Israeli military’s own data indicates civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza war

[GladioliGreen]

Utterly shocking, an astonishingly high civillian death toll. As of May this year only 8,900 fighters were killed.

That apparent ratio of civilians to combatants among the dead is extremely high for modern warfare, even compared with conflicts notorious for indiscriminate killing, including the Syrian and Sudanese civil wars.

www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war

I can't see a post that would give me, a non specialist, enough evidence to make that judgement no. And I doubt that anyone here, also non specialists, can either. Its a funny thing about this conflict, suddenly everyone's an expert in things they actually know nothing about.

I see you don’t work in law.

The term “war crime” isn’t spin- it’s a legally defined concept under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute.

Deliberately targeting civilians, starving a population, bombing hospitals, and collective punishment are all explicitly listed. These aren’t “grey areas”, they’re some of the clearest prohibitions in international humanitarian law.

You don’t need to be a specialist. UN agencies, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the ICC, and Médecins Sans Frontières have all documented Israel targeting civilians and committing war crimes. That’s the evidence; you don’t need insider expertise to read it.

Oh, and these are well-established, independent international organisations with decades of experience documenting human rights violations worldwide, not “Hamas supporters.” Their reports are based on field investigations, witness testimony, and satellite imagery, not ideology.

You don’t need to be a specialist. UN agencies, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the ICC, and Médecins Sans Frontières have all documented Israel targeting civilians and committing war crimes. That’s the evidence; you don’t need insider expertise to read it.

Oh, and these are well-established, independent international organisations with decades of experience documenting human rights violations worldwide, not “Hamas supporters.” Their reports are based on field investigations, witness testimony, and satellite imagery, not ideology.

Explain then what is a war crime and we can see if Israel has committed them or not?

I'm not your Google..

Start by having a look at the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and the Genevation Conventions..not just the headline points but also the various caveats,.

Probably one of the most mportant ones in this conflict is what happens to some of the protections treaties/laws provide for civilians if one side in a conflict chooses to embed combatants within the civilian population.

Bomb dropped, non-combants killed is truely truely dreadful and the ICC and others may take an interest but it is not automatically a war crime.

I’m aware of the “embedded combatants” caveat. International humanitarian law does not give carte blanche to deliberately target civilians simply because combatants are operating among them. Even if fighters hide in homes, schools, or hospitals, the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants remains, and civilians must never be intentionally targeted.

Repeated attacks on civilian areas, destruction of hospitals, and starvation imposed on millions of non-combatants go well beyond any legal justification and squarely fall within the actions the Geneva Conventions and Rome Statute warn against. So while embedded combatants are a complicating factor, they do not nullify the protections civilians are entitled to under international law.

@Wedonttalkaboutboris

I've no argument with that as an overview, I do have an argument with those that try to label pretty much everything the IDF has done since Oct 23 as a war crime.

The "oh, look, war crimes" nonsense from some started pretty much day one of the Israeli repsonse (use of Phosphorous muntions, no it's not automatically a war crime) and has continued ever since.

I mean there seems to be a massive issue with bombs being dropped and no combatants at all being killed in these bombings? Even if you believe Israels 'we've killed 22000 militants but have no idea who they are' story the number of 'targets' hit by bombs far exceeds the number of militants killed. So what are these 'targets' that are worth so many civillians lives, limbs, homes, businesses and infrastructure?

Attackers must take feasible steps to minimize civilian harm(choosing precise weapons, timing attacks when civilians are not present), that is international law, if there are no militants there is the only way to destroy these 'targets' to drop massive bombs and take out, sometimes, whole families with them? Even if a target is military, an attack is unlawful if the expected civilian harm would be excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage.

There have been 1000s and 1000s of bombs dropped that haven't killed any militants at all, they've killed almost as many children as the number of militants they claim to have killed. To say we are continually told that Hamas are using civillians as 'human shields' they seem to be emerging completely unscathed from a lot of these bombings by Israels own admission.

As you well know, its not that simple. All those organisations have been found to be credulous when assessing evidence coming from Hamas. Them saying something is not evidence and of course you need expert knowledge to assess it. This thread started with somone saying that because the data says that 17% of those killed are known to the Israelis as militants the remainder are civilians. We are all expert enough to see that is not what the data shows, without further evidence.

You're absolutely right. 💯

Ah the good old google it yourself.
I know full well what a war crime is and no matter how you dress is up with caveats Israel is commiting many.

Just a small sample
-Attacks on civilians https://x.com/gazanotice/status/1957056090425942103 (Trigger warning distressing content)

-Cruel Treatment and Torture https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/feb/25/israel-gaza-doctors-surgeons-healthcare-detention-international-law

-Sexual violence https://news.sky.com/story/video-appears-to-show-idf-soldiers-sexually-abusing-palestinian-detainee-13193857

• Deliberate population displacement (I think I don't need a link to that it is well documented)

-Starvation https://www.thejournal.ie/famine-declared-un-gaza-6796588-Aug2025/

Now it goes without saying Hamas is guilty also of all these war crimes plus the hostages one. But that doesn't mean Israel isn't.

