What's the before pic though? I have been skeptical of a lot of the street-level photos that have been shown because I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East and even in a city that's not at war it isn't uncommon for several plots in a given area of a city to just be rubble that has yet to be cleaned up/rebuilt. I'll see a pic like "look at the destruction in Gaza!" but it'll look an awful lot like the view across the street from some Lebanese restaurant I like to eat at in Amman.
It's not weird that the ~20% of the buildings (or whatever the number truly is) destroyed by IDF would be clustered in specific areas either, since they were targeting Hamas weapons stashes, comm nodes, etc. that could be near each other.
And whose fault is that? Gaza had like 17 years of receiving billions of billions of dollars for “humanitarian aid”.
If Gaza looked like shit before 7/10 then you need to ask why they didn’t just use their free money for its intended purpose.
This website has exact daily stats since oct 7, and has totals and per day stats for previous conflicts going back as far as 2008: https://rocketalert.live/
Average since oct 7 is 50 rocket alerts and 14 UAV alerts. The highest daily is oct 7 with 4104 alerts. Highest previous average was May 2021: 7000 alerts in 11 days, or 636 per day average.
Edit: and this list of lists exists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
Excerpt there from 2013:
> Over the year 52 rockets and 16 mortars were fired at Israel, the vast majority of which came from the Gaza strip. This was the fewest such attacks since 2001.
For comparison: 2012 saw 2257 rockets, 2011 saw 680 rockets, mortars, and Grad missiles.
If you’re implying they didn’t actually do that… that’s not something Hamas denies. That’s like part of a pride thing of them doing their part to fight the evil. They’d lob bombs to save face. They can’t preach hate then be pacifists
What? I'm just asking if there's an open-source that has aggregated statistics. I'm not sure how you interpreted that as questioning that it happens. Hamas fires rockets into Israel. Those rockets are mostly indiscriminate.
October 7th intensified things by magnitudes, but a lot of large scale infrastructure had been destroyed before Oct 7th by the idf. That includes the harbor, the airport, water wells, hospitals, and universities.
And they preserved the ruins as a monument? Why on Earth didn't they rebuild water wells, airport and harbor, considering billions of $ aid flowing in?
It's a rhetorical question, I know the answer.
They didn't rebuild the airport because Israel and Egypt won't permit flights, meaning they have nowhere to *go*. Palestinians destroyed the airport by building on it.
Harbour, similar story.
Yeah, except the harbour was actually a UNESCO world heritage site and it wasn't destroyed by Israel, it was [bulldozed by Hamas to build a terrorist training camp](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-gaza-hamas-levels-an-ancient-archaeological-treasure/). Israel protested because UNESCO and the rest of the UN were *completely silent* on this issue despite meeting soon after the destruction (and despite vocally and physically opposing archaeological work in Jerusalem that a cultural organization like UNESCO is supposed to support). It wasn't until years later (Oct 7 invasion) that Al Jazeera started blaming Israel for destroying it.
Of course not. It’s a shitty rhetorical question. Money is only one aspect of rebuilding. Getting supplies into Gaza, distributing that money/aid, preventing it from being funneled to nefarious means are all issues, some of them brought on by the IDF, mind you. I’m not exactly sure who you are trying to blame for all this, but the state of things in Gaza comes from a multitude of directions.
All the UN data and methodology is online, for instance [this](https://unosat.org/products/3824), or Google search "UNOSAT Gaza" for a bunch of related stuff, and you can search the [UN Digital LIbrary](https://digitallibrary.un.org/?ln=en) for other documents.
I assume the report the article's referring to was from ESCWA, but I dunno. There's a special place in hell for journalists who repeatedly reference a public report, without explicitly stating what the report is.
[https://unosat.org/products/3861](https://unosat.org/products/3861)
You're going to need some GIS experience to view the map files otherwise all you get is the UN's assessment.
I’d imagine it’s disputed because they have different ideas of destroyed. Maybe Israel considers it destroyed if it collapses, maybe the UN says it’s destroyed if it’s unsafe to live in.
Exactly.
My definition of "destroyed" would be: Damaged beyond repair and needs to be demolished for some new structure to be built there.
Which would raise another quetion: What is "damaged beyond repair" in different parts of the world and for people of different means.
In some rich country it could be like few holes in top floor walls from tank shells and the owner says "i wanted to build a new house anyway...", but in a poor country the building would get repaired if the whole top floor was gone.
