Having said that:
65% killed being women and children is because of the demographics of Gaza, not because of any specific behaviour by Israel other than just "being at war" with their neighbours.
It's a talking point used by a people supporting one of the two sides, blithely ignoring the realities of a complex situation.
The reality is that 50% of Gaza's adult population if female, and nearly 50% of their population is below the age of 18! In other words, their population is 75% "women and children".
In any other war, that 65% statistic would be a sign of deliberate and malicious targetting of innocent non-combatants. In the Gaza war it is the sad but usual level of collateral damage that one might expect in urban fighting. Not to mention that this number would be even lower, but is as high as it is because of human-shield tactics used by HAMAS.
The people that use this 65% statistic often do so with the knowledge that people listening to it don't know the demographics of Gaza or the vile actions of HAMAS. They're trying to convince those listening through deception. Their cause may be just in their eyes, but does that justify this kind of false debate? It's in the same category as claiming 500 people died when "Isreal bombed a hospital" mere minutes after the incident, which turned out to be a failed HAMAS rocket that landed in the parking lot and killed maybe half a dozen people.
Yes, what Isreal is doing is bad, but not "murdering women and babies on purpose" bad!
I'd argue that it is very alarming when military casualties converge on the general populations demographics and not the demographics of actual combatants.
Note that I don't condone Israel's actions in Gaza. I'm just saying that those actions are no worse than one would expect, but this statistic is purposefully deceptive and is being trumpeted across the Internet specifically to make Israel look worse than they are actually acting.
You support one of the two sides above the other. That's your right. But please don't support them through chosen talking points intended to deceive the audience.
PS: One of the two sides in this war targeted civilians on purpose and failed at doing so. The other site targeted combatants and failed at doing so. Which would you say is the more superior position?
Your argument is that it’s ok that Israel has killed this many women and kids because they’re over represented in the population.
Most people’s perspective is that you shouldn’t kill kids and women and target civilians, regardless of anything else.
And you’re ignoring the mountain of evidence of israel deliberately targeting civilians. Just the other day the times published a thorough report on israeli snipers deliberately targeting toddlers. That truth does not square with your “it’s just collateral damage” argument.
Link please.
A relative of mine is a nurse working in a hospital. I noticed a long time ago that her perspective on the statistics of illnesses is very skewed. She sees only very sick patients because -- duh -- she works in a hospital. Hence, she thinks every sniffle of her nephew is an emergency -- because she sees only emergency cases!
There are ~40K dead, ~100K wounded in Gaza by the war, of which half are children: about 70K child casualties of which 50K didn't die.
Parents and hospitals will prioritise children over adults. A child with multiple gunshot wounds will more than likely die on the spot and not be taken to hospital. A child with a single gunshot wound is more likely to cling to life long enough to make it into a hospital. In absolute terms, the few dozens cases mentioned in the article are just the inevitable statistics. I would be very surprised if doctors in Gaza had not treated many more such cases! I would expect a couple of hundred per hospital (there are only 32) at least.
To reiterate: None of this is in any way good, none of the children deserved any of this, and in no way is Israel innocent in the matter. It's just that it is the natural consequence of warfare in a high-density urban setting with that demo.
This -- this -- is precisely the emotion-laden but evidence-free language that I'm trying to warn people from avoiding. It doesn't help your cause (whatever it is) to misrepresent, assume, or just make things up. People will see through it and stop listening to you. I've largely stopped listening to propaganda coming from Russia and Gaza because they're both very transparently made up bullshit.
The sad thing is that at least in the case of Gaza the plain unvarnished facts are more than enough! Israel is bombing them, they are levelling large chunks of the city, they are killing tens of thousands of children, etc...
State the facts. Don't guess. Don't interpret. Don't weave a sob story based on hearsay from very highly biased people who themselves are necessarily ignorant of the facts on the ground. The doctor didn't witness the shooting, he just dealt with the aftermath.
The facts are bad enough:
Kids are being shot in huge numbers.
This just doesn't make any sense.
On one hand, it's trivially correct in that no forensic information can ever tell us anything about the intent of the person who fired the bullet.
But otherwise, what you're saying just doesn't hold up to basic common sense. First, "All bullets lodged in the body" definitely do not look "the same" -- some are fragmented or marked in ways that otherwise show signs of having passed through something besides human flesh (more suggestive of an indirect hit) while others are not (suggesting a direct hit).
The circumstances of the entrance would can also say something about the bullet's approximate velocity when it entered the body, and direction of fire. Finally, the location of the wound is itself very important - a disproportionate number of people with gunshot wounds to the head tends to suggest that, well, that's where whoever was firing at them was aiming at.
Such indications may not be sufficient to determine conclusively that someone was sniped. But they do shift the overall balance of evidence, and require us to weight our probabilties for any such interpretations of what happened accordingly (in the context of other available evidence, of course).
It isn't as if the condition of the bullet and the circumstances of the wound provide no signal at all in this regard, as you're suggesting.
You don't treat dead people in a hospital during a war. They don't get taken to hospital. You treat people "just hurt enough" to require surgery, but not so much that they definitely won't make it with or without surgery...
... such as single gunshot wounds to the head, which are surprisingly non-fatal. There's many(!) stories of people trying to kill themselves by shooting themselves in the head and failing.
The stories told by the people in the article are anecdotes by a select group with a strongly statistically biased view of the world on top of a personal bias against a literal enemy at war with them.
They're probably not wrong and they're probably not lying, they just can't see the whole picture and can't possibly know what an Israeli soldier is thinking our doing at the front line far from the hospital.