Israel caused 99% of Gaza civilian deaths, claim suggests
Claims state Israel killed 30,000 Palestinian civilians versus 1,400 Israelis, accounting for 99% of conflict casualties.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Israel caused 99% of Gaza civilian deaths, claim suggests
The figure has circulated for some time and continues to grow: Israel allegedly killed 30,000 Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, compared to the 1,400 Israelis from the October 7 attack, of whom 700 were police and military personnel and the other 700 settlers. The calculation repeated in discussions is stark: Israel would have caused 99% of the conflict's civilian deaths through indiscriminate bombing of densely populated areas. The comparison is not neutral. Those making this argument do not dispute that Hamas is an armed organization; they challenge the narrative's asymmetry: Hamas is portrayed as the villain, but it is the Israeli army that devastates entire neighborhoods.
How many civilians died on each side?
The starting point is the accounting. According to data used in the discussion, Hamas killed 1,400 Israelis on October 7, half of whom were police and military personnel and the other half settlers. This means half the victims were not strictly civilians. On the other hand, Israel allegedly killed 30,000 Palestinian civilians, with a cited breakdown showing 75% were women and children. The ratio is one to twenty. And it is not an isolated datum: it is mentioned that Israel has killed civilians in evacuation convoys after ordering them to flee, with more than 70 dead in a single bombing of a convoy.
The discussion also questions the atrocities attributed to Hamas. The beheadings of babies and mass rapes lack evidence, according to proponents, while documented atrocities—kidnappings, beatings, tortures—would be acts by Israel, which additionally displays them publicly. 70% of images disseminated by Hamas showed eliminated Israeli soldiers, not civilians.
The Kuwait comparison no one wants to make
The most uncomfortable argument is legal. Iraq killed 420 people in the invasion of Kuwait, all military personnel, and the international community assembled a coalition of the West's most powerful armies to expel them. It was considered an illegal occupation of a sovereign state. With Israel, this current argues, the West funds the massacre without questioning it. The parallel extends to history: Gaza before the conflict was a ghetto, and Palestinians who rise up are treated as terrorists, not as heroes of Warsaw.
Some go further and place the origin in 1947. Palestine was a British protectorate with a 70% Palestinian population, comparable to Hong Kong or Kuwait, and European settlers were moved there without displacing Hong Kong's natives. The two-state solution was proposed by the victorious powers of World War II, but Israel breaks it because the West guarantees it weapons and money. The Sinai precedent is cited as proof: in 1973, Kissinger forced them to return it to Egypt under threat of withdrawing support.
The sarracena dilemma of the West
The core of the debate is not who started it, but how much barbarity is tolerable in the name of Jewish population security. The West is based on values where human rights are pillars, and Israel's level of brutality exceeds that of any Western army, which is impossible for most Westerners to digest. The conclusion drawn is that Israel does not behave like a first-world army, but like a terrorist group, with atrocities comparable to those of ISIS.
Not everyone accepts the framework. Some argue that Hamas launches missiles from hideouts under hospitals and that Israelis warn the population before bombing, while Hamas prevents evacuation because an extra Palestinian death is a victory. Others invert the sarracena burden: Israel kills, but it is Hamas's fault, who sought the reaction to get a blank check. And a third line, colder, recalls that the Palestinian nation did not exist and that they have lost the war, as all wars are lost.
The analysis gets stuck at the same point as real politics: if international humanitarian law is secular and does not group victims by religion, killing children in response to a soldier's death is a war crime. And if it is a war crime, why is it funded?
The figure has circulated for some time and continues to grow: Israel allegedly killed 30,000 Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, compared to the 1,400 Israelis from the October 7 attack, of whom 700 were police and military personnel and the other 700 settlers. The calculation repeated in discussions is stark: Israel would have caused 99% of the conflict's civilian deaths through indiscriminate bombing of densely populated areas. The comparison is not neutral. Those making this argument do not dispute that Hamas is an armed organization; they challenge the narrative's asymmetry: Hamas is portrayed as the villain, but it is the Israeli army that devastates entire neighborhoods.