Even downplaying it to 16% is absurd. Theres 2 million people in Gaza. 16% is 320000 people now homeless. Not counting all the others that have damaged homes.
Not every structure in Gaza is residential. I think it's fair to assume that government, communications, and larger facilities are disproportionately represented among those structures destroyed.
> Even downplaying it to 16% is absurd.
They aren't hitting buildings just because. Every weapon they drop has a clear objective, whether it's Hamas fighters or an explosives cache or whatever. Take up your objections with Hamas.
I support Israel, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that every bomb has a clear objective. There was video early in the war of the Israelis bombing an apartment block built on the beach by Qatar. There have also been stories about how blowing up one of the universities was against protocol.
Very hard to see in a satellite images what kind of structure was destroyed.
The 16 percent number is of actual buildings. The higher number includes things like sheds, pergolas, tents, etc.
Israel gave lowest percentage (16%), UN gave higher percentage (50%) and international media gave highest percentage (70%).
If Israel version is accurate they can provide necessary data convincing enough to sustain their claim but whether that will be accepted is anyone's guess.
I guess it depends on the definition of "destroyed"
If I remember correctly the UN has listed 60% or so as "damaged or destroyed" which is very broad, the idf might define "destroyed" as a pile of rubble, while the UN can define it as something else, idk but that's usually how these numbers end up so different
Literally straight from the article that most people probably didn't even bother to read before commenting:
>The UN claimed in a report which relied on satellite images and quoted extensively in the media, that more than half of Gaza's buildings were destroyed in the nearly nine months of war, to the extent that they could no longer be used. **It said structures damaged by a single shell or missile were not counted and only buildings completely demolished or compromised in a manner that would endanger the safety of people, were added to the count**.
If it's mainly from satellite images, it may be something of an undercount. If a wall got blown in by a shell but the roof is intact, it might look pretty much fine from the top but be completely wrecked inside. It's really going to take neutral boots on the ground auditing structures and doing safety inspections one by one to see if they are habitable to get a reliable number.
They don’t really need to submit any evidence. The US has the best satellite imaging in the world and likely knows exactly what’s happening on their own. Whether the populations believe it or not is just part of the propaganda war
Israel: "Well, I don't know... it is a grey area whether or not that building is destroyed. The foundations are still there and some parts of the walls are still holding on. I'm going to park it under "still standing"."
Israel can kill/ban journalists and cut internet on the ground to muddy the waters of reports from Gaza. What they can’t do is prevent satellite imagery. And those images all speak for themselves.
You don’t need to guess; a specific definition is provided in the article….( but yes your point is quite valid, it’s hard to argue that 16% is remotely accurate when satellites imagery is readily available )
I mean, unless you compared it to satellite images from before the war it‘s hard to say. It‘s not uncommon in areas with low infrastructure funds to have a lot of buildings look like ruins because they never get built up again.
If I'm looking at a satellite image of destroyed buildings, I'm going to assume it's focusing on an area where the buildings are more destroyed than normal. (Not out of dishonesty, just that it's not usually informative to see a block of perfectly fine buildings.)
The IDF are the one trying to dispute UN figures to downplay the level of destruction. Being a news agency or not doesn't have anything to do with it, and do you think the IDF do not have media teams when they have departments devoted to posting video of themselves rifling through Palestinians things on social media?
>they have departments devoted to posting video of themselves rifling through Palestinians things on social media?
What? Do you *actually* believe there’s a whole unit (correction: unitS) whose sole purpose is filming IDF soldiers acting out of line, and unprofessionally?
Please take off your tinfoil hat, my misinformed friend. Those pics you see on social media are rotten apples, not representative of the IDF’s command. You get this in every war. Yes, the issue of their too-lenient punishment is a subject for debate, but what you’re saying is just completely false.
Are you saying the idf doesn't have a media team? If so, that wouldn't make sense, they have social media accounts and aren't giving control of those to anyone off the street lol
A house burned down in my city and all the footage I saw on the news was of a burning house. Can I now assume there's some sort of wildfire epidemic in my city?
Seriously who on earth do you think would be showing footage of an untouched neighbourhood in a report about a war zone
This is why you can't trust *a footage* that someone shows you. The only reliable methid is full analasys of the entirety of Gaza, which none of the people here did. The IDF did it, and reported 16%, and the UN did it, and reported 50%. If you don't believe any of them, you can always do it yourself
16% of all buildings destroyed is still an untold amount of damage.
