Yes. This has been looked at even though it has become increasingly difficult due to the damage (bodies buried under rubble, many in pieces etc.) Sources in the lancet review but the numbers are credible.
Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext
[quote=âThe_Polymath, post:2953, topic:8474, full:trueâ]
Your proof of that is a Twitter post with a screenshot that doesnât show a source.
And yet you have no issue trusting the info that comes from the Palestinian side, despite the history of them lying. Remember the âhospital strikeâ that killed 500 people, and turned out to be a Palestinian rocket that fell in the parking lot? Even with this attack, they first said 100 dead, now they say 40.
No, theyâre not. With this attack, every news outlet I saw reporting it noted that they couldnât verify the numbers. Even the NGOs admit that they rely on information from the Palestinians when reporting casualty numbers, because they canât get there in person.
These type of views are sadly commonplace now because its how [insert entity A] is dehumanised in times of conflict.
A former IDF soldier and now Israeli scholar studied the role of Nazi indoctrination of the German army and the crimes it perpetrated on the eastern front in the second world war. He sees similar parallels now with the IDF in Gaza.
Quote from a long article about young right-wing reservists he met on a recent visit:
Itâs the old âLook at what you made me do!â defense. Used by abusers worldwide.
Itâs not dehumanizing anybody, except on the part of the people running the terrorist cell from a daycare center.
Israel should hit such a target at night when the kids arenât there. No reason to hit it during the day.
Eh⌠they have choices. Militarily they donât have good choices though. And to some extent, at the national level they should have seen this coming after all of the crap theyâve been pulling with West Bank settlements. But thatâs in the past, which canât be changed.
So today Israel can A) surrender and let Hamas continue with their quest to destroy Israel and its 5.5 million Jews or Israel can B) try to destroy Hamas, which at this point probably means killing several million Palestinians. Maybe not all 5 million of them but probably a sizable subset. I would love to be wrong, but I donât see how any other options are not quickly going to devolve to either A or B.
Maybe not⌠Hutus and Tutsis do coexist peacefully in Rwanda today. But that squabble had only been brewing for about 100 years, as opposed to 2.5 millennia, which probably matters. And Iâm not sure itâs exactly the right model to follow. The aftermath of the first war to stop the genocide spread into a regional conflict that sparked two more wars, killing about 8 million people all told, about 6.5 million of whom were non-militants IIRC. (But theyâre African and they have no oil nor any friends with oil so the rest of the world, demonstrably, DNGAF.)
And letâs just say that the Tutsi victors were not always completely magnanimous with their Hutu former aggressors.
But 8 million bodies later things are relatively calm. 
Irelandâs pretty peaceful these days, there are ways out. Avoiding being a proxy war is usually a good first step.
Stop selling weapons to Israel and make peace with Iran and whatâs left will be a lot easier to sort out.
hamas is nothing to israel, itâs not a threat to israel. Iran is the real threat. the world powers dont want israel to go to war with iran. there is no real solution or peace to be had until Iran sees significant internal change. And same with israel. as long as extremists run the show, there will be conflict and death. Thing is that Iran is allied with russia and china, so the whole thing is very combustible.
Tough to do when they arenât interested.
Its the opposite way around. Its the US and Israel that have shown themselves untrustworthy.
Look at what happened with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Iran bent over backwards for that one (it was the first step towards a more stable peace in the long run), and Bibi & Israel torpedoed it by egging Trump to deep-six it.
The problems in the ME are mostly Israel-created now. Bibiâs behavior and actions over the last 15 years have led to the current highly fragmented and politically volatile situation.
JCPOA was a terrible deal, and would not have contributed at all towards peace.
Thereâs no question that Netanyahu made a bad situation worse. But somehow I suspect that Hamas and the PLO are not going to give up on âfrom the river to the seaâ even with a better person running Israel.
At a minimum both sides seem willing to fight to the death over Jerusalem even if the rest of the territory could be divided.
JCPOA kept Iran closer to the US and EU, with some links to Russia.
That is much more desirable than what you have now with Iran much closer to Russia and China, with the US and EU not in the picture anymore.
Bibi was always a big fat liar about Iranâs nuclear capabilities (comical to those of us that understand the physics involved) what he mostly wanted to do was destroy any relationship between Iran and US/EU, because ultimately it weakened him (and his right-wing coalition).
And weâre right back to âthis is a Bibi created problemâ.
Iran consistently violated all atomic treaties. Not as much as they could have, but they never strictly abided by any of them, and always made montoring more troublesome than necessary. That being said JCPOA was about as good as we were going to get and we shouldnât have withdrawn.
Was it a terrible deal? I think you need to show some evidence that there was a better alternative that was actually viable. Also, you need to consider the deal as part of a longer term plan. Maybe in isolation itâs a bad deal, but opens the door to much better relationships 5 years later.
Also, once the deal has been made, it becomes part of the baseline status. Walking away from it creates damage. Two wrongs donât make a right, etc.
And when neither side is getting external support, itâll fizzle out surprisingly quickly.
Iran doesnât need external support to defeat Israel. They have oil money, a much higher population, and a bunch of fanatics in other countries they can use as cannon fodder.
They just need Israel to not have external support and not nuke them.
The JCPOA was a terrible deal. It didnât address their missile program at all. It didnât halt much less reverse their progress on nuclear capabilities, just slowed them down. It did provide them tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief.
Obama was so convinced he was a great man in history and could solve these issues that he went into negotiations unwilling to walk away without a deal. The mullahs recognized that and took him to the cleaners. He** the French pushed for a better deal than the Obama administration did.
As far as making bad deals for much better relationships. How is that working out with China and membership in the WTO? I prefer trust but verify and reward current good behavior not hopes for future good behavior.
I doubt it. Either one side will turn to nukes or theyâll look to more affordable forms of genocide (see: Rwanda)
I donât recall anyone saying JCPOA was a world-saving idea. Everyone realized it had flaws. But âthis is a terrible idea because it has loopholes, letâs scrap it completely so Iranâs progress rolls on unfetteredâ was even worse.
If you want to criticize our handling of China with the WTO, fine. I think itâs absolutely open for criticism. But yanking the carrot and threatening the stick when the relationship is already pretty strained isnât going to convince China to bend the knee to us, just like youâre not going to get Iran to be friendly to us after 7+ decades of hostility with zero attempts to reconcile any of it.