In reply to GameboyRMH :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Do you have better sources, better evidence to contradict mine? Or are you asking us to disregard what appears to be the most accurate and corroborated data publicly available because we can't be sure it was free from Hamas influence at the source, and make an evidence-free blanket assumption that the situation isn't that bad instead?
Often not citing any sources or making any statements is better than citing bad sources and misinformation. Hamas has lied repeatedly, often about easily verified claims. Remember when they reported a hospital was "bombed," hundreds dead, and it turned out to be a few damaged cars in a parking lot, damaged by a rocket? The internet still remembers. Many of the old, false headlines and stories still pop up at the top of a search. There is a correction way, way down at the bottom, but the headline remains....
CNN Headline Israel Strikes Hospital, possibly hundreds dead
You aren't finding the most accurate and corroborated data. You are finding opinion that backs your preconceived view and you are mistaking it for data.
Fast and loose: in a reckless or irresponsible manner
There are a number of steps and restraints taken by Israel that challenge the notion that they are reckless. Irresponsible? What if they see their primary responsibility is the defense of their country, or the elimination of Hamas. Should they bear the ultimate responsibility of the safety of Palestinian civilians? At what cost? Looks like there is a lot of room for debate there. There is also plenty of room to debate whether Israel is doing enough to prevent civilian casualties, or if their level of acceptable civilian losses is higher than most others would find acceptable. But when you start from "fast and loose," it's hard to see that you are open for an honest discussion.
I'll link a couple opinion pieces about the steps Israel has taken to limit civilian casualties. I don't like to present opinions as fact, these are not facts. But they both do a good job of describing the steps that Israel takes, and tie in well with O2Pilot's article above. Note that even though both of there links essentially describe the same steps, they have radically different opinions about the intent and results of those steps, which I found interesting and why I'm linking opinion pieces. Two very different stories based largely on the same information.
This opinion portrays Israel as the gold standard as far as preventing civilian deaths. It lays out all of the actions taken and concludes that they do it better than anyone before, and the outcome is a result of the challenging circumstances. To me this comes across as too soft, as if all of the efforts completely nullify the results.
Newsweek- Israel does more to prevent civilian casualties than any other country in history.
This opinion piece shares the same actions that Israel takes, but holds the results as evidence that the actions are insufficient or ineffective. There are some solid arguements made, but I feel many of the statistics are misleading. For example, comparing the rate of civilian deaths with those of other conflicts. They compare this conflict with the US in Afghanistan. But if I were Israel, my response to that is that we have no intention to fight for 20 years and not win, so any comparison is moot.
Just Security Opinion on Israeli Civilian Harm Mitigation
I think the truth is somewhere between the two, but both are solid starting positions for debate.
To be fair, there is plenty of pro Israel misleading info out there too. I heard a radio host spout stats showing how Israel's civilian to combatant death ratio is among if not the lowest in history. They claimed 2 to 1- not sure where they even got that number- and then compared it with the previous 100 years or so of wars all lumped together. Yes, they averaged WWII with Iraq as if they were similar, to make Israel look low in contrast. Wow. So I'm not just picking on you or your sources, just pointing out that we all should be much less trusting of any sources.