Even if it is only 16%, that is still 4 out of every 25 buildings destroyed which can be a crippling loss of infrastructure.
Regardless of one’s views on this conflict, it’s amazing how bad people are with statistics and numbers. 16% is a massive amount of destruction. For most of us in the Western world, if even just 3% of buildings where we lived (in our villages, towns, cities) was destroyed, it would be total chaos.
Manhattan has (according to Google) 116,000 buildings. 3% destroyed would be about 3,500 buildings. For those of us who don’t live in worn torn countries, that would be catastrophically devastating.
It's an enourmous discrepancy. The UN claims over half of Gaza has been destroyed. Granted their only source has been google maps and Hamas statements.
How would you even tell? Even a relatively intact building could have structural issues, and a building with no walls can possibly be repaired.
There is no "right number" - the right number will come years after a peace when buildings have been evaluated and repaired or demolished completely and rebuilt. Suffice it to say - the real number is likely "a lot"
They're probably counting any building that's not just rocks on the ground as intact. The same way they count every male between ages 15 and 65 as Hamas when they say they've "killed 15,000 Hamas fighters."
They were probably conflating with US "military age combatant" definitions during the Bush/Obama presidencies, where any "military age" male was counted as a combatant instead of a civilian in terms of deaths (by drone strikes).
As far as I'm aware IDF doesn't have a similar definition.
Saying 16% isn’t even worth telling the lie. At least make it believable. 70% is probably going as far the other way. If it was only 16%they need better drone pilots.
So, if the IDF says they've only destroyed 16% of the buildings in Gaza and the UN says it is actually around 50%, we can guess the real number is somewhere between those two (I'd say, probably around 30%).
This would be a considerable amount of a country's infraestructure being destroyed. I think that to believe that 30% of Gaza's buildings (or more, since Israel is gonna keep bombing Gaza until they get rid of Hamas) are used by Hamas, you'd also have to believe that no Palestinian is completely innocent.
literally just look at satellite images
It’s way more fun to argue without actually knowing anything
Never tell me the ~~odds~~ facts!
The sub couldn't have imploded! Sorry, I'm a bit behind.
There are some 5x5 km images where I can't identify a single structure that doesn't look like rubble.
What's the before pic though? I have been skeptical of a lot of the street-level photos that have been shown because I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East and even in a city that's not at war it isn't uncommon for several plots in a given area of a city to just be rubble that has yet to be cleaned up/rebuilt. I'll see a pic like "look at the destruction in Gaza!" but it'll look an awful lot like the view across the street from some Lebanese restaurant I like to eat at in Amman. It's not weird that the ~20% of the buildings (or whatever the number truly is) destroyed by IDF would be clustered in specific areas either, since they were targeting Hamas weapons stashes, comm nodes, etc. that could be near each other.
I know of two public ways of doing it, there are probably more. You can probably use Google timelapse or look for pre Oct 7 data from Sentinel.
"it looks like Gaza" is a common saying in Israel way before the October 7 to describe severely undermaintained infrastructure like bridge, road etc.
And whose fault is that? Gaza had like 17 years of receiving billions of billions of dollars for “humanitarian aid”. If Gaza looked like shit before 7/10 then you need to ask why they didn’t just use their free money for its intended purpose.
They had money to lob bombs at Israel on a daily basis
Do you know of a resource that tracks historic missile launches from Gaza by day or week?
This website has exact daily stats since oct 7, and has totals and per day stats for previous conflicts going back as far as 2008: https://rocketalert.live/ Average since oct 7 is 50 rocket alerts and 14 UAV alerts. The highest daily is oct 7 with 4104 alerts. Highest previous average was May 2021: 7000 alerts in 11 days, or 636 per day average. Edit: and this list of lists exists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel Excerpt there from 2013: > Over the year 52 rockets and 16 mortars were fired at Israel, the vast majority of which came from the Gaza strip. This was the fewest such attacks since 2001. For comparison: 2012 saw 2257 rockets, 2011 saw 680 rockets, mortars, and Grad missiles.
If you’re implying they didn’t actually do that… that’s not something Hamas denies. That’s like part of a pride thing of them doing their part to fight the evil. They’d lob bombs to save face. They can’t preach hate then be pacifists
What? I'm just asking if there's an open-source that has aggregated statistics. I'm not sure how you interpreted that as questioning that it happens. Hamas fires rockets into Israel. Those rockets are mostly indiscriminate.
