but only if one is familiar with war casualty ratios.

From the dawn of time through at least WW2, when we dropped bombs on civilian cities, or the firebombing of Dresden.

And even now in many countries.

If you claim you're trying to 'avoid' civilian casualties, that still seems like a crappy ratio.

Not blowing up hospitals and schools.

Treating Palestinian citizens the same way you would treat Israeli citizens. If the 'enemy army' was shooting missiles off from within one of your own cities, would you blow up that city to stop them? Somehow I don't think so.

You may have resistance fighters, but 'armies' are generally things occupying powers find and destroy or disband.

Redefining the word "occupy" for use in one situation, and then using another definition without noticing the bait-and-switch for the same word in another situation.

If a country is under occupation, it means "the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force". The best that can be said of Gaza is that it's under a blockade and is economically dependent on Israel. There are no military forces on the ground; there is no occupation government; the Israeli government neither holds nor controls the area by means of its military. That's the only definition that can be operable in your post because it requires boots on the ground to "find and destroy or disband."

Take the Warsaw ghetto. It was occupied only when the troops moved in. It was beseiged, blockaded, limited before then. There was some control over the territory, but only in some ways--what went in and out. It's useful to have distinctions; they are the building blocks of communication.

Some people have tried to redefine the word because they need the emotional and psychological baggage that goes with it. Because they hate the idea that a hated enemy can redefine anything about them without their permission. Because they'd have to have a much weaker set of posters (although I find "end the blockade" to be no less useful than "end the occupation"; that's just me, for many "occupation" is a much worse status and so I can see why that word has to be kept By Any Means Necessary, however much we have to redefine it on the sly to manipulate and trick people).

So "occupation" has had a proposed redefinition put forth by a handful of scholars with activists sucking up to the fallacy with great passion as meaning "effective" control (which is to say, making it subjective, and granting just one small group of people authority to decide the definition as they go along). Then they've added that the status isn't amenable to termination by one side (meaning, of course, that the other side is the "one side" that determines when the occupation is over). Since occupying authorities have obligations, this amounts to enslaving that other country by virtue of being occupied: All troops out, the blockade ended, still Gaza could say "we are occupied" and use that as a unilateral weapon to make demands.

Nice, objective definitions are handy, but in a pomo world where power must be shared (defined as "you give me yours while I keep mine or give it to friends&quot , even just the power to define words, they're really hated. Reality can be so delimiting and constricting.

do you think Hamas will let those SWAT teams shoot Hamas militants with impunity?

here are just 2, also it should be noted that children make up close to 25% of those killed

http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10491:statistics-victims-of-the-israeli-offensive-on-gaza-since-08-july-2014&catid=145:in-focus

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/annual_humanitarian_overview_2014_english_final.pdf

If you follow the classification of militant, combatant or terrorist as being all males between the ages of 15 to 60 as some people do, this ratio of 1:1 holds true. Then the same asinine individuals who feel it's their patriotic duty to justify killings of people whom they do not approve of will proudly go some some public forum and trumpet said nonsensical facts that they have already used to justify to themselves. And if you disagree with their superior logic, you are against them and they have a whole slew of their facts to throw around.

Are we supposed to believe there wouldn't be a PR-campaign after the Gaza-debacle with reckless killing of civilians, with israeli soldiers using Palestinians as shields and as bait, with israeli soldiers saying they were told by superiors to shoot everybody because nobody they engage would actually be a civilian, with international backlash, with BDS, with a new wave of anti-israelism and anti-semitism...

What does that 1:1 civilian-to-combatant-ratio mean?
Palestinian civilians to palestinian combatants?
Palestinian civilians to israeli combatants?

You separate them into civilian and non-civilian.

The ratio is 1:1. That's actually quite good. Very good for urban warfare, which is where for a few reasons the fighting in Gaza is mostly carried out.

Few IDF troops died, so it's not a big deal if you include them or not.

