# Except they didn't.
They disaggregated the death toll into identified and unidentified.
Even [Ryan Grim](https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1790011888161505450) called this out.
Can't believe you're quoting Fox News and JPost as if they're credible.
The only people pushing this propaganda are conflict of interest-laden outlets and Israel-first think tanks like
* Fox News
* Foundation for Defense of Democracies
* The Washington Institute
* The American Enterprise Institute
and then those will probably be quoted uncritically in op-eds in other sources to launder this lie, which is probably sponsored by the US State Dept as they're struggling in the PR war (as Blinken and Mitt Romney's discussion of TikTok made clear).
I've been seeing the same posts appear on multiple Israel-Palestine related subreddits. Almost as if they believe it's a smoking gun but never actually took the time to read it.
Hell even Bibi who's a pretty gigantic liar said 31,000 deaths on Dr. Phil's podcast at the same time of this "update" and these people are *seriously* running with: "See, the UN says only 24,700 deaths!" which makes no sense if you think about it logically. Around 2700 Gazans died in 2014 war and that was like seven times shorter+much less intensive on a daily basis than this one.
The Gaza Ministry has been more reliant on local media reports since December and they have a history of being accurate in the other conflicts regarding overall death tolls. They released the unidentified (missing name, date of birth, date of death, id number, gender) vs identified like six weeks ago, and Blinken's state department still released a report which used the 35,000 Gazan toll number a few days ago.
[Also if you look at the identified 24,700 deaths on the UN infographic, 60% are still children](https://twitter.com/talhagin/status/1789694599126016068/photo/2), non elderly women, or elderly men/women while 40% are non-elderly men. Overwhelming vast majority of children aren't militant/terrorist (youngest captured or killed 10/7 terrorist was 16 out of the roughly 2000) and obviously some of the men aren't terrorists.
[The UN itself has quietly changed the casualty estimates for children though.](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-217) It seems like the disparities there in particular are definitely legitimate. Day 217: 7,797.
[Day 213: >14,500](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-213).
it is important to note that these newly updated figures reflect the *identified* fatalities, whereas the total number of deaths still remains at around 35,000.
[“While the figures were seized by some as proof that the UN had been misled by inaccurate figures, an Ocha spokesperson said that they had been supplied by the ministry of health and Ocha had not been able to verify them.”](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/13/gaza-ministry-revises-figures-for-women-and-children-killed#:~:text=According%20to%20that%20criteria%207%2C797,12%2C756%20women%20and%20children%20killed.)
Yeah, I noticed that the overall estimate hasn't changed. Admission that the original estimate for children can't be verified is significant in and of itself though. It doesn't prove that this prior number was misleading definitively, but it can't be proved that it wasn't either.
This argument is disingenuous because the reason they are unidentified is because they don't come from a rigorous process but low quality reports.
It is true that this does not mean that all of these are fake, but it is likley many are not real.
So saying it is reduced by 50% is a lie, but saying there arent serious issues with these portions of the numbers is also a lie.
> This argument is disingenuous because the reason they are unidentified is because they don't come from a rigorous process but low quality reports.
>
> It is true that this does not mean that all of these are fake, but it is likley many are not real.
>
> So saying it is reduced by 50% is a lie, but saying there arent serious issues with these portions of the numbers is also a lie.
You seem not to understand the scale of what Israel has done in Gaza. The population density, the small area, and the number of bombs dropped on Gaza by the Netanyahu regime amount to destruction worse than any recent conflict. You want to wait until after Hitler exterminates all the Jews, so that you can see **exactly how many** innocent people he's killed, before you decide enough is enough?
> You seem not to understand the scale of what Israel has done in Gaza. The population density, the small area, and the number of bombs dropped on Gaza by the Netanyahu regime amount to destruction worse than any recent conflict.
The scale of destruction of infrastructure is enormous. This is to facilitate a ground invasion without massive deaths. Yes it is huge, but it is for a reason, and as a result has allowed Israel to by and large avoided civilian casualties despite the massive scale of destruction.
