Andrew Fox deaths in Gaza report

@SharonEllis Are satellite imagery also biased? It’s clearly obvious residential buildings are being targeted. You cannot deny that.

@SharonEllis - I've never said they were, but if you want to counteract bias you don't do it with further bias. I am not saying that these sources are accurate, but Andrew Fox's ill-conceived report does nothing to undermine them. No-one can genuinely believe based on his lack of expertise and self-confessed agenda that there is an interest in undercovering the truth rather than minimising the suffering of Palestinian people here? He has no credentials, no peer review, yet his report is all over the press.

The Hamas Health Ministry who have no bias?Usually in contested issues you take the data from various sources and evaluate with those biases in mind. The HJS contribution is perfectly legitimate and useful yet people here have dismissed it out of hand for political reasons.

Well said!

@SharonEllis If you actually wanted to independently assess casualty estimates you would look at those potentially left off the lists as well as those on it to get a picture of both over- and under-reporting. And you wouldn't pick someone with an obvious bias and no experience to do so.

Obviously war means there can't be precisely accurate figures for a whole variety of reasons but iterrogating data in a war is a completely normal and responsible thing to do.

But no country has ever had accurate contemporaneous casualty figures for a major conflict. If you're interested look at the meticulous work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia that took place to try and get accurate figures years later. Even the Siege of Sarajevo had no accurate figures (despite being in a fairly confined space) until ICT did an analysis. And surely if you do want to critique the numbers the first step is to allow in independent observers?

I've read the report, and have a number of questions. Firstly, why would Hamas let them have copies of the records if they were attempting to mislead? Also while I have no doubt that there is misreporting, a lot of it it "tinkering round the edges" - they give individual cases and there is no overall assessment of how different these figures would be if the supposed errors were corrected. It's a very poorly put together report with no adequate conclusion. Their main point is that there is a reliance on media reports and incomplete family submissions - this is the norm in armed conflict where the health care system and pretty much every other system has broken down (and why it is often only decades later that there is a fair estimate) - I really don't know what they expect.

There are people who spend their whole lives meticulously and independently estimating conflict fatalities with extensive experience and skills in demography (I know some of them). Andrew Fox is not one of these. He has a military background and supposedly has academic experience , in the War Studies and Behavioural Science departments at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. He does not appear to have any previous experience in estimating mortality, and his mail claim to fame seem to be a large following on twitter and substack. is also heavily biased towards Israel - the HJS itself in their bio of him say " He has taken a particularly strong stance on the Israel-Hamas war, arguing from a military perspective that the international hostility directed at how Israeli forces in Gaza have operated is entirely unwarranted." He has absolutely no credibility in this area.
Trust me, I'm no lover of Hamas, but I really don't see anything in the report that makes me feel any different about the appalling death toll,

The deleted thread had good analysis of it. I guess people can't be bothered doing it twice, which is understandable.

You need accurate casualty figures and you need to understand what is happening in a conflict.

Absolutely so why won't Israel allow independent observers in so this can be acheived? It is not good enough to hand wring about relying on Hamas run health ministry when something in Israel's control, can be done about that. No one is happy with the current situation.

@SharonEllis Interesting that there is no substantive criticism of the report here.

I suggest you read the full thread. The report has been well and truly rebutted.

The opening post contains these words.
it seems like we should be relieved to hear things may not be nearly as bad as we have been lead to believe.
Oh good - maybe only 10000 dead - that's alright then?

Exactly. Its complete nonsense to talk about poor taste. You need accurate casualty figures and you need to understand what is happening in a conflict. You can't just put your head in the sand and say its too hard to think about, or leave it to others to make things up for their own agendas. Interesting that there is no substantive criticism of the report here.

What you say makes sense.

It natural to question when a terrorist group are running the figures as well as not running the country to the best of their ability (prior to their attack on another country). They are accountable for their actions just as the IDF are.

Thank you for clarification.

