Post

More from @GeraldNGOM

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

@GeraldNGOM

Aug 1

My article in the @JewishJournal
The whirlwind of accusations on Gaza parallel the 2002 Jenin "massacre" hoax. Then, as now, there are few verifiable facts, but relying on Palestinian “sources, UN & NGO industry allies, Israel is pronounced guilty. The concerted campaign turns propaganda into unquestioned fact. >

Palestinian officials and NGO “experts” rushed to appear on the BBC and CNN, where they authoritatively declared that Israeli forces killed 500 or even 1,300 civilians. Citing Palestinian hospitals and anonymous “eyewitnesses”, they described IDF tanks allegedly bulldozing homes and executing civilians. Derek Pounder, from Amnesty International, told the BBC that he had direct first-hand knowledge to verify these atrocities. But Pounder was nowhere near Jenin, as was the case for all the other “independent sources.”>

@Ken Roth, long-time head of @hrw with anti-Israel obsession, condemned the “disproportionate use of force” – an easily manipulated term which lacks a consistent definition. Roth repeated the mantra, and echoing “trusted NGO experts,” media headlines featured words like massacre and war crimes. >>

Read 4 tweets

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

@GeraldNGOM

Jun 24

1) A ceasefire, if it holds, will be followed by a lengthy period of "battle damage assessment." In Iran, the BDA will focus first on regime survival. Are popular opposition forces strong and organized enough to replace the fanatics that took power in 1979? Did Israeli strikes on internal repression sites open space for a wider revolt? >

2) What will BDA show regarding Iran's conventional military including IRGC? The IDF killed a large segment of senior officers - the command structure is severely weakened, and training replacements will take time. Also, key assets were destroyed - air defense, antique mini airforce, etc. this leaves Iran even more vulnerable. >

3) What's left of the regime's strategic assets, or what can be salvaged? Lots of speculation on the HEU (highly enriched uranium) for bomb making. Maybe buried under Fordow or Natanz. And if the regime still has the HEU, did the facilities and engineers for making a weapon survive Israel's precise strikes? Can they rebuild in less than 20 years, and at what cost? >

Read 11 tweets

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

@GeraldNGOM

Jan 10

Again @TheLancet medical journal published pseudo-scientific Palestinian propaganda, dressed up with graphs, meaningless algorithms & fake data from Hamas/Palestinian sources, UN agencies that parrot Hamas etal, and "Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor" - a notorius Hamas-run NGO (ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-…). Serious medical professionals should unsubscribe
cc: Elsevier

https://x.com/Ostrov_A/status/1877706815489667280?t=OkOeS8ZtdmUOjVydjppxag&s=19

https://x.com/Ostrov_A/status/1877706815489667280?t=OkOeS8ZtdmUOjVydjppxag&s=19

@TheLancet just published an article claiming that the Gaza health ministry figures on deaths in Gaza is undercounted; as of the date of the analysis when it said there were 40,000 deaths the paper estimates over 64,000. The assumptions behind this methodology are wrong.
The "capture-recapture" analysis that is the heart of the statistics-heavy paper works like this. The authors took three different lists of victims - the hospital records, the online survey, and those found on social media obituaries. Between the three they found very little overlap:

Only about 15% of people in hospital records appeared on other lists
About 33% of people in the survey appeared on other lists
About 54% of people in social media appeared on other lists
They used these overlap patterns to estimate how many deaths likely occurred but weren't captured on any list. A low overlap, they say, indicates that each list is a gross undercount of the total. Based on their analysis of the low overlap, they suggest that the three lists combined only captured about 45% of total deaths. This led to their estimate of about 64,260 total deaths during the study period, compared to the official count at the time of about 37,900 (which included unnamed people.)
The assumptions behind this methodology are wrong.

The reason that there is very little overlap between the hospital lists and survey lists is because the entire purpose of the survey was to supplement the hospital list. The survey list is designed to capture names not on the hospital lists. The health ministry Capture-recapture analysis is based on the assumption that the lists are independent, when in fact they are supposed to be exclusive - the Ministry of Health issues statistics based on both lists combined and would attempt to remove duplicates.

