• Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What do you mean “isn’t that much greater”? The Haaretz study shows a civilian death rate of around 61%, whereas prior conflicts in Gaza had a civilian death rate of 33% to 40%, and the article says the 61% level is unprecedented. A 20%-30% increase is an insane number of additional dead.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Those are also facts. They do not change the one you left out. The average is 50%. There has obviously been escalation above the average from being below it. That was not my comment. 60 from 50 isn’t as much of a difference than I’d expected. This all looks so terrible. But apparently that’s the norm

        • blazeknave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dude… you would think based on the news it was 99% total, or 500x the norm. I haven’t even heard of a militant killed in months. So maybe 1.2x sounds right to you. Based on the media I consume, I expected literally 3 to 5x if not exponentially more.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d love to be so cynical as you, to see a 20% increase in civillian casualties in a region famous for collateral damage, and go “huh that’s not so much, nothing is happening”. Some people need to learn empathy.