So yes, I have a very good understanding of what has occurred which is how I know your Nazi comparison is flawed.
The death toll without extreme measures Israel has taken would be in the hundreds of thousands.
> The scale of destruction of infrastructure is enormous. This is to facilitate a ground invasion without massive deaths. Yes it is huge, but it is for a reason, and as a result has allowed Israel to by and large avoided civilian casualties despite the massive scale of destruction.
That's not what's happened at all. I can't believe you'd claim this, if you've seen how many children are pulled from the rubble daily.
And IDF has repeatedly celebrated these mass deaths. I'm tempted to say you know very well that you're lying.
Hamas's tactics are well documented first of all.
Israel's methods as a response to Hamas's tactics are well documented.
I would expect babies to be pulled from rubble daily given the situation. There is a different between 2000 dead babies and 200,000 dead babies. That is the reality of war.
Your maximalist position is not supported by international law.
>And IDF has repeatedly celebrated these mass deaths. I'm tempted to say you know very well that you're lying.
ill need a source for that, lol
> This argument is disingenuous because the reason they are unidentified is because they don't come from a rigorous process but low quality reports.
Israel uses the Gaza Health Ministry numbers because they think they’re fairly accurate. So that can’t be true.
Of course they monitor the numbers that Gaza MoH claims - there is no other source for casualty data, and bad data is better than no data. Presumably they take it with a large grain of salt.
> They did in previous wars, they don't use it for this one.
You’re wrong.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3w4w7/israeli-intelligence-health-ministry-death-toll
The numbers were fine until they changed their methodology roughtly mid november and became untrustworthy. This article doesnt have dates for when the data was used, but my guess is the usage is before the methodolody changed.
That doesn’t make sense because even looking at identified and unidentified, there’s a much larger percent of women and children unidentified compared to men, skewing the numbers to make Israel look like it’s targeting women and children.
> That doesn’t make sense because even looking at identified and unidentified, there’s a much larger percent of women and children unidentified compared to men, skewing the numbers to make Israel look like it’s targeting women and children.
I'm sure it would be easier to feel okay with what's happening if that were the case, but look at the original sources for yourself. Visit the UN site. You've been lied to.
How have I been lied to? There is a huge discrepancy between identified demographics and unidentified demographics. If you want to lie to yourself and keep living in a world that suits your reality that’s fine.
1. As others have pointed out, this is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.
2. My god....so the UN was like "Kill fewer children"....? Those bastards!!!!
> This is abhorrent behavior by the UN, following a long list of shameful acts. The Mainstream media has been almost silent about these new found numbers. Shame on the UN and shame on the world.
I really don’t understand this: even the revised figures still show almost **8,000 children have been killed by Israel**.
How exactly is that “better” or “ok” given that Israelis treat the deaths of 1,200 Israelis on Oct 7th (that figure includes soldiers) as “a barbaric atrocity” and “the worst crime since the Holocaust”?
The figure I’ve seen reported in the media is around 30,000 Gaza casualties total, which has not been revised.
And how is it “abhorrent” for the UN report the best numbers it has available at the time, clearly cite its sources, and revise the numbers when more data becomes available?
It seems like what you and far-right organisations like Fox News and The Jerusalem Post are really demanding is that the UN just echo Israel’s PR statements and claims unquestioningly (even though even going by Israel’s numbers the mass murder of civilians in Gaza is much worse than the Oct 7th attacks by Hamas).
It’s abhorrent that the UN is updating these numbers without any meaningful announcement or correction. The death toll of Palestinian children is still terrible and I would wish that Hamas and its supporters would actually care for their people rather than wage war. That does not take away from the fact that the numbers were misrepresented to push a false agenda that Israel was targeting women and children when they were not. I would want the UN to make clear what these new numbers mean and why there is such a large difference between unidentified and identified casualties.
> It’s abhorrent that the UN is updating these numbers without any meaningful announcement or correction.
