How high will civilian deaths be in Rafah?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Now that the invasion of Rafah has begun, how high do you think the civilian deaths will end up being?

It will be interesting to see how the prediction of users here compares to the actual reality, in particular whether the "Genocide Joe" crowd overestimates and/or the pro-Israel crowd underestimates.

The poll will run for only 1 day so that you have to vote before it is too evident how high the civilian deaths will be.

[lfromnj]

By casualties you mean deaths?
I'll go with 10-20k then.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

By casualties you mean deaths?
I'll go with 10-20k then.

edited to deaths to remove any ambiguity.

[SnowLabrador]

I don't know, but we're all complicit in it. F*** this timeline.

[wnwnwn]

If only Israel vs Hamas/(and PA?)
Israel will tell a smaller number than reality.
Hamas will tell a higher number than reality. PA/Fatah will do the same.

I suppose it will be some thousands, 10K at much. The problem is the future of the surviving gazans...

[Beet]

What a ghoulish poll. Does it matter how many die? Not to the governments of the world. Nor to the posters on this forum who support the offensive. The world will just sit by and let it happen. Which tells you everything you need to know.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

What a ghoulish poll. Does it matter how many die? Not to the governments of the world. Nor to the posters on this forum who support the offensive. The world will just sit by and let it happen. Which tells you everything you need to know.

I support the offensive because I want the terrorist threat in Gaza dealt with, the only way to truly break this cycle of death. Civilian casualties are horrific, but impossible to avoid in this situation. Not crushing Hamas to the furthest extent possible just means years and years of more carnage on both sides. Sometimes every choice sucks, this is the best one because it's the only chance for a future without nonstop bloodshed.

[GeneralMacArthur]

If I actually thought 1 million civilians would be killed in the attack on Rafah then I would not support said attack.

[Beet]

If I actually thought 1 million civilians would be killed in the attack on Rafah then I would not support said attack.

Very good. You still have many fallbacks though. If 1 million are killed, you can still say it is a lie. And if it becomes somehow truly undeniable, then you can always say less than 1 million were civilians. And if worst comes to worst, you can say that you regret the attack, but it has happened anyway so what you say at that point will make no difference.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Too high.

[SnowLabrador]

Too high.

This is the real answer.

[CumbrianLefty]

Too high.

Yes, sometimes it really is that straightforward.

This shouldn't be happening, simple as.

[Coldstream]

I’m not one for tone policing, but this feels a little distasteful to speculate on how many people are going to die before a battle starts.