Andrew Fox deaths in Gaza report

[ChangeyerNameyer]

I haven't seen much discussion of the report (here: https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/questionable-counting/) on mn or in real life. It includes some serious criticism on both the way news sources are reporting the number of dead in Gaza and also on the way Hamas is calculating the number of dead. In 19% of news reports, the Hamas numbers were presented as undisputed and quoted without even citing a source. This is especially worry because it seems that there has been widespread miscounting to make it look like more people died (i.e. counting people who died before October 7th and people who died of natural causes as war dead) and misidentifying people to make it seem like more women and children died (i.e. more than one person with the first name Mohammed was recorded as a woman and adults have been recorded as children). 84% of publications also failed distinguish between combatant and civilian deaths. Whilst any death is obviously a tragedy, it seems like we should be relieved to hear things may not be nearly as bad as we have been lead to believe.

The last thread that had this report on was deleted.

The Andrew Jackson society have a serious agenda.

I must have missed that thread entirely! Sorry for the repeat.

It seems like a report from UK-based think tank should be up for discussion. It's registered with the Charity Commission and seems to be fully legal and above board. Why would it be banned to share their articles?

No one said it was banned, but the study is total rubbish.

I don't know why the thread was deleted.

And @ChangeyerNameyer , re the last line in your OP, things are as bad as they appear to be in Gaza. Some people will try very hard to deny the reality of what's happening, but it is happening.

@ChangeyerNameyer Biased source. Poor study design. At compete odds with the BMJ and any other proper scientific studies or models. Hamas run health ministry figures generally quite reliable in previous wars. Satellite imagery consistent. Pulverised bodies not counted. Buried bodies not counted. Families wiped out and not registered dead.Israelis scouring social media for evidence of those reported dead , drones everywhere ditto. No heartwarming stories from “Mohammad in Bohola thought his uncle was dead but was overjoyed to learn that he is enjoying chicken kebabs on the beach” or Fatima in London speaks to the sister Hamas said was dead etc etc.

No, these people are gone forever, their relatives can only hope that they will meet in the next life.

I don't know enough about social studies to be qualified to critic the study, so I'd be really interested to hear what makes you think it's poor quality? Hamas is a terrorist organisation which has historically lied quite a lot about a broad range of things, and has a strong incentive to make things (and make things sound) as terrible as possible, so it isn't beyond possibility that the numbers are intentionally wrong, although I don't think wrong numbers are proof of intentionally lying. I'm sure it's very easy to read / write e.g. 4 instead of 34 in the heat of the moment.
From the report, it seems like they looked at the ID numbers of the people reported dead and saw that the data recorded with the death does not match the data recorded with that person, e.g. the date of birth shows that they were in their 20s but the death is recorded as a young child. What is wrong with using that as a method?

Israel has historically lied too.

Things are as terrible as possible.

Do you genuinely think a biased survey that has shown in the heat of war a couple of numbers and dates of birth were misrecorded overrides the hours of testimony from doctors/charity workers on the ground or the footage of devastation we have seen?

Seriously.

I don’t doubt that both Israel and Hamas have lied in the past. I'm pretty sure this is a British source though, not an Israeli one. It seems to be a UK-based, charity / think tank, written in English and Andrew Fox is (as far as I can tell from google) British. I haven’t seen any sources for statistics other than Hamas and the IDF, so this seems to be the most neutral option I’ve come across.

I am inclined to believe studies over anecdotes because the anecdotes which people share most often are the ones with the best narratives, not the ones which are most representative of the broader situation. It’s why we’ve all heard about that neighbour whose sister’s son got autism from a vaccine, even though the studies consistently show that vaccines don’t cause autism.

If this report is even partly true, it’s much more than just a few miscounted individuals, it’s thousands of dead combatants counted as dead children and tens of thousands fewer deaths than we thought. That’s huge and would be great news.

Co-founder Matthew Jamison, who now works for YouGov, wrote in 2017 that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups". He claimed that "The HJS for many years has relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam".[63]

Maybe Israel should let journalists and NGOs in and they could count the dead bodies

Just to be clear, is your concern that it is demonising Muslims or Islam to hold news sources in the west to higher standards regarding the accuracy of numbers they share and analysis of sources? I’m not sure I understand the point you're making. If that is your point, it’s seems wrong. If the BBC (for example), was reporting the IDF’s numbers without analysis, it wouldn’t be antisemitic to say “there are some issues with this source”? Hamas are legally defined as terrorists in Europe. It seems plausible that they have a vested interest in using the data to give a false impression, and it seems like there is pretty good evidence that have successfully done that. Even if you think the researchers were motivated to research this field by ignorance or hatred, if their research is sound then we should look at the implications.

Perhaps if independent observers and journalists were allowed in then the matter would be cleared up. Equally I'm fairly sure that if all medical resources are destroyed then there's going be a reasonable impact on the life expectancy of the population. Especially if there's a war going on. One thing is sure, thousands of children have been killed and maimed.

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. 🤔

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for clarification.

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.

What you say makes sense.

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.