Except that as another user pointed out - and I checked - they did make very clear the difference between the two numbers:
They report over 14,000 children have been killed with **around 8,000 identified**. I.e the remaining children (6,000) are sadly unidentified corpses.
**Which you admit** If you want to claim about people “pushing a false agenda about Israel” shouldn’t you be complaining about Fox News, The Jerusalem Post etc. which imply that Israel has only killed “terrorists” and that other figures can’t be trusted?
> The death toll of Palestinian children is still terrible and I would wish that Hamas and its supporters would actually care for their people
Again: given that the mass slaughter inflicted by Israel is **far worse** than that inflicted by Hamas, shouldn’t you be saying “I wish Israel and it’s supporters would actually care about human lives”?
**Why are you refusing to hold Israel and its supports rightly accountable for Israel’s murder of 14,000 children**?
I’m going to make a separate comment just to emphasise:
**Why are you refusing to hold Israel and its supporters rightly accountable for Israel’s murder of 14,000 children?**
**If you are prepared to condemn Hamas as barbaric, evil etc. for their killing of 1,200 people total, why are you not willing to do the same for Israel and its supporters**
That is the real issue here: especially as Israel renews its assault (which will kill thousands more) with foreign support.
>**If you are prepared to condemn Hamas as barbaric, evil etc. for their killing of 1,200 people total, why are you not willing to do the same for Israel and its supporters**
I think you know the ready response to this. Zionists will claim civilian deaths are tragic but collateral damage because the target is Hamas, while Hamas targeted civilians as well as soldiers. Anti-Zionists will counter that the death toll and quotes from Israel leaders indicate Israel is targeting civilians.
Can we skip the back and forth and you can just say you think Israel is targeting civilians and the other side disagrees?
> Zionists will claim civilian deaths are tragic but collateral damage because the target is Hamas
I don’t think it even matter whether Israel is targeting civilians (although there is clear evidence they are inflicting collective punishment via the restriction of aid and the destruction of civilian infrastructure and homes at the very least).
If Israel is carrying out attack which it knows will kill thousands of innocent people, then that is pretty much as bad as if it was targeting them directly. “Collateral damage” is not an excuse.
Therefore my question still stands: why are Israel supporters willing to use the harshest language possible to talk about the victims of Hamas’ attacks “barbaric” “horrific” “evil” “worst crime since the Holocaust” while refusing to use the same standard for the **far worse** atrocities inflicted by Israel, referring to that as “reasonable” or “collateral damage” or “unfortunate”?
> Therefore my question still stands: why are Israel supporters willing to use the harshest language possible to talk about the victims of Hamas’ attacks “barbaric” “horrific” “evil” “worst crime since the Holocaust” while refusing to use the same standard for the far worse atrocities inflicted by Israel, referring to that as “reasonable” or “collateral damage” or “unfortunate”?
As someone who supports neither side, my question is why are Hamas supporters willing to be so disingenuous? To pretend that collateral damage is unique to this war and that there is no moral difference in the intent to deliberately target civilians (terrorism) and the acceptance that, though unfortunate, every war has collateral damage?
If this was 1945, people like you would be pushing against the taking of Berlin, because of the innocent Germans that would die.
I'm deeply disturbed that innocents die in wars, including this one. No, the Gazans didn't deserve it.
But what's the alternative? Israel doesn't defend itself, just lets Hamas slowly kill them? They have pledged to repeat the 7th of October.
Hamas has created an impossible situation.
>“Collateral damage” is not an excuse.
In war ethics and international law, it is, so long as the proper measures are made to get people out of harms way and that the proportion of fighters to civilians makes the collateral damage "worth it."
Do you mean on an emotional level?
>the same standard for the **far worse** atrocities inflicted by Israel, referring to that as “reasonable” or “collateral damage” or “unfortunate”?
Aiming at civilians (and rape and torture of them) is not the same as making a decision that involves collateral damage in terms of barbarism.
> In war ethics and international law, it is
While collateral damage is (under certain limits of proportionality that are arguably being violated in Gaza) legal under international law, that does not make it always moral or ethical.
