• Natanael@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I can’t find any source showing the context of the 30-35% claim from US Intel. I can’t even find a reliable source of the US estimate of how many fighters they have. The last public numbers from US intel in January had much more detail and said 20% incapacitated, not 20% dead. A jump to +30% of Hamas fighters dead now seems beyond implausible. Especially because USA has also said they don’t independently track deaths in the region, they rely on local numbers.

    Different Hamas officials have made different claims about their losses, and all the sources seems vague. It’s been reported as 6000 - 8000 either lost (could be casualties including injured survivors not able to fight) or dead. And some of them deny the numbers entirely.

    https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/in-gaza-authorities-lose-count-of-the-dead-779ff694

    It’s absolutely not the 15K that IDF claims.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The last public numbers from US intel in January had much more detail and said 20% incapacitated, not 20% dead.

      I don’t think so, this is from your January link (my emphasis):

      security forces have killed just 20-30 percent of the terror group’s terrorists in the Gaza Strip, US intelligence agencies are reportedly estimating.

      The wounded are counted separately.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This article seems to have the clearest numbers

        https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1365166/israeli-forces-have-killed-20-30-percent-of-hamas-fighters-wsj-report.html

        25-30K fighters, 20-30% killed, so at best ~10K down to ~5K, assuming their intel is correct. It’s very strange that the estimate of killed fighters is in percent and injuries is in absolute numbers. Doesn’t make me feel confident they got the context right of the numbers shared

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          at best ~10K down to ~5K

          I believe those are still from January, when the total number of deaths was 25,000. So if they are correct then that would result in a casualty ratio between 1.5:1 and 4:1

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            … And they’re almost all caused by one side, not casualties divided across two equal fighting armies among civilians.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I’m not sure that matters, since the majority of military casualties are caused by the same side.

              So for example, when evaluating the Iraq War you would compare Iraqi civilian to Iraqi military casualties. There is little point in looking at American civilian casualties.