Questioning the number of deaths here is I believe in very poor taste, pointless, and is deliberately trying to minimise the massive humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Would it be 'better' if 'only' 10000 innocent Palestinian civilians had been killed rather than 40000?
Equally would Israel have reacted differently if 'only' 100 innocent Israeli civilians had been killed rather than 1000?
The answer to both of those questions is No btw.
Every one of those innocent Israeli or Palestinian lives cut short by a futile war is a tragedy for their families, friends, colleagues, and neighbours. Try having some compassion and remember that, rather than letting your partisan views get in the way of the real story.

Because 70% of the population are women and children. Men are dying in slightly higher proportion than the demographics would suggest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine

Very roughly:

40% of the population are under 15
The remainder is split very roughly between men and women. So 30% each

Women and children population = 40% + 30% = 70%
Men equals remainder = 30%

Numbers are rounded.

The obvious conclusion, which you suggest, is that the deaths are completely indiscriminate.

It is incredibly difficult to get an accurate estimate of mortality in conflict - estimates from reliable sources for Syria range from 350,200 to about 606,000, with equally wide differences for combatants and non-combatants. And this is with UN and other independent human rights organisation allowed access to at least some of the country. Also remember it took more than three months for Israel to give a final number of those who died on 7/10, and this was in a country with relatively high resources and for one single, albeit horrific, event. Criticising Hamas's estimates without any other evidence is a pretty pointless exercise, particularly when no-one is allowed in to give an independent assessment.

One fact I would bet my house on though based on evidence from other conflicts - the overall excess mortality in Gaza will be far, far, higher than those killed just directly by violence. Destruction of the water and sewage system, famine, destruction of health care services and overcrowding in refugee camps will create hugely increased mortality, mostly in the under 5s and elderly. It will be many years before we know the true cost of the Gaza conflict.

Highlighted from the article

Jan Egeland, the head of aid organisation Norwegian Refugee Council, told the BBC on Friday that he saw "devastation, despair, beyond belief" on a recent visit to Gaza.
"There is hardly a building that is not damaged. And large areas looked like Stalingrad after the Second World War. You cannot fathom how intense this indiscriminate bombing has been on this trapped population," he said.
"It's evident that it is first and foremost children and women who are paying a price for this senseless war," he added.

Men are dying, please re-read this post
@YoYoYoYo12345

But you'd also expect more men to die at the same time too. When footage is shown of hospitals there are lots and lots of men running around helping. Do they not die then. Where do the men go When bombing occurs? The numbers do suggest some questions need consideration around why men aren't dying, there's lots running around on Al Jazerra on each report shown.

Bombing hospitals (like bombing and setting fire to the ICU in kamal adwan hospital just today) and then not allowing in sufficient medical aid to treat the same people you bombed has probably also contributed greatly

https://news.sky.com/story/israel-preventing-medical-aid-and-vital-supplies-from-reaching-gaza-says-uk-minister-anneliese-dodds-13266667

Unfortunately that's what happens when you have a immoral army that frequently bombs tents of displaced civilians. Herding/forcing civilians into 'safe zones' and then bombing them also has the same effect.
Using lethal 2000lb bombs in civilian areas where the radius the shrapnel can fly is more than the size of a football stadium can kill how many people in one go? How much flying shrapnel does it take to pierce and kill a 5 year old?

The 70% figure tallies with the population.

44% killed are children, 26% women and I guess 30% men. That's what happens when 80% of the deaths occur in residential buildings.

You're right. It does suggest that the civilian population is being targeted and not Hamas fighters.

The largest age group killed are children aged between 5 and 9. How barbaric is that.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5wel11pgdo.amp

I have seen reports that 70% of the dead are women and children. Why men aren't dying in the same numbers seems odd. You'd expect more men to die, since one would assume Hamas fighters (were there over 35000 of them at the start? no idea how many now!) would be mainly men. Where are they? Are the figures correct. 🤔