include gunfire, which would not be considered “bombardments,” so it’s fair to assume a translation error resulting from a language barrier.

To clarify, the reason I said “It’s a factual and neutral statement,” is that Reuters prides itself on that being free of bias as much as possible. Whether or not they achieve that is up for debate, but it’s included in their Standards & Values..

underisk,
@underisk@lemmy.ml avatar

I don’t think it’s fair to call any news source unbiased and I would be highly suspect of any who claim it of themselves. No one is completely free from the influences of society, money, and politics. Bias is a spectrum with no neutral position. Whatever you believe to be neutral is just a reflection of your own biases.

If there’s a translation error, then surely it’s more likely that the word “bombardments” is just being used as a generic stand in for “attacks with military weapons”. I don’t think that’s a reason to discard the part of the statement that clearly lays out how they are only attempting to count deaths they believe to be the result of “Israeli aggression” and not just counting all deaths and labeling them that after the fact. By limiting what they count they are, in a way, de facto reporting how they were killed; it was something they believed could be reasonably attributed to Israeli aggression. The lack of supporting data doesn’t automatically cast doubt, especially in circumstances where the data has been shown to be reasonably accurate in every other occasion. And any doubt that could be cast by such a deficiency isn’t some plot by Hamas to mislead people with inaccurate data.

TempermentalAnomaly, (edited )

The Gaza Health ministry existed before 2006. It’s continuity is contingent upon the same personelle doing the grueling work day in and day out. The rank and file are first and foremost medical professionals.

From the Wikipedia entry:

On 10 November 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US intelligence community has growing confidence that death toll reports from the Gaza Health Ministry are roughly accurate. The article also reported that despite US officials had growing confidence, they did not have enough information to confirm for sure. On 6 December 2023, a comparative study published in The Lancet based on publicly available mortality reports stated there was no evidence of inflated mortality reporting from the Ministry The US Assistant Secretary of State said that actual death toll was most likely “even higher” than what the GHM reported. In January 2024, Israeli news magazine Mekomit reported that Israeli intelligence officials had concluded that Health Ministry casualty reports are generally reliable and are used in briefings to senior officials.

So if more than vague conjectures, share it.

DolphinMath, (edited )

2 points.

  1. I don’t see any issues with the information presented in the Wikipedia section you linked.
  2. Leadership in the Gaza Health Ministry has definitely changed since Hamas took control, I doubt all the workers are the same either. That isn’t super important though, except in understanding that they aren’t a neutral party.
TempermentalAnomaly,

You don’t have any evidence that their numbers are a misrepresentation. You said:

it is fair to question the accuracy of the numbers provided.

Thier non-neutrality is a non-issue if they are providing accurate numbers. The only reason to include Hamas-run, then, is to cast a vague sense that something ain’t right.

How does their non-neutrality effect their numbers? Give me something concrete.

DolphinMath,

Pulling from this NPR Article

The Hamas-run Gaza heath ministry has used “reliable media sources” for 13,000 of the 30,000 reported deaths. According to the “reliable media sources” 86% of those killed are women and children. However, hospital staff report that 58% of the 17,000 deaths they have recorded are women and children. That’s a pretty significant deviation.

TempermentalAnomaly, (edited )

You continue to be vague. Can you provide anything more than speculation and suspicion? And some how you ignore this from the article:

In past wars with Israel, the Gaza health ministry’s death tolls were mostly in line with counts by the United Nations and Israel, though there have been discrepancies in the past with Israel on the numbers of civilians vs. militants killed.

An analysis published in the Lancet medical journal in December found that Gaza’s health ministry has “historically reported accurate mortality data,” with discrepancies between 1% and roughly 3% when compared with U.N. analysis of deaths in previous conflicts. The study found “no evidence of inflated rates” in the current war and noted that difficulties in obtaining accurate death counts “should not be interpreted as intentionally misreported data.”

The numbers have been historically accurate. And even the organization isn’t as cut and dry as you see it. I’m not saying there’s a chance they are making up numbers, but you have to provide evidence. And you can’t and you won’t.

DolphinMath,

Firstly, the evidence is not vague. Unless Israel started deliberately targeting women and children, while ignoring men, there is something wrong in their data. I wouldn’t personally ascribe a specific reason without more information.

Secondly, the scale of this conflict has far surpassed any other since the founding of the Palestinian Ministry of Health in 1993 (which split to become the Gaza Ministry of Heath in 2008). Accurately recording ~30,000 deaths vs 1,440, 2,310, or 260 is exceedingly challenging.

TempermentalAnomaly,

Any official in Gaza is appointed by Hamas and cannot be neutral. As such, it is fair to question the accuracy of the numbers provided.

The vagueness isn’t in the numbers being inaccurate or not, but rather ascribing intentional distortion of those numbers. Again, provide evidence of them making up those numbers above and beyond expected clerical errors.

DolphinMath, (edited )

I see.

So you think it is unfair to question the numbers, and that we should blindly accept the Gaza health ministry numbers as authoritative and exact?

This despite the fact that the organization reporting these numbers is led by people appointed by one of the participants/instigators of the conflict? Not to mention the fact that there has been a shift in methodology for counting, and that this conflict is happening on a drastically different scale.

TempermentalAnomaly,

That’s clearly not what I said.

I said that there’s no evidence to attribute intentional distortion.
Saying otherwise is speculative.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • news@lemmy.world
  • Durango
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • Youngstown
  • khanakhh
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • normalnudes
  • megavids
  • ethstaker
  • GTA5RPClips
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • mdbf
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • provamag3
  • tester
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •