Thoughts on the middle east conflicts.

[jqavins]

This started when the Israeli settlers moved into Gaza...

West bank, not Gaza.

Unfortunately, the UN can only act with the approval of all its members. Not the majority.

The Security Council has 15 members, five permanent and ten rotating. Any of the five (the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France) can kill a measure. If all five permanent members either vote for a measure or abstain, an overall majority, not unanimity, is what's needed.

 

[Bravo52]

Just like when Israel forced the entire population of Gaza into a corner of Gaza and dropped bombs on them.
Current estimates say that of the 30000+ dead, 12000 are children. As a lot of bodies are still under concrete, expect that number to increase.
Try watching some news that's not giving you an echo chamber.
France 24
DW
DD (INDIA)
BBC
ABC
CBC
PBS
AL JAZEERA

"Wharton statistician looks at Hamas’ casualty data and concludes they are likely falsifying to maintain a rolling mean & linear growth — and they don’t know how to avoid making anomalies obvious to Western analysts." was a quote from someone who did the math. The Hamas numbers are most assuredly false.

Tablet online did a fantastic job of showing how much error is introduced in the made up numbers presented by Hamas. It shows that what they claim is almost statistically impossible. The reality is the numbers will never be truly known as it isn't in anyone's best interest to have the truth out there...

 

[boatgeek]

"Wharton statistician looks at Hamas’ casualty data and concludes they are likely falsifying to maintain a rolling mean & linear growth — and they don’t know how to avoid making anomalies obvious to Western analysts." was a quote from someone who did the math. The Hamas numbers are most assuredly false.

Tablet online did a fantastic job of showing how much error is introduced in the made up numbers presented by Hamas. It show that what they claim is almost statistically impossible. The reality is the numbers will never be truly known as it isn't in anyone's best interest to have the truth out there...

I think this is the Tablet article you're talking about. I haven't really read or digested it, just thought it would be helpful for people to see the analysis.

 

[OzHybrid]

"Wharton statistician looks at Hamas’ casualty data and concludes they are likely falsifying to maintain a rolling mean & linear growth — and they don’t know how to avoid making anomalies obvious to Western analysts." was a quote from someone who did the math. The Hamas numbers are most assuredly false.

Tablet online did a fantastic job of showing how much error is introduced in the made up numbers presented by Hamas. It shows that what they claim is almost statistically impossible. The reality is the numbers will never be truly known as it isn't in anyone's best interest to have the truth out there...

When you look at the tone of all articles, they're pro-Israeli news.

As the article says in the last paragraph, "The truth can’t yet be known and probably never will be."

I preferred their other article "For the love of leeks" which leads to the recipe(view recipe at the bottom of that article) https://www.tabletmag.com/recipes/sephardic-leek-feta-cheese-pie

Which hints at the slant that might be given to any article from Wharton or the Tablet.

The whole analysis is based on an unreferenced data set from a JPG on a site that has NO other data on it. The image itself has been stripped of any metadata. So while it looks like an externally referenced data set, the data is itself dubious. This requires skepticism of any analysis of that data.

 

[boatgeek]

When you look at the tone of all articles, they're pro-Israeli news.

As the article says in the last paragraph, "The truth can’t yet be known and probably never will be."

I preferred their other article "For the love of leeks" which leads to the recipe(view recipe at the bottom of that article) https://www.tabletmag.com/recipes/sephardic-leek-feta-cheese-pie

Which hints at the slant that might be given to any article from Wharton or the Tablet.

The whole analysis is based on an unreferenced data set from a JPG on a site that has NO other data on it. The image itself has been stripped of any metadata. So while it looks like an externally referenced data set, the data is itself dubious. This requires skepticism of any analysis of that data.

Also worth pointing out that the article covers only data from 10/26-11/10/23. And that the authors' statement:

In fact, the daily reported casualty count over this period averages 270 plus or minus about 15%.

is suspect. The average of daily casualties is in fact 270. 3 of the 15 days depart from the mean by more than 20%. The average variation is 13%, so that "about" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting.

Is Hamas fudging the numbers? Sure, maybe. Does this article prove it? I don't think so. Show us a full data set (with a source) covering more than 2 weeks and we can talk.

 

[rharshberger]

No comment...

 

[Bravo52]

Also worth pointing out that the article covers only data from 10/26-11/10/23. And that the authors' statement:

is suspect. The average of daily casualties is in fact 270. 3 of the 15 days depart from the mean by more than 20%. The average variation is 13%, so that "about" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting.

Is Hamas fudging the numbers? Sure, maybe. Does this article prove it? I don't think so. Show us a full data set (with a source) covering more than 2 weeks and we can talk.

Kinda sounds "conspiratorial". The math is correct. So it has to be the "source" if the numbers are wrong. I don't believe the data is wrong. The author provides the best analysis I've seen that doesn't include the statements like; "you must believe it because I said it was true" or "We're the UN". I do agree we'll never know the perfect answer but based on the information provided and past performance from Hamas and UNWAR on fudging numbers, I think this covers it well. I'll stand by for the next linear progression in death counts.

 

[OzHybrid]

Kinda sounds "conspiratorial". The math is correct. So it has to be the "source" if the numbers are wrong. I don't believe the data is wrong. The author provides the best analysis I've seen that doesn't include the statements like; "you must believe it because I said it was true" or "We're the UN". I do agree we'll never know the perfect answer but based on the information provided and past performance from Hamas and UNWAR on fudging numbers, I think this covers it well. I'll stand by for the next linear progression in death counts.

I cannot find the referenced data used with valid attribution. The link leads to a website that is conpletely set up to provide the one single table of data. Completely unattrubuted. I can see no reason you would set up a website to supply one jpg photo of a table with all metadata removed where you would not treat that as suspicious.

 

[Bravo52]

When you look at the tone of all articles, they're pro-Israeli news.

As the article says in the last paragraph, "The truth can’t yet be known and probably never will be."

I preferred their other article "For the love of leeks" which leads to the recipe(view recipe at the bottom of that article) https://www.tabletmag.com/recipes/sephardic-leek-feta-cheese-pie

Which hints at the slant that might be given to any article from Wharton or the Tablet.

The whole analysis is based on an unreferenced data set from a JPG on a site that has NO other data on it. The image itself has been stripped of any metadata. So while it looks like an externally referenced data set, the data is itself dubious. This requires skepticism of any analysis of that data.

Yes, of course, it is a Jewish source. The data the author references is not from the Jewish source but aggregated from other sources like the Wharton School at the U Penn and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy not to mention the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. So there are several sources beyond the Jewish chefs at Table.

The question isn't "Pro-Hamas" vs "Pro-Israel", it's is the math right?

NOTE: There is a whole thread on X by Salo Aizenberg that outlines the UN data used as reference if you want to follow the links in the original article (ochaopt). I don't normally recommend X because it generally elicits a response of sorts from everyone, good or bad. However, I will say the data on the X thread is provided by the UN.

 

[boatgeek]

Kinda sounds "conspiratorial". The math is correct. So it has to be the "source" if the numbers are wrong. I don't believe the data is wrong. The author provides the best analysis I've seen that doesn't include the statements like; "you must believe it because I said it was true" or "We're the UN". I do agree we'll never know the perfect answer but based on the information provided and past performance from Hamas and UNWAR on fudging numbers, I think this covers it well. I'll stand by for the next linear progression in death counts.

Actually, I’m not questioning the underlying data table presented. I’m saying that the author’s description of the data does not match the data they are presenting. And that is enough to question the author’s conclusion. As I said above, Hamas may be lying, but this doesn’t prove it.

 

[jqavins]

The author provides the best analysis I've seen that doesn't include the statements like... "We're the UN".

However, I will say the data on the X thread is provided by the UN.

So, is the UN a reliable source of data, or a laughable one?

Hamas is, at best, an unreliable source, though nothing about them is laughable. A table of numbers from an unknown source must be taken with big grains of salt.

 

[cvanc]

From the "I didn't see that one coming" department: The US is going to build a dock and deliver humanitarian aid by sea. This triggers about a million questions in me but two for now:

1) Does this, or does this not, represent a real break with Israel - or perhaps I should say Netanyahu?

2) How is this playing domestically in Israel?

 

[Bravo52]

So, is the UN a reliable source of data, or a laughable one?

Hamas is, at best, an unreliable source, though nothing about them is laughable. A table of numbers from an unknown source must be taken with big grains of salt.

Laughable....

I think the UN is much like any bureaucratic entity. They will use data to try and meet their agenda. In many cases it's benign, however, in all cases its main use is to take from the makers and give to the takers. In my opinion, in this case, they are just regurgitating bad information. However, lots of people treat the UN like they are the "authority" so referencing their data is beneficial when used to show error. In simplest of terms, they "used their own words against them". I think the Table article does a great job of showing the probable error of the numbers presented by both the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and Hamas. It's likely the UN got their data from the Gaza Health Ministry...nee...Hamas.

So, if you take the Table article off the table (see what I did there?), there are plenty of other sources out there to show the Hamas numbers are junk. Anecdotally, a plausible explanation comes from Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself when he recently described the death count (and casualty) in Ukraine by saying that they don't give accurate numbers because it will tell the russians their true status... Something very similar may be going on in Gaza.

What did you think of the Table article?

 

[jqavins]

The words are accurate as to the sorts of things that one should look for to indicate fabricated data, and badly fabricated at that. I have not dug into the math, but I don't have any particular reason to think it was done wrong. My only issue is with the provenance of the date. Hamas numbers have no credibility. My only reason for doubt is, as I said, the unknown provenance of the numbers that math is based on.

 

[boatgeek]

OK, so let's take a look at the data provided in that Tablet article.

That's all we've got. No information on the source of the data. That's a major red flag. Fortunately, I was able to find a Lancet article that covered roughly the same period. This is what good data sourcing looks like.

A look at the data shows that the death totals more or less match between the two sources. So that at least indicates that the Tablet author isn't making stuff up, which is a good thing. It's still sloppy with attribution, but that's a lesser sin.

On to the Tablet author's claims of irregularities. They present this chart...

... and say:

The graph of total deaths by date is increasing with almost metronomical linearity, as the graph in Figure 1 reveals. This regularity is almost surely not real. One would expect quite a bit of variation day to day. In fact, the daily reported casualty count over this period averages 270 plus or minus about 15%. This is strikingly little variation. There should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less.

This is where I take issue. The way the data is presented in the chart is guaranteed to show what appears to be near-linear results, because the changes by time step are much smaller than the y scale of the chart. If you look at their reported total deaths/day independently, you get this:

(My chart of their data in the JPG, daily deaths in blue) This is clearly not "metronomical linearity." There's a lot of variation day by day, and a clear downward trend over the two weeks. 270 is the mean, sure, but +/- 15% are shown at the 230 and 310 lines. 5 of the 15 data points fall outside of those bounds. The authors suggest that Hamas has chosen a daily average and is fudging the numbers around that. Does the data show that? Well, no. The 5-day rolling average (orange) doesn't follow the average either.

This is lousy analysis. Again, I'm not saying that Hamas' deaths figures are accurate. They may be fudged, and the proportion of women and children killed may be wrong. I'm saying that this analysis doesn't prove that Hamas is fudging the data. The numbers the Tablet author presents do not match their statements.

By the way, the Lancet article linked above says that the same data indicate that Hamas is not faking the death totals. I don't love their analysis method either, but it's at least published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[jqavins]

I have not dug into the math, but I don't have any particular reason to think it was done wrong.

OK, so let's take a look at the data provided in that Tablet article...

OK, one of us has dug into it. Good.

This is where I take issue. The way the data is presented in the chart is guaranteed to show what appears to be near-linear results, because the changes by time step are much smaller than the y scale of the chart. If you look at their reported total deaths/day independently, you get this:
View attachment 635207
(My chart of their data in the JPG, daily deaths in blue) This is clearly not "metronomical linearity." There's a lot of variation day by day, and a clear downward trend over the two weeks. 270 is the mean, sure, but +/- 15% are shown at the 230 and 310 lines. 5 of the 15 data points fall outside of those bounds. The authors suggest that Hamas has chosen a daily average and is fudging the numbers around that. Does the data show that? Well, no. The 5-day rolling average (orange) doesn't follow the average either.

Your issue with the Tablet article's graph is valid, but I must take issue with yours as well. Variations in Y values are greatly exaggerated whenever the Y axis does not go to zero. On your graph, the highest daily death toll appears about four times higher above the time axis than the lowest, but the actual number is not even twice as large.

You've already typed in the numbers and done the figuring, so I'm too lazy to do it over. Please replot the graph with the Y axis lower limit at zero (where it belongs). Or upload the spreadsheet file and I'll do that part myself; whichever way floats your boat.

 

[boatgeek]

OK, one of us has dug into it. Good.


Your issue with the Tablet article's graph is valid, but I must take issue with yours as well. Variations in Y values are greatly exaggerated whenever the Y axis does not go to zero. On your graph, the highest daily death toll appears about four times higher above the time axis than the lowest, but the actual number is not even twice as large.

You've already typed in the numbers and done the figuring, so I'm too lazy to do it over. Please replot the graph with the Y axis lower limit at zero (where it belongs). Or upload the spreadsheet file and I'll do that part myself; whichever way floats your boat.

That's not an unreasonable complaint. I was adjusting the scale so that +/- 15% was on an exact major division so that I didn't have to force Excel into drawing a line across the chart. Here it is with the x axis at zero. I stand by my assertion that the data doesn't say what the Tablet author says it does.


By the way, the chart of deaths by date from the original Tablet article also had the same issue. Here it is with the same reformatting.

 

[John Kemker]

From the "I didn't see that one coming" department: The US is going to build a dock and deliver humanitarian aid by sea. This triggers about a million questions in me but two for now:

1) Does this, or does this not, represent a real break with Israel - or perhaps I should say Netanyahu?

Netanyahu might be a bit upset with Biden after Biden said he was going to have a "come to Jesus meeting" with Netanyahu.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...s-meeting-with-me-says-joe-biden-israel-video

 

[Bravo52]

Interesting analysis...same data, two different opinions. I guess it just comes down to who is to be believed. Given Hamas's past performance and claims, the one thing for sure, they can't be trusted. That wouldn't matter if it was Table or Lancet using the data. Speaking of Lancet, I haven't heard much out of them since 2020.

The US has a long standing and strong bond with Israel. I would argue it's more important for the US's interest for continued support of Israel than it is for Israel's interest. That's not to say it's not important for Israel, but IMO it's more beneficial for US to not have Israel "taking matters into their own hands" so to speak. Even if Biden wants to have a "come to Jesus" meeting with Netanyahu (does anyone else see the irony in that?) it will not result in much. I think Israel will complete their objectives and the optics of it won't much matter. The likely outcome of this will just be more government "oversight."

 

[jqavins]

That's not an unreasonable complaint. I was adjusting the scale so that +/- 15% was on an exact major division so that I didn't have to force Excel into drawing a line across the chart. Here it is with the x axis at zero. I stand by my assertion that the data doesn't say what the Tablet author says it does.
View attachment 635222

By the way, the chart of deaths by date from the original Tablet article also had the same issue. Here it is with the same reformatting.
View attachment 635221

I'll also note that with the straight line removed from the Tablet chart, the deviations from straight stand out more. Or, conversely, the addition of the line hid the variation to some degree.

 

[jqavins]

I think Israel will complete their objectives...

I think they might, but that depends on what their objective is.

• Pound Gaza flat and kill lots of Palestinians: yes
• Pound Gaza flat and kill lots of Hamas fighters: yes
• Beat Hamas back so severely that they can't hurt Israelis (much) for a while: maybe
• Eliminate the terrorist threat from Gaza for more than a few years: no
• Improve Israel's security overall: heck no, not a chance.

 

[Dotini]

Haven't the bulk of Israeli forces already departed Gaza for new positions in the north, preparing for expanded combat with Lebanon?

 

[boatgeek]

I think they might, but that depends on what their objective is.

• Pound Gaza flat and kill lots of Palestinians: yes
• Pound Gaza flat and kill lots of Hamas fighters: yes
• Beat Hamas back so severely that they can't hurt Israelis (much) for a while: maybe
• Eliminate the terrorist threat from Gaza for more than a few years: no
• Improve Israel's security overall: heck no, not a chance.

And this is a great list to distinguish tactics (how do I fight?) and strategy (what am I trying to accomplish?). The first two and maybe part of the third are tactics. The rest of the third and the last two are strategy.

 

[cvanc]

Another crack in the relationship

 

[jqavins]

Hear hear. I couldn't agree more, though I'm amazed that a senior American politician is willing to say it publicly.

 

[Titan II]

Hear hear. I couldn't agree more, though I'm amazed that a senior American politician is willing to say it publicly.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[CalebJ]

Absolutely disgusting.

The way Israel has been responding to the situation in Gaza? I agree!

Hamas is FAR from innocent. But that doesn't make an 'anything goes' response acceptable.

 

[jqavins]

Absolutely disgusting.

Could you be more specific, please? What's disgusting? Schumer's sentiment, Schumer's willingness to say it publicly, my agreeing with him?

 

[Titan II]

Could you be more specific, please? What's disgusting? Schumer's sentiment, Schumer's willingness to say it publicly, my agreeing with him?

All of the above. I have no need to explain further.

 

[jqavins]

I have no need to explain further.

Unless, of course, you'd like someone to know what you're talking about.