IDF confirms some 70,000 Gazans died in war, none from starvation.

[Twiglets1]

Article in The Jerusalem Post:

The IDF, for the first time on Wednesday, confirmed that approximately 70,000 Gazans were killed during the Israel-Hamas War, while disputing the percentage of civilian deaths claimed by the UN and declaring that no healthy persons died from starvation.

While various international groups have claimed that the overwhelming majority of those who died were civilians, the IDF continues to contest that number and has said that around 25,000 were Hamas terrorists. Further, the IDF has presented evidence that, through early 2024 – the period when Hamas was firing large daily rocket salvos – around 13% of their rockets were misfires, leading to the killing of many Palestinians.

There have also been other periods of time where Hamas executed large numbers of Palestinians whom it viewed as political opponents or civilians whom it was trying to prevent from fleeing an area that the IDF said needed to be evacuated. While the IDF said on Thursday that it is working on a fuller evaluation of the breakdown of civilians to combatants and estimates of those killed by Hamas, no Israeli official has provided a set estimate on that to date.

No date was given for when this breakdown will be publicized, suggesting that it will not be in the near future.

Estimates by international organizations and some media have said that as many as around 450 Palestinians have died of starvation, but the IDF on Thursday said these numbers are a mix of fake statistics or include persons who suffered from dangerous health conditions prior to the war.

IDF sources noted cases where they spoke to humanitarian aid officials who claimed that two specific children had died, but the military was able to quickly establish that they were actually still alive.

There were also multiple other cases in which the global media graphically documented children whose bodies appeared contorted and who eventually died, with the military later clarifying that they had serious pre-war health conditions that had already caused their distorted-looking appearance.

The IDF has not given a more detailed, comprehensive counter-claim regarding the list of persons the UN claims starved to death, but is expected to give significant information confidentially to the International Court of Justice on March 12.

More broadly, the IDF has said that UN aid officials in the field have admitted that their headquarters political bosses invented or exaggerated the food insecurity in Gaza in order to pressure Israel into ending the war earlier. IDF officials have also admitted that there was a food insecurity crisis in July-August 2025, but said they acted rapidly enough at the time in increasing the volume of food aid trucks to avoid a starvation crisis.

According to the IDF, throughout the war, 112,000 aid trucks were brought into Gaza, including 1,700,000 tons of food, as well as 1,800,000 tents and tarpaulin covers. During this time, 600,000 children received polio vaccinations.

Currently, 16 field hospitals are operating, and over the course of the war, 9,600 tons of medical items have been brought into Gaza.

During the same period, 5,000 international aid workers entered the Strip, while 42,000 Gazans exited to a third country to receive health treatment or travel using their dual citizenship status.

www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-884905

Why on earth would anyone believe whatever the IDF say?

And this thread title is abhorrent.

Its as if "well that's all right then" is the logical conclusion to reply to that sentence.

This is deceptive. The UNGA has repeatedly passed the same resolution that has been repeatedly vetoed by the US at the UNSC. Each time it is vetoed the US says why, they go back and edit the resolution to please the US and each time the US comes up with a new reason to veto the UNGA resolution.

When you look at actual resolutions involving Israel that pass the UNSC, it’s very very few. There would be far fewer UNGA resolutions if they weren’t being purposely blocked.

The other countries don’t have a permanent member of the UNSC vetoing every resolution put forward by the UNGA. That’s the reason for the disconnect.

No where does it say uniformed. The way you tell the difference is whether the person is armed or unarmed.

Why does the title imply 'that's alright then'? Who is ok with 70,000 deaths? But who would not think it was a good thing that no otherwise healthy people died of starvation?

That’s kind of ableist to say it’s good that no “healthy” people died of starvation when the first people to die due to starvation are always the vulnerable- children, infants, elderly, pregnant mothers, disabled.

It’s like you’re erasing all the deaths that were absolutely caused by starvation because they were not perfectly healthy not pregnant adults in the prime of life.

How are you defining “healthy”? Newborns were (and may well still be) dying because their mothers were too malnourished to breastfeed, and Israel were stopping infant formula from coming into Gaza. I’m pretty sure no one would think that was a positive?!