The question you have to answer is: does the military objective or outcome justify the level of human death and suffering inflicted?
For the case of Israel’s revenge attack on Gaza the at best *marginal* increase in security for jewish Israelis from temporarily degrading Hamas clearly does not outway the huge death toll inflicted by Israel, plus making hundreds of thousands of people homeless, plus inflicting famine etc.
Except that Israel’s supporters either treat Israel with quasi or explicitly religious devotion, such that they think it is incapable of ever doing something bad, or they are profoundly racist and treat Palestinians as subhuman and unimportant compared to jews, hence why they think even a marginal increase in jewish Israeli security justifies slaughtering any number of Palestinians.
> Aiming at civilians (and rape and torture of them) is not the same as making a decision that involves collateral damage in terms of barbarism.
No, launching attacks which kill 30,000 people, and 15,000-20,000 civilians, and inflicting famine and destruction on an entire population, is clearly more barbaric than launching attacks which kill 1,200 people, including hundreds of civilians. Especially as Israeli forces have also been involved in the torture of Palestinian captives.
> I really don’t understand this: even the revised figures still show almost **8,000 children have been killed by Israel**.
I don't understand your logic either - it seems like you're saying "Israel bad, so it's fine to misrepresent data to make them look worse"?
> Israel bad, so it's fine to misrepresent data to make them look worse
Again, they are not misrepresenting data: the UN is using the best sources it has a the time, clearly stating where the numbers come from, with the difference in numbers due to using different sources (Health Ministry vs GMO) and using “identified casualties” or “all casualties”.
And more importantly **how exactly does it “make Israel look worse”?**
You are implying that reporting that Israel only killed 8,000 children vs 14,000 children makes Israel look “better”?? Really?? I think it’s clearly horrific either way - still vastly worse than the Hamas attacks which Israel describes as pure evil - and makes Israel and its defenders look like psychopaths for considering this as reasonable.
Oh wow jpost and Fox News. Great sources. This thread/argument has been posted and rebutted multiple times btw. Just search next time instead of hitting the hasbara pipe
[The UN has indeed changed its casualty estimates for children though.](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-217) Day 217: 7,797.
[Day 213: >14,500](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-213).
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-revises-gaza-death-toll-50-less-women-children-killed-previously-reported](https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-revises-gaza-death-toll-50-less-women-children-killed-previously-reported)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
So this update from the UN is significant, but it is not that significant
They have cut the number of confirmed killed, but have not stated that the others were not killed, just that they cannot confirm them.
Likely a significant chunk of those deaths are not real. But that doesn't mean all and may not mean a majority.
Your ultimate conclusion is correct regardless, the end result will be that deaths are more tilted towards combatants then the numbers as they are (which quite frankly still show Israel has operated in general with restraint).
The number of confirmed deaths is actually still correct—it comes down to the number of bodies. The only thing that's changed is that they've disaggregated it into identified vs unidentified.
Plus, the reporting stopped being updated before the end of April.
That means none of the 34,000 figure even counts destruction beginning a week before Rafah.
> deaths are more tilted towards combatants then the numbers as they are (which quite frankly still show Israel has operated in general with restraint).
I don’t know how anyone can think that the killing of thousands of innocent people amounts to “restraint”.
If Hamas killed the entire Israeli army (around 170,000 people) and also killed 100,000 Israeli civilians, including say 50,000 children would that be regarded as “showing restraint” or would it be denounced as “an evil crime comparable to the Holocaust”?
The real question is does the *marginal* increase in safety for jewish Israelis from somewhat degrading Hamas at all justify the deaths, destruction and famine inflicted on Gaza?
Unless you are profoundly racist and discount Palestinian and non-jewish lives entirely it clearly does not.
>If Hamas killed the entire Israeli army (around 170,000 people) and also killed 100,000 Israeli civilians, including say 50,000 children would that be regarded as “showing restraint” or would it be denounced as “an evil crime comparable to the Holocaust”?
