Response to the authors of the open letter to the people in Gaza
Bibliographic record
Abstract
n June 12, the day three Israeli teens were abducted and murdered in the West Bank, Hamas began launching rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. For three weeks Israel showed restraint, but Hamas’ incessant missile attacks continued, cul-minating in a barrage of 70 missiles fired on July 7 alone. Israel was left with no choice but to embark on a military operation to defend its civilian population. There was no word from the authors of the “open letter” [1]. For several years Hamas, designated a terrorist organization in many countries including the USA, the EU and Canada, has invested heavily in a formidable terror infrastructure that includes some 12,000 missiles covering most of Israel’s territory. It has also built dozens of attack tunnels with the sole purpose of infiltrating Israel to conduct terror attacks killing and kidnap-ping Israeli civilians. Again, total ignorance on the part of the authors or any others in the European medical community.The main objective of Operation Protective Edge is to restore calm to Israel’s citizens. Israel’s right to defend itself was widely recognized by the international community, including most recently EU foreign ministers on July 22. Israel’s actions are aimed at curtailing Hamas terror capabilities in Gaza; they do not target the people of Gaza.In this context, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has done its utmost to minimize harm to uninvolved civilians. It strictly abides by the principles of international law and the Law of Armed Conflict, which calls for a distinction between civil-ians and military forces, and for careful consideration of the expected military gain of any action weighed against the poten -tial collateral damage.Among the measures taken by the IDF to minimize the risk to Palestinian civilians are prior announcements about impending attacks by means of phone calls, pamphlets and warning shots. In many cases missions were aborted because civilians dangerously close to the target were identified. What other army does that?Whereas Israel is conducting itself with extreme care so as not to harm civilians, Hamas acts in flagrant violation of international law and with utter disregard for human life, whether Israeli or Palestinian. It has systematically committed a double war crime: the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians while using its own civilian population for cover.Indeed, Hamas has perfected the “human shield” tactic, hiding weapons and terrorists in hospitals, schools and mosques. In at least two instances UNRWA found missiles hidden in its schools, and journalists reported having seen Hamas leaders hiding in the Shifa Hospital. In addition, Hamas has urged and even forced civilians to remain where the fighting is taking place, to deter Israel from attacking.Israel agreed to the Egyptian brokered ceasefire of July 15, but Hamas rejected it. Israel approved two humanitarian win-dows to ease the burden on the civilian population in Gaza, but Hamas broke the ceasefire on both occasions.Our learned colleagues, the authors of the letter to
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".