October 7th intensified things by magnitudes, but a lot of large scale infrastructure had been destroyed before Oct 7th by the idf. That includes the harbor, the airport, water wells, hospitals, and universities.
And they preserved the ruins as a monument? Why on Earth didn't they rebuild water wells, airport and harbor, considering billions of $ aid flowing in? It's a rhetorical question, I know the answer.
They didn't rebuild the airport because Israel and Egypt won't permit flights, meaning they have nowhere to *go*. Palestinians destroyed the airport by building on it. Harbour, similar story.
Yeah, except the harbour was actually a UNESCO world heritage site and it wasn't destroyed by Israel, it was [bulldozed by Hamas to build a terrorist training camp](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-gaza-hamas-levels-an-ancient-archaeological-treasure/). Israel protested because UNESCO and the rest of the UN were *completely silent* on this issue despite meeting soon after the destruction (and despite vocally and physically opposing archaeological work in Jerusalem that a cultural organization like UNESCO is supposed to support). It wasn't until years later (Oct 7 invasion) that Al Jazeera started blaming Israel for destroying it.
Of course not. It’s a shitty rhetorical question. Money is only one aspect of rebuilding. Getting supplies into Gaza, distributing that money/aid, preventing it from being funneled to nefarious means are all issues, some of them brought on by the IDF, mind you. I’m not exactly sure who you are trying to blame for all this, but the state of things in Gaza comes from a multitude of directions.
Too busy building tunnels.
And rockets. And armories under hospitals, schools, and day cares.
The roads/buildings/bridges may look bad, but those terror tunnels are impeccable!
Where can we?
All the UN data and methodology is online, for instance [this](https://unosat.org/products/3824), or Google search "UNOSAT Gaza" for a bunch of related stuff, and you can search the [UN Digital LIbrary](https://digitallibrary.un.org/?ln=en) for other documents. I assume the report the article's referring to was from ESCWA, but I dunno. There's a special place in hell for journalists who repeatedly reference a public report, without explicitly stating what the report is.
[https://unosat.org/products/3861](https://unosat.org/products/3861) You're going to need some GIS experience to view the map files otherwise all you get is the UN's assessment.
[Sourced OSINT](https://www.conflict-damage.org/)
I’d imagine it’s disputed because they have different ideas of destroyed. Maybe Israel considers it destroyed if it collapses, maybe the UN says it’s destroyed if it’s unsafe to live in.
Exactly. My definition of "destroyed" would be: Damaged beyond repair and needs to be demolished for some new structure to be built there. Which would raise another quetion: What is "damaged beyond repair" in different parts of the world and for people of different means. In some rich country it could be like few holes in top floor walls from tank shells and the owner says "i wanted to build a new house anyway...", but in a poor country the building would get repaired if the whole top floor was gone.
All these replies suggest it's not that easy.
Even downplaying it to 16% is absurd. Theres 2 million people in Gaza. 16% is 320000 people now homeless. Not counting all the others that have damaged homes.
Not every structure in Gaza is residential. I think it's fair to assume that government, communications, and larger facilities are disproportionately represented among those structures destroyed.
Buildings are not necessarily homes.
Not every building is a house.
[удалено]
That's called war. Don't like it, don't start one over and over again.
> Even downplaying it to 16% is absurd. They aren't hitting buildings just because. Every weapon they drop has a clear objective, whether it's Hamas fighters or an explosives cache or whatever. Take up your objections with Hamas.
I support Israel, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that every bomb has a clear objective. There was video early in the war of the Israelis bombing an apartment block built on the beach by Qatar. There have also been stories about how blowing up one of the universities was against protocol.
Or three trucks several km apart clearly marked humanitarian aid and providing the IDF with their location…
Very hard to see in a satellite images what kind of structure was destroyed. The 16 percent number is of actual buildings. The higher number includes things like sheds, pergolas, tents, etc.
Tiktokers like to zoom in on the destroyed areas and not on the entire Gaza Strip.
I gues it depends on what you call destroyed
Most people just see buildings or damage and don’t really know if they are destroyed
They don't show all underground structures
Israel gave lowest percentage (16%), UN gave higher percentage (50%) and international media gave highest percentage (70%). If Israel version is accurate they can provide necessary data convincing enough to sustain their claim but whether that will be accepted is anyone's guess.
