US and Israel "reach the breaking point" as invasion of Rafah begins and Netanyahu rejects ceasefire

[Progressive Pessimist]

*Sigh* this war is never going to end. I really don't know what Bibi's endgame is anymore outside of pissing away whatever good-will Israel has left.

However, it opens up an opportunity for Biden to really meaningfully put his foot down. It probably won't be enough, and the Democratic convention may be a disaster at this point.

[MasterJedi]

Israel’s end goal here is to inflict pain and annex Gaza. They’re just going to drive more people into Hamas as they slaughter their friends and family and starve them all. It’s a lose/lose, need to get BiBi out and into jail and get the adults in charge.

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

Per Reuters: "The United States is concerned about Israel's latest strikes against the southern Gaza city of Rafah but does not believe they represent a major military operation, a U.S. official said. The official said the U.S. is focused on heading off a major military operation into densely populated areas of Rafah and that it does not appear the Israelis are doing that."

Unless you completely disregard the US line on anything Israel does, acting like this will lead to the leveling of an entire city and an order of magnitude greater casualties is pure hyperbole. It will not be of any greater scale than the urban warfare we've seen thus far, for better or worse.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Israel’s end goal here is to inflict pain and annex Gaza. They’re just going to drive more people into Hamas as they slaughter their friends and family and starve them all. It’s a lose/lose, need to get BiBi out and into jail and get the adults in charge.

Netanyahu and Hamas are the best thing that happened to each other.

[Open Source Intelligence]

I think it is understandable why Israel does not want to leave Hamas a safe haven, because if they do leave Hamas a safe haven, it is entirely predictable that Hamas will just use it to conduct future attacks on Israel.

So they're invading Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon next?

[Open Source Intelligence]

Israel’s end goal here is to inflict pain and annex Gaza. They’re just going to drive more people into Hamas as they slaughter their friends and family and starve them all. It’s a lose/lose, need to get BiBi out and into jail and get the adults in charge.

They'll never annex Gaza as long as Palestinians are living there. Annexation equals assumption of responsibility.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Bibi said Hamas should be "bolstered" and funded. I think we should take him at his word when considering his priorities here, because I can think of no Hamas supporter more significant than that of the corrupt Israeli government.

[7,052,770]

Since thinks that I, despite my degree in math (although I could just as validly say "despite being old enough to post on this forum") simply "don't even understand" 5th grade level math like percents, I'll point out some issues I take with OSR's chart:

• First and foremost, whether or not something is defined as "genocide" has never been defined as a ratio of military and civilian death rates. So even if this ratio were a useful tool in evaluating conflicts generally, it's NOT going to be the deciding factor in labeling something as a genocide or not. For reference, this has been the working definition of "genocide" from the UN. Note the lack of percents.
  

  In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.

• The chart doesn't show its work for any of the conflicts listed, so how can we even verify the ratios it's claiming? It's not like I can easily look up the numbers and back into the ratios, because each bar is based on 4 values, and small changes to any 1 of those 4 might greatly impact how tall the bar is. So even if I tried to validate these bars, it would be very difficult to track down every discrepancy. In a world where this formula is valid, the chart is still a failure for not including numbers at the bottom to show its work.
• In modern conflicts (and arguably in earlier ones too), the line between who is a "militant" and who is a "civilian" is blurred. I don't trust the governments of Gaza or Israel to be honest in their numbers, and even if they do try to be totally honest, there are still going to be edge cases that they naturally tilt to their side. So even if this chart did show its work, we still wouldn't be able to trust any of the 4 numbers, much less this ratio, because it could be heavily skewed by a light agenda.
• With that in mind, it's easy to see what the agenda of this chart's creator is - it's pretty clearly anti-American propaganda. It includes the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, especially with Dresden and Hiroshima having really low bars, but then glosses over everything else that happened in WW2. It gives Nazi Germany, Japan, and the USSR, which we all agree had more than their fair share of atrocities, a couple of token bars, but (how conveniently!) all but one of those bars across all of those countries turns out NOT to be a genocide!
  
  • And just to remind everyone, OSR, who posted the chart, is one of the least likely people on this forum to ever post anti-American propaganda, so it's pretty clear that he didn't really even read the chart before posting it. Come on man, you've got to do better than that. You're so eager to grasp onto ANYTHING to defend Netanyahu despite everything that you'll throw America under the bus? (And as a further reminder, keep in mind that OSR has said that American schools should tell slanted versions of history where America is always the good guy, so if some high school showed this chart without the specific 2023-24 Gaza context, he'd probably throw a fit...)
• The formula only considers deaths, not wounded/injuries, even though the actual definition of "genocide" is not confined to deaths only.
• But OK, now that we've covered why the chart isn't a useful and practical way to compare different conflicts, and certainly not to evaluate whether something is or is not a genocide, is it mathematically valid in the first place? I would still say no.
  
  • Comparing multiples of percents doesn't really work when you have vast differences in possibly magntiudes. Like, a war where 75% of a military population is killed, and 50% of a civilian population is killed gets a value of 1.5. A war where 1% of a military population is killed and 0.75% of a civilian population is killed gets a value of 1.33. Is anyone seriously going to argue that the second case is MORE of a genocide than the first? Of course not. Because genocide isn't defined by this formula.
  • Think of a small scale war where a few civilians are killed and a few military are killed, low numbers all around, it wouldn't be that hard to get a value under 1. I checked to see if the Falklands War would get under 1, and the answer is no, but its value (5.67) is still a lot lower than a lot of the bars, and it's easy to see how a conflict like that could get there. (For example, did any soldiers die in the George Floyd protests? Dozens of civilians did...)
  • Also, think of the Holocaust, where 2/3 of Europe's Jewish population was killed. If Jews had formed a formal military force of 100,000 soldiers, 75,000 of which died, suddenly that conflict's ratio is 1.13, and the Holocaust wouldn't be a genocide anymore?? Of course not, you have to look at total numbers of deaths.
  • Imagine if Israel killed 100% of the civilians in Gaza, but a few militants escaped into Egypt, so it didn't quite get to 100%. Not a genocide anymore because the value is over 1? Give me a break. Imagine if Iran killed every Israeli except for a few commandos with extensive survival training...

All in all, the chart just isn't valid. Genocide has a definition, and it's not based on ratios. You can have non-genocides with a ratio under 1 if the definition isn't met, and pretty clear examples of genocide above 1 if there are a lot of militant deaths along with a lot of civilian deaths.

Note - I've never labeled the conflict in Gaza as a "genocide" (though I'm open to changing my mind on that if we get additional, reliable information). But it sure isn't because of this nonsense formula.

[Not Me, Us]

Israel’s end goal here is to inflict pain and annex Gaza. They’re just going to drive more people into Hamas as they slaughter their friends and family and starve them all. It’s a lose/lose, need to get BiBi out and into jail and get the adults in charge.

They'll never annex Gaza as long as Palestinians are living there. Annexation equals assumption of responsibility.

I think we know what Bibi's answer to that little problem will be.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Israel’s end goal here is to inflict pain and annex Gaza. They’re just going to drive more people into Hamas as they slaughter their friends and family and starve them all. It’s a lose/lose, need to get BiBi out and into jail and get the adults in charge.

They'll never annex Gaza as long as Palestinians are living there. Annexation equals assumption of responsibility.

I think we know what Bibi's answer to that little problem will be.

It’s not even an assumption, the IDF has been telling people to evacuate as they invade. Their ideal scenario seems to be to push them all out, doesn’t matter where they go.