In this case, the capture-recapture analysis is not an appropriate methodology because the two dominant data sets are largely meant to be exclusive of each other, not representative samples of the total deaths.

The third list, from multiple social media sources like Instagram, is not a random sample of the deceased at all. It could be updated by anyone anywhere in the world. It is self-defining and impossible to verify. Using it as an input to the analysis is questionable at best. To give it the same weight as the other two sources for the purposes of statistical analysis and estimations based on low overlap is almost certainly a poor assumption.

There are other potential problems. The survey form does not distinguish between "martyrs" and "missing persons," and many of those assumed to be dead may in fact be missing - the ICRC has managed to reunite thousands of people thought to be missing.

Altogether, this is a case where the authors try to misdirect the reader with lots of statistical formulas but their basic assumptions that the statistics are based on are worthless to begin with.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2025/01/thelan…

Read 6 tweets

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

@GeraldNGOM

Jan 2

🧵The Jimmy Carter hagiography & reversal of history - continued in @jdforward: The caption is very misleading - in fact, Begin's first meeting with Carter in DC was "difficult" (understatement), with sharp clashes that increased in the four years that followed. Begin concluded that the path to peace with Egypt was to avoid Carter (and an "international conference" incl Moscow, Assad and Arafat) and negotiate directly with Sadat, who reached the same conclusion.

Re photo 5 - Carter and Begin at a Shabbat dinner in Washington, D.C. - March 2, 1979: this was during one of the most difficult conflicts, as Carter continued to threaten and cajole Begin into major changes that he had rejected at Camp David. Carter's attempts to use American Jewish leaders to pressure Begin were a complete failure, and added to the friction. >

Re image 10 @jdforward: After Begin refused to bend to Carter's threats and the treaty was completed and signed, the animosity deepened. Their final meeting was for the signing. Later, Carter blamed "the Jews" for his defeat in the 1980 elections - not the Iran fiasco or the economy. Carter's anti-Israel and antisemitic agenda increased, and during private visits to Israel, Begin refused to meet with him. >

Read 5 tweets

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

@GeraldNGOM

Dec 30, 2024

Jimmy Carter had a very problematic relationship with Israel & the Jewish people, combining ignorance with arrogance and a thinly hidden Christian theological hostility to Jewish sovereignty and power. Among other manifestations, he blamed "the Jews" for his defeat in 1980>

Carter's relationships with Israeli leaders - first Rabin (PM until June 1977) and then Begin (July 1977- 1983) - was hostile and manipulative, and they both documented details. After both left office, Begin refused to see or talk to Carter >>

Altho Carter and entourage took credit for the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement, Begin and Sadat began talks by freezing out Carter, whose fixation on bringing in Moscow, Assad (Syria), Arafat (PLO) for a "comprehensive" deal was, in reality, a deal killer. > Details:

Read 6 tweets

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

@GeraldNGOM

Dec 3, 2024

🧵Details of @amnesty's immoral #genocide inversion: Under the facade of an "investigative report," (official release Dec 5 00:01 GMT) the NGO continues its campaign of demonizing Israel, erases monstrous Hamas war crimes of October 7, turns unverifiable accusations into "evidence," and twists legal standards beyond recognition. Hate propaganda under the facade of "human rights." >>

"Amnesty's immoral attack targeting Israel is blatant genocide inversion that seeks to turn necessary defense against terror atrocities into a heinous international crime. The NGO twists and invents legal standards, erases the monstrous Hamas war crimes of October 7, and turns unverifiable accusations into "evidence".
Under the facade of an "investigative report," this publication and accompanying campaign are timed to reinforce the meeting of the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties as part of the ongoing lobbying to bolster the Prosecutor's pursuit of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant. Amnesty's exploitation of "genocide" is also linked to the NGO's role in lawsuits in the Netherlands and the UK that seek to impose a full arms embargo on Israel.
For over two decades, Amnesty, whose founder Peter Benenson, was a strong supporter of Israel, has repeated false accusations of war crimes, apartheid, and similar labels that are designed to demonize and delegitimize Israel's existence.">>

Preliminary analysis of @amnesty's latest travesty: ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnest…

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @GeraldNGOM

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

Prof Gerald M Steinberg

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!