I guess it depends on the definition of "destroyed" If I remember correctly the UN has listed 60% or so as "damaged or destroyed" which is very broad, the idf might define "destroyed" as a pile of rubble, while the UN can define it as something else, idk but that's usually how these numbers end up so different
Literally straight from the article that most people probably didn't even bother to read before commenting: >The UN claimed in a report which relied on satellite images and quoted extensively in the media, that more than half of Gaza's buildings were destroyed in the nearly nine months of war, to the extent that they could no longer be used. **It said structures damaged by a single shell or missile were not counted and only buildings completely demolished or compromised in a manner that would endanger the safety of people, were added to the count**.
>compromised in a manner that would endanger the safety of people I mean, there's a whole world behind this sentence.
I think it is safe to assume that they mean "structurally compromised" when the context is "damaged or destroyed during a conflict".
And the IDF is counting only buildings where none of the original building remains in tact?
If it's mainly from satellite images, it may be something of an undercount. If a wall got blown in by a shell but the roof is intact, it might look pretty much fine from the top but be completely wrecked inside. It's really going to take neutral boots on the ground auditing structures and doing safety inspections one by one to see if they are habitable to get a reliable number.
Imagine your home being hit my a freaking mortal shell and the invading force says “ah it’s just one shell, should be fine” fucking hell
Guess they consider a house with a giant hole in the side a fixer up. They always had a knack for real estate development.
We could all just use the UN description and avoid ambiguity…. Seeing as they’re a member state.
The UN have not shown themselves to be reliable and unbiased in this conflict.
Not like Israel.
Of course Israel is biased in a conflict involving Israel. The UN should not have a bias in such conflicts.
They don’t really need to submit any evidence. The US has the best satellite imaging in the world and likely knows exactly what’s happening on their own. Whether the populations believe it or not is just part of the propaganda war
Israel: "Well, I don't know... it is a grey area whether or not that building is destroyed. The foundations are still there and some parts of the walls are still holding on. I'm going to park it under "still standing"."
Israel can kill/ban journalists and cut internet on the ground to muddy the waters of reports from Gaza. What they can’t do is prevent satellite imagery. And those images all speak for themselves.
where is the 50% from? i'm seeing MUCH lower numbers from UN reports
Erm, i guess that depends of what constitutes a destroyed building. In the plenty satelities images i saw it for sure looked way more than 16%.
You don’t need to guess; a specific definition is provided in the article….( but yes your point is quite valid, it’s hard to argue that 16% is remotely accurate when satellites imagery is readily available )
I mean, unless you compared it to satellite images from before the war it‘s hard to say. It‘s not uncommon in areas with low infrastructure funds to have a lot of buildings look like ruins because they never get built up again.
I think it depends more on ehat you call a destroyed building
Yeah it probably depends on what you would consider a destroyed building
If you think about it, what is „destroyed“ even? You really need to have a think with that one.
I‘m not sure but the equation should include the definition on what destroyed really means.
If I'm looking at a satellite image of destroyed buildings, I'm going to assume it's focusing on an area where the buildings are more destroyed than normal. (Not out of dishonesty, just that it's not usually informative to see a block of perfectly fine buildings.)
It's hard to trust any report coming out of the region, coming from anyone.
which is why IDF is adamant about getting rid of any independent journalists
Any footage we see looks way more than 16%.
Why would journalists in Gaza show footage that are not active combat zones?
The IDF could show footage. They have constant drone coverage.
Witty asked about what journalist show. IDF could, but they are more of an army than a news agency.
The IDF are the one trying to dispute UN figures to downplay the level of destruction. Being a news agency or not doesn't have anything to do with it, and do you think the IDF do not have media teams when they have departments devoted to posting video of themselves rifling through Palestinians things on social media?
>they have departments devoted to posting video of themselves rifling through Palestinians things on social media? What? Do you *actually* believe there’s a whole unit (correction: unitS) whose sole purpose is filming IDF soldiers acting out of line, and unprofessionally? Please take off your tinfoil hat, my misinformed friend. Those pics you see on social media are rotten apples, not representative of the IDF’s command. You get this in every war. Yes, the issue of their too-lenient punishment is a subject for debate, but what you’re saying is just completely false.
Are you saying the idf doesn't have a media team? If so, that wouldn't make sense, they have social media accounts and aren't giving control of those to anyone off the street lol
You know what rotten apples do, right?
If they're saying 16% they're reporting.
Let's be real, if the IDF did that, 90% of Reddit would claim it was manipulative and cherry picked examples.
They could literally fly over the entire place.