No its not erasing deaths. Who is erasing them? Its correcting the propaganda that there was widespread famine and starvation. There are always premature deaths in a conflict situation. That is a materially different thing to widespread famine and starvation across the pipulation as a whole. Noone is saying any deaths were a good thing but why would you not want factual accuracy?

I didn’t see any “propaganda” from the UN and other NGOs.
They have been accurately reporting on the food status of Gaza.
Not once did they ever say famine was “widespread”

Are you kidding me? The UN had to pull back from Tom Fletcher's claim that 14000 babies were going to die in 48 hours. There was a very strong narrative of widespread famine.

That's kind of hard to tell from a distance, though...?

I'm just musing out loud, this is a philosophical question rather than a legalistic one. As they stand, the "rules" don't seem fit for purpose regarding the Gazan conflict.

They’re agreeing to that number because the real number is much much higher. To deny that no one died from starvation when there’s evidence of babies dying is despicable.

One official said something that wasn’t accurate which was quickly overturned by his employer. That’s not propaganda.

They’ll stop denying the starvation eventually too.

Why such a grr reaction your question was regarding Hamas being embedded in the population and when in history has it happened and I answer it did happen in the Irish War of Independence, that was the only parallel I drew between the two. You went off on a tangent about any other similarities which I never mentioned. (Presumably to encourage the extreme anti Irish sentiment by many posters)

I haven't fallen for any Hamas propaganda whatsoever, civilians were put into danger by combatants in 1920 voluntarily or not so it has happened in history before.

I can't imagine why this is justification for a large scale slaughter when Hamas are "embedded" in an area with a similar population density to London.

Babies are dying of hypothermia now, enough aid still not getting in, babies don’t do well in tents in freezing weather and pouring rain. The horror continues.

As for a “very strong narrative” what is emerging now is that reports of starvation were being actively suppressed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/exclusive-early-warning-apocalyptic-wasteland-060114418.html?

Well it seems that the world is topsy turvey and the pro Pals are enraged at the suggestion that famine was not a feature of the war in Gaza.

Shouldn’t that be a positive thing?

But no it’s a negative because it casts Israel in a better light that actually there was sufficient food entering Gaza during the war.

My question was "Given the way Hamas operates, has anyone ever known a "war" like this? I can't think of any historical equivalents...?" What you gave was by no means an equivalent, apart from some emotional similarities.

I can't imagine why this is justification for a large scale slaughter when Hamas are "embedded" in an area with a similar population density to London.

Well, given the circumstances you acknowledge, I think if "large-scale slaughter" had been Israel's intention, it would have resulted in more than ~3% deaths.

Oh, yes the denial of a war crime having happened must always be a good thing? No?

Recall how infuriating the denial of Hamas’ rapes and sexual violence during the massacre and to the hostages was?

Imagine now, someone saying why are you enraged at the suggestion Hamas didn’t rape, shouldn’t that be a positive thing?

The truth is what matters and the rage comes from ANY denial of the truth of war crimes no matter who has done them.

If you want to say 3% killed by IDF wasn’t a “large scale slaughter” (massacre), then Hamas’ attack can’t be either given they killed 0.01% of Israelis.

And now do you see the problem with your approach of using % of population as a proxy for not only intentions but also impact.

It was an equivalent to this quote, your rhetorical question, nothing to do with motivations or the likes but simply the nature of the conflict.

"Yes, but the law of armed conflict assumes that combatants will protect their own civilians, not expose them to as much risk as possible. It also assumes that they will be visible and uniformed."

But look you changed the goalposts with the extremely long AI post so we will agree to disagree .

Or Iranians.

If we start ignoring international bodies like the IPC using standard formulas because it doesn't suit the narrative we are in dangerous territory.

Out of interest, what do you mean by “the pro Pals”? Could you clarify? Do you mean people who care about and speak up for the Palestinian population? Presumably you would say you care about Palestinian people? So do you count yourself as pro Pal?

You know as well as I do what is meant by pro Pal in this context.

Anti Israel might be more accurate in the majority of cases but they don’t like that for some reason.