Disproportionate Death Toll in Gaza

Much has been claimed about the disproportionate casualties and deaths in Gaza. I have to agree with that. We have just been told by the BBC that 56% of the population of Gaza is under 16. Assuming that half of the rest of the population of Gaza are women, then it means that about 78% of Gazans are women and children. Given that only about 1/3 of the reported casualties are women and children, it shows that these are significantly fewer than one should expect. This is where the disproportion occurs.

In my opinion, therefore, this comparatively low number of child casualties demonstrates that the Israelis have been extremely cautious about whom they target. This is in spite of Hamas’s nefarious habit of hiding among their civilians and using them as human shields

Let’s face it, the Hamas shelling into Israel has been directed at all civilians, not militants, and it doesn’t matter to Hamas whether the targets are women and children. Whilst Israel fights to protect its people, Hamas use their own as human shields and cannon fodder.

It is Hamas who are responsible for the deaths of their own women and children and according to their infamous Charter, that terrorist organisation would like to annihilate all Jews. If Hamas is prepared to sacrifice their own children to their murderous cause, well, we have to take them seriously, don’t we?

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Disproportionate Death Toll in Gaza

  1. Thank you, Jeremy, for your referral to the URL on proportionality in law. I found the comments for and against particularly interesting.

    Like

  2. Having just read thru Jeremy’s referred article and its 76 comments, my own comment is “what a crock”. Tell any of this beard-stroking BS to the poor sod from either team who has just woken up to find himself with two less legs than he once had, and see how much he cares about international laws on proportionality.

    Like

    • Well said, Max. I have always had my doubts about “proportionality” and “reasonable force” proponents. Would it be proportional, for example, for Israel to fire 5000 rockets into Gaza over the next few years just to be proportional? I reckon if Israel did that the so-called proportionate pushers would still be blaming Israel. As for “reasonable force”, a concept which has always bamboozled me, if somebody wants to hurt me, then I reserve the right to defend myself with everything I’ve got. If an attacker is trying to hurt me with his fists and my fists, which belong to a rather feeble woman, will not protect me, then I had better have another weapon at my disposal. That to me sounds pretty reasonable even if some legal mavens have a debate about it afterwards. Let them discuss it for as long as they like. Meanwhile, I will defend myself rather than be a victim of the legal and unrealistic scheme that was concocted by people who have never landed on Earth, the ones who say “with respect” and mean the opposite. By the way, when Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad sent suicide bombers to decimate Israeli civilians, I never heard any complaint from those same organisations like the U.N about the hundreds of terrorists being “disproportionate.” These same people used to say “Of course we don’t support suicide bombing, but doesn’t that just demonstrate how upset the Palestinians are?” So suicide bombing became a form of self expression.

      Like

  3. You might find the arguments a little less of a crock if you read them with more (indeed any) care. Heller’s entire point is that proportionality is not about Israeli vs Palestinian deaths, but rather military vs. civilian ones. Nor is there any applicable ‘reasonable force’ test. And no-one is arguing that Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israel are legal.

    And, for that matter, no ‘legal maven’ thinks that a weapon can’t be used to respond to fists. But if you can’t understand the actual arguments, then I guess a straw man will have to do.

    Like

  4. Sorry Lili, I had thought I was writing to you!
    However,now that we’re all on the grass, I have to say that it really didn’t take long to “peruse” (to plagiarize the favored terminology of a profession other than my simple one – and,yes,I do know what the word connotes) the article and the 76 comments it drew.
    What upset me, and still does, is that demonstrably able minds continue to have their cerebrating power and time wasted on such bootless nit-picking.
    Cheers all.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s