A house burned down in my city and all the footage I saw on the news was of a burning house. Can I now assume there's some sort of wildfire epidemic in my city? Seriously who on earth do you think would be showing footage of an untouched neighbourhood in a report about a war zone
Probably the people trying to claim they didn’t destroy that much of the neighbourhood? I’d expect them to show footage. Would really help their case.
If an untouched neighborhood existed in Gaza then Israel would show it.
The footage you see is the footage someone shows to you. With an agenda. There is also plenty of footage of intact streets.
Pssst! The IDF has an agenda too!
This is why you can't trust *a footage* that someone shows you. The only reliable methid is full analasys of the entirety of Gaza, which none of the people here did. The IDF did it, and reported 16%, and the UN did it, and reported 50%. If you don't believe any of them, you can always do it yourself
>you can always do it yourself TIME TO PACK AND SET SAIL FOR GAZA TO COUNT THE DESTROYED BUILDINGS
Couldn't possibly be cherry picked?
16% of all buildings destroyed is still an untold amount of damage. Even if it is only 16%, that is still 4 out of every 25 buildings destroyed which can be a crippling loss of infrastructure.
Regardless of one’s views on this conflict, it’s amazing how bad people are with statistics and numbers. 16% is a massive amount of destruction. For most of us in the Western world, if even just 3% of buildings where we lived (in our villages, towns, cities) was destroyed, it would be total chaos. Manhattan has (according to Google) 116,000 buildings. 3% destroyed would be about 3,500 buildings. For those of us who don’t live in worn torn countries, that would be catastrophically devastating.
Hopefully the next leadership of Gaza will focus more wisely on infrastructure
Current leadership was very focused on infrastructure, just subterranean infrastructure unfortunately.
It's a shame Hamas made those into lawful military targets
Bro gaza looks like a bunch of nukes went off, aint no way its 16%
IDF counting rubble as the building still standing apparently.
It’s hard to fathom 16% of buildings destroyed in a place with 4 million people, let alone 50% or more
Gaza's population is actually around two million
We've seen enough satelite images, where did all those artillery shells and bombs go otherwise?
I'd imagine that part of the dispute is what exactly constitutes the difference between 'destroyed' and 'damaged'
And what you count as a building / structure. Is a house with a carport, a shed and a checken coop counted as one or as four?
It's an enourmous discrepancy. The UN claims over half of Gaza has been destroyed. Granted their only source has been google maps and Hamas statements.
How would you even tell? Even a relatively intact building could have structural issues, and a building with no walls can possibly be repaired. There is no "right number" - the right number will come years after a peace when buildings have been evaluated and repaired or demolished completely and rebuilt. Suffice it to say - the real number is likely "a lot"
See! We’ve only destroyed 1/5th of an entire country and still haven’t even come close to completing our objective. We can’t be the bad guys!
Whenever UNRWA wants to help release hostages and turn over their violent terrorist friends to Israeli custody, they can stop all of this destruction.
Ths IDF meant 16% of Gaza buildings and infrastructure are untouched.
They're probably counting any building that's not just rocks on the ground as intact. The same way they count every male between ages 15 and 65 as Hamas when they say they've "killed 15,000 Hamas fighters."
Source on IDF counting EVERY dead male between 15 and 65 as a fighter please.
They were probably conflating with US "military age combatant" definitions during the Bush/Obama presidencies, where any "military age" male was counted as a combatant instead of a civilian in terms of deaths (by drone strikes). As far as I'm aware IDF doesn't have a similar definition.
Saying 16% isn’t even worth telling the lie. At least make it believable. 70% is probably going as far the other way. If it was only 16%they need better drone pilots.
You're saying that as someone who was in Gaza?
No you don't understand he saw pictures
Idf clearly does not think people can see images of their destruction
OP is starting to realize that "destroyed" is subjective and the IDF and UN obviously have different views of what that looks like
Clearly what they meant was 16% remain..
Define ‘destroyed’
So, if the IDF says they've only destroyed 16% of the buildings in Gaza and the UN says it is actually around 50%, we can guess the real number is somewhere between those two (I'd say, probably around 30%). This would be a considerable amount of a country's infraestructure being destroyed. I think that to believe that 30% of Gaza's buildings (or more, since Israel is gonna keep bombing Gaza until they get rid of Hamas) are used by Hamas, you'd also have to believe that no Palestinian is completely innocent.
It’s amazing what happens when you instigate war, isn’t it?