How many civilians died on each side?
The starting point is the accounting. According to data used in the discussion, Hamas killed 1,400 Israelis on October 7, half of whom were police and military personnel and the other half settlers. This means half the victims were not strictly civilians. On the other hand, Israel allegedly killed 30,000 Palestinian civilians, with a cited breakdown showing 75% were women and children. The ratio is one to twenty. And it is not an isolated datum: it is mentioned that Israel has killed civilians in evacuation convoys after ordering them to flee, with more than 70 dead in a single bombing of a convoy.
The discussion also questions the atrocities attributed to Hamas. The beheadings of babies and mass rapes lack evidence, according to proponents, while documented atrocities—kidnappings, beatings, tortures—would be acts by Israel, which additionally displays them publicly. 70% of images disseminated by Hamas showed eliminated Israeli soldiers, not civilians.
The Kuwait comparison no one wants to make
The most uncomfortable argument is legal. Iraq killed 420 people in the invasion of Kuwait, all military personnel, and the international community assembled a coalition of the West's most powerful armies to expel them. It was considered an illegal occupation of a sovereign state. With Israel, this current argues, the West funds the massacre without questioning it. The parallel extends to history: Gaza before the conflict was a ghetto, and Palestinians who rise up are treated as terrorists, not as heroes of Warsaw.
Some go further and place the origin in 1947. Palestine was a British protectorate with a 70% Palestinian population, comparable to Hong Kong or Kuwait, and European settlers were moved there without displacing Hong Kong's natives. The two-state solution was proposed by the victorious powers of World War II, but Israel breaks it because the West guarantees it weapons and money. The Sinai precedent is cited as proof: in 1973, Kissinger forced them to return it to Egypt under threat of withdrawing support.
The sarracena dilemma of the West
The core of the debate is not who started it, but how much barbarity is tolerable in the name of Jewish population security. The West is based on values where human rights are pillars, and Israel's level of brutality exceeds that of any Western army, which is impossible for most Westerners to digest. The conclusion drawn is that Israel does not behave like a first-world army, but like a terrorist group, with atrocities comparable to those of ISIS.
Not everyone accepts the framework. Some argue that Hamas launches missiles from hideouts under hospitals and that Israelis warn the population before bombing, while Hamas prevents evacuation because an extra Palestinian death is a victory. Others invert the sarracena burden: Israel kills, but it is Hamas's fault, who sought the reaction to get a blank check. And a third line, colder, recalls that the Palestinian nation did not exist and that they have lost the war, as all wars are lost.
The analysis gets stuck at the same point as real politics: if international humanitarian law is secular and does not group victims by religion, killing children in response to a soldier's death is a war crime. And if it is a war crime, why is it funded?
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (119 replies).
More summaries
-
Gaza: Total Communications Blackout Amid Massive Israeli Bombardment
Gaza faces a total communications blackout as nearly 100 Israeli aircraft bombard the Strip. Debate intensifies over genocide allegations and the Hannibal Protocol.
-
Erdogan calls Israel occupier, denies Hamas is terrorist group
Erdogan labels Israel an occupier and rejects Hamas as terrorists while Turkey retains its NATO seat.
-
Gaza Hospital Blast: No Crater, Intact Panels, Disputed Death Toll
Initial reports blamed Israel for the Gaza hospital explosion, but videos show limited parking lot damage and disputed authorship.
-
Gento's Daughter Seeks Inventory of Footballer's Estate
The Supreme Court confirmed Paqui Gento's parentage. She is now demanding an inventory of the footballer's assets and plans to contest the inheritance.
-
Von der Leyen Rumored as NATO Chief, Sparking EU Role Debate
Rumors of Von der Leyen leading NATO revive debate on the EU's role within the Atlantic Alliance. The report remains unconfirmed.
-
Syria: Unrest in Damascus and Rebel Advance on Homs
Social media reports indicate unrest in Damascus and jihadist advances toward Homs, suggesting Russia and Iran are losing influence while Turkey and Israel gain ground.