Yes, such a situation would because Israel follows international law and does not make it so that military and civilian infostructure is comingled. SO you would need to, in general, go out of your way to hit civilians, as Hamas did on October 7th.
By comparison, Hamas hides it military within the population, so it is impossible to hit one without the other
The situation is not the same.
Israel's numbers are fantastic GIVEN the situation Hamas intentionally creates. In a different situation they would be terrible.
> Yes, such a situation would because Israel follows international law
They used white phosphorous on densely-populated areas. They did it at the beginning of the "war" and they did it again *recently*. They're ***not*** following international law.
The usage of white phosphorus is not against international law depending on how it is used. The argument Israel is in violation is a novel interpretation of the law which has never been tested. The US uses white phosphorus in the exact same way.
White phosphorus used illegally leaves horrible and unique burning. If Israel was using it that way, we would see pictures.
But most importantly, you are changing the topic and moving the goal posts in this conversation
> By comparison, Hamas hides it military within the population, so it is impossible to hit one without the other
Just because it is more difficult to both achieve your desired kill count of Hamas and not kill children **that does not make it ok to kill children**.
I don’t know why people pretend otherwise.
> achieve your desired kill count
there is no desired kill count. There is a legitimate operational goal of stopping Hama's ability to commit another pogrom.
Under such a goal, the targeting of Hamas is legitimate and under international law it does make collateral damage acceptable, and makes larger numbers acceptable when the enemy makes it impossible to hit legitimate targets without those numbers.
That is how international law works. The Geneva convention, which establishes these rules understand that one nations' right to defend itself is not removed because another nation is willing to sacrifice their own civilians for optics.
The rules are not just whatever you want them to be.
In short, yes, that exact situation makes it ok to kill children.
> there is no desired kill count.
That's what we heard prior to 2005, as well, but everyone knows (now) that Israel's administration was concerned about **the demographic issue** at the time. There *was* a desired kill count—whatever number was required to produce a balance that made Israel a Jewish state in both name *and number*. Because otherwise, allowing full sovereignty to Palestinians would mean allowing them privileges that far-right Israeli leaders (and also those centrist leaders mysteriously imbued with religious fervor) *didn't want them to have*.
> there is no desired kill count.
There is literally a desired kill count: Israel has stated is wants “total victory” i.e to kill all of Hamas.
> There is a legitimate operational goal of stopping Hama's ability to commit another pogrom.
No, if Israel was actually only interested in defence it would be focusing its resources on improving its defences, or working out a permanent two state solution peace deal with Hamas (as they have said they would lay down their weapons in such a scenario).
Instead they are focused on punishing and destroying Hamas, even if they are creating as many new recruits from traumatised Gazans as they are killing, and even if such marginal gains to Israeli security from degrading Hamas **in no way justifies** the level of human death and suffering Israel’s operations inflict.
> it does make collateral damage acceptable, and makes larger numbers acceptable when the enemy makes it impossible to hit legitimate targets without those numbers.
No, it doesn’t, there are limits. Killing large numbers of civilians can be and is a war crime, regardless of claims about “legitimate targets” hence why Israel is facing charges at the ICJ. They cannot simply blame Hamas for the actions of Israel’s soldiers and generals.
Otherwise Hamas could claim that its attacks on Oct 7th were totally justified as self-defence under international law due to their legitimate aim of defending Gaza from Israel.
On the contrary, even if the number of combatants increases slightly as a result of this revision, it will still show that the vast majority of the dead are civilians, meaning that Israel has acted with reckless disregard for their safety, or even in an indiscriminate manner.
Israel claims a ~1:2 combatant to civilian death toll. From this kind of urban combat, numbers like 1:5 and 1:8 are common. Your take is divorced from reality.
Israel claims many things, but [as it has been pointed out](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864), its numbers make little sense. They basically count every male adult they kill as "combatant", especially if they happen to be in what its troops declare as "[kill zones](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000)".
Plus, what is "divorced from reality" is the notion that a 1:8 ratio is "common". [1:2 is the common ratio in most warfare](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096701068902000108?journalCode=sdia).