OP, I'm afraid logic and facts will do nothing to shake the atavistic loyalty some on this board show to the Israeli state and its actions, nor will it persuade them to see Palestinians as fully human or their lives as having value.

What do you mean by atavistic loyalty and who is displaying it?
The pushback against the op was her analysis of the data. Her conclusion was not supported by the data. It was not logical or factual.
Loyalty or otherwise to Israel has nothing to do with it.

It's certainly interesting to see how the Guardian's use, and dare I say it, abuse of the stats quickly got ignored.

I don't know why anyone, whatever the side, is surprised with such statistics. This is war.

Hamas are stuck in a small area, with few areas of protection. Their only protection to keep on digging is indeed that of mixing with the population. Israel has no choice to fight their war and get rid of Hamas but to go for the population.

If Hamas were to congregate away from the population, they would all be decimated very quickly, defeating their cause.

If Israel excludes Gaza civilians, they won't defeat Hamas making this war pointless.

Hence this war going on for months on end and poor innocent people being stuck in the middle with no escape from a life of utter misery reminiscent of...

No one (certainly not me) said everything the IDF does is a war crime.
What I’ve called out as unlawful are specific, documented actions, for which the legal prohibitions are very clear:

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare (cutting food, water, fuel, and blocking/looting aid). Prohibited under API art. 54 and the Rome Statute.
• Collective punishment of a civilian population (e.g., area-wide sanctions/closures untethered to individual responsibility). Prohibited under GC IV art. 33.
• Indiscriminate and/or disproportionate strikes in densely populated areas (strikes that cannot or do not distinguish civilians, or where expected civilian harm is excessive vs. concrete military advantage). IHL principles of distinction and proportionality.
• Attacks on protected sites and personnel: hospitals, ambulances, medical workers, UN schools/shelters and clearly-marked aid convoys—absent proof of loss of protection and with required warnings/precautions.
• Obstructing humanitarian relief (denying or arbitrarily restricting life-saving aid and safe passage). IHL duty to allow and facilitate rapid, unimpeded relief.
• Forced displacement without safe routes, adequate shelter, food, water, and medical care; evacuations that move people from danger to danger.
• Torture/inhuman treatment and abusive detention, including of children (beatings, stress positions, sexual abuse, denial of due process). Absolutely prohibited at all times.

On white phosphorus: you’re right that its mere use isn’t automatically a war crime. But using WP in or near populated areas in ways that cause unnecessary suffering or are indiscriminate would violate IHL. That’s the issue people flagged.

So, no, not “everything.” These are the categories I (and many legal/humanitarian bodies) have been talking about.

We have seen a UN 'rapporteur' say hamas are elected and not that bad

MSF doctors have had articles published in Aljazeera ahttps://www.aljazeera.com/video/quotable/2025/6/25/in-gaza-illusion-of-humanitarianism-is-new-phase-in-genocide

www.aljazeera.com/author/james-smith

We've seen another activist a Dr Mayhard wear a Keffiyeh whilst doing a presentation.

There's Amnesty International saying the palestine action arrests were 'disproportionate' seemingly not bothered or not understanding the law regarding supporting proscribed groups.

So yeah, these 'recognised independent' groups aren't particularly neutral are they?!

I of course see gazans as fully human and agree they should be protected by hamas, but they aren't the terrorists do not care about the population in the slightest.

This isn't about being pro anyone it is about being 100% against a terrorist state.

I wonder if some of you thought isis should have had a state and were as outraged when territories they 'held' were flattened to get rid of them?

Saying “Israel has no choice but to hit the population” is exactly what international humanitarian law forbids.

• Civilians are never a legitimate target. Even if fighters embed in urban areas, the laws of war still require distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions. “They hide among civilians” doesn’t waive those duties.
• Starvation, siege tactics on essentials, and mass displacement are prohibited methods of warfare. You can’t make 2+ million people suffer to get at a few thousand fighters.
• There are choices: intelligence-led raids/arrests, tightly scoped operations tied to verified targets, real evacuation routes and safe zones that actually stay safe, sustained de-confliction for hospitals/aid, opening crossings so civilians can move and aid can flow, and negotiating swaps/mediated demobilisation. None are easy—but “not easy” isn’t “no choice.”
• Months of area bombing show strategy, not inevitability. The scale of civilian harm, destroyed infrastructure, blocked aid, and repeated strikes on protected sites aren’t accidental byproducts; they flow from operational choices that law and basic ethics are meant to constrain.

Framing mass civilian harm as unavoidable normalises the very conduct the Geneva Conventions were written to prevent.

I really do wish posters would stop spamming the threads, with repetitive information. It's almost like we are being programmed to comply.

Pointing out international law isn’t ‘spam’, it’s context.

If the facts feel repetitive, that’s because the violations are repetitive.

Ignoring them doesn’t make them disappear

Maybe if posters engaged when presented with facts instead of just ignoring the posts they wouldn't have to be repeated.

Context went out the window, long ago.