Some people want a thoroughly sanitized war. Heck, some even want parity in warfare. "Let's see, I have an assault rifle, a semi-automatic handgun, a knife, and a cudgel. The enemy is approaching with his assault rifle drawn, so I can use that. Damn! He put it down and got out his knife, so I can only use my knife or my club. Oh, wait, we've killed 23 of their guys and only 16 of ours guys are down. My true moral duty is to allow myself to be killed." They're so against the wrong people have any superiority, even just numerical or technological, it's mind numbing. Of course, if it's their side they're all for it. They consider this to be "high minded principle." It's not, but self-delusion is the way to bet.

Others simply go to great extremes of ill-will to discount anything good that might be attributed to the Evil Ones. (They're fine with horribly destructive "mistakes" resulting from other policies that they like, of course.) So the 1:1 ratio is only "good" because Dresden.

I'm curious as to what will happen when people start thinking critically instead of just being critical. "Wait! Before we can even accept a 1:1 claim we have to figure out the basis that the IDF is claiming dead Palestinians are civilians or combatants! What if the actual figure is 5:1 because they're faked the numbers?"

Instead, we just get attribution of bad will and malice and blind worship of confirmation bias. Always an intellectual undercurrent but now a rip tide, a default required practice with forced re-education and self-criticism or exile if we fail to meet the basic requirements. Sic transit gloria DU.

"We have pacified this iraqi village. We went in there with helicopters and tanks and snipers and we killed this many insurgents and this many civilians. All in all, we performed pretty good that day."

Would you believe them right-away?

...civilian deaths.

The highest-ranking US military officer has said that Israel went to "extraordinary lengths" to limit civilian casualties in the recent war in Gaza that killed hundreds of Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged recent reports criticising civilian deaths during the 50-day Gaza war this year but told an audience in New York on Thursday he thought the Israel Defence Forces "did what they could" to avoid civilian casualties.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/11/us-general-backs-israel-gaza-casualties-2014116223154357768.html

In 2013, B'tselem had to let go of a cameraman who was throwing rocks at IDF soldiers. They've been caught lying numerous times when claiming civilians (who were really militants) were killed in Gaza. Worse, they deny Hamas' use of human shields (worst kept secret ever) that contributes greatly to loss of life in Gaza. They don't even report on women and children combatants, choosing to portray all of them as innocent civilians killed by Israel.

No one takes the UN seriously on Israel. The Goldstone report on Gaza was an absolute farce & isn't even brought up anymore because Goldstone took back his most serious charges against Israel (deliberately targeting/killing civlians). And of course B'tselem endorsed the report, knowing it was crap well in advance of Goldstone walking it back.

=========

Recall that in the 2009 Gaza war, it was claimed Israel killed 75-80% civilians when that ratio was really 1:1. Hamas later acknowledged the IDF's figures well after their propaganda coup.

Of course, neither B'tselem or the UN apologized for claiming 75-80% civilian casualties back then, and they won't do it now. And if you think they're right this time around for the 2014 war, then read this whopper...

How the AP Botched Its Investigation of Civilian Deaths in the Israel-Hamas War
http://observer.com/2015/03/how-the-ap-botched-its-investigation-of-civilian-deaths-in-the-israel-hamas-war/

=========

You then finish with an article from SCGNEWS that you're not sure is a reliable source.



If you don't believe it's reliable, then don't use it.

Barack Obama The Case for Impeachment [SCG News 5.15.2013]

Benghazi What You're Not Being Told [SCG News]

Isis & Al Nusra Merge & Announce Islamic Caliphate - Obama to Send them $500 Million
30.Jun.2014 | SCG

That's a hell of a source you're using there. Appears to be links and ravings from a deranged lunatic (check his "who is SCG" rambling).

If it was genuine, it surely would have been used as proof for the use of human shields, but there's been no mention of it. The manual is as dubiuos as its refutal.

Pretty sure that if it was a forgery, we would have heard from someone a little more reputable than this crackpot.

I'm not sure that it proves what the IDF says it proves, but I am comfortable in saying that the ravings of the "Storm Clouds Gathering" guy are not worth taking seriously.

Which one is reliable? Should I trust the IDF?

....while all other media outlets were going with the original Hamas claims of 75-80% civilian casualties.

Who was right & who was wrong then?