How much of that is because there just aren’t as many left for them to kill? If they started out at non-combatant numbers above SIXTY PERCENT that means they were killing more women and children than anyone else…
Eventually that pesky problem of killing non-combatants just fixes itself when there’s none left to kill, doesn’t it?
I also feel the need to remind people that while most combatants are male, not even close to all males are combatants. If only women and children (probably almost all civilian) made up 60% of all deaths, then the remaining 40% includes all male civilian deaths, which very well could be higher than combatant deaths.
Yes. Much like the US has done for a long time in their occupations in the Middle East, their little brother Israel calls any male deaths of fighting age “combatant” deaths.
Wtf are you talking about, 99% of Gaza is alive and well.
In October, when the war began, it was above 60%. For the month of April, it was below 40%. Yet the shift went unnoticed for months by the U.N. and much of the media, and the Hamas-linked Health Ministry has made no effort to set the record straight.
I mean… it’s definitely a good thing that it’s down but it still really doesn’t seem like a number to be celebrating to me.
It’s a little like advertising chocolate with 20% fewer insect pieces.
I miss the carapace crunch from the old chocolate ☹️
Agreed. What a really weird title.
I literally read it to mean they’re starting to run out of women and children to kill.
Can you do basic math?
That’s probably because they’re running out of women and children to shoot.
Why bomb the children when you can starve them to death and no one will care?