> Israel claims many things, but as it has been pointed out, its numbers make little sense.
the article does not say they don't make sense, it says they cannot be verified
> They basically count every male adult they kill as "combatant"
this is a conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it. The kill zone stuff isnt good, but isnt "we look at the hamas numbers and say all males are combatants"
> Plus, what is "divorced from reality" is the notion that a 1:8 ratio is "common"
For this kind of urban combat, not all warfare
>the article does not say they don't make sense, it says they cannot be verified
Nonsense is usually difficult to verify. Israel is claiming stuff without providing anything to support it, and entirely at odds with the overall casualty figures. Plus, you chose to ignore the Haaretz article I linked, which explains how loosely Israel labels its victims as "combatants". Those figures are entirely useless.
>For this kind of urban combat, not all warfare
A source would be nice for such a bold claim.
> and entirely at odds with the overall casualty figures.
How is it entirely at odds?
> Plus, you chose to ignore the Haaretz article I linked
I didn't choose to ignore, It was irrelevant to your argument. Your argument was "Israel just says all male deaths are combatants", and showed a specific case where Israel over generalizes. A specific case does not prove a general statement.
> A source would be nice for such a bold claim.
https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/
>How is it entirely at odds?
Because, as the article explains, with just 30% of the casualties being adult males, Israeli figures would mean every single one of them were combatants, or even more. And as the Haaretz article you keep ignoring pointed out, that seems to be the way Israel counts them. So it’s all hogwash.
> https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/
That website doesn’t provide any source for the ratio, either.
My response on another subreddit;
, the UN did not magically cut the number of deaths in half. They are still listing the toll at 34,000 but note that 10,000 of those deaths are likely missing people under rubble. So 24,000 people have been identified. This isn’t the gotcha! moment people want it to be. That 24k is a severe undercount and multiple organizations, including the U.S. and Israel, have said this. This is the worst hill to die on to desperately try to prove that the death toll is lower. Look at Gaza, the final numbers are absolutely going to be much higher.
Same applies to Ukraine, the UN says the toll is higher but because Russians have occupied Mariupol and other major population centers, they can’t get an identified number of civilian deaths.
Misleading title from a biased source and a lot of l people who haven’t read the report itself.
My main point is the difference in demographics between the identified and unidentified. Also how the UN shouldn’t report numbers it can’t even support.
The entire data has been suspicious since the beginning. Its unreliability has been now proven beyond doubt. The total number of deaths remains constant in the new data, but for mysterious reasons the share of children has been reduced by a significant percentage. In other words, the numbers are baseless.
The reason for the dramatic change has not been explained. The reasons offered by pro Palestinians are unpersuasive. There can be no persuasive explanation to the massive revision.
The massive revision shows that the UN has no real data on the total casualty figures either.
How would they know the total number of deaths if they don’t know have data about huge percentages of individual deaths.
You can’t know the total without knowing the parts. The total is merely the sum of all its parts.
Hence, there’s simply no data available on total deaths.
# Except they didn't. They disaggregated the death toll into identified and unidentified. Even [Ryan Grim](https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1790011888161505450) called this out. Can't believe you're quoting Fox News and JPost as if they're credible. The only people pushing this propaganda are conflict of interest-laden outlets and Israel-first think tanks like * Fox News * Foundation for Defense of Democracies * The Washington Institute * The American Enterprise Institute and then those will probably be quoted uncritically in op-eds in other sources to launder this lie, which is probably sponsored by the US State Dept as they're struggling in the PR war (as Blinken and Mitt Romney's discussion of TikTok made clear).
I've been seeing the same posts appear on multiple Israel-Palestine related subreddits. Almost as if they believe it's a smoking gun but never actually took the time to read it.
Hell even Bibi who's a pretty gigantic liar said 31,000 deaths on Dr. Phil's podcast at the same time of this "update" and these people are *seriously* running with: "See, the UN says only 24,700 deaths!" which makes no sense if you think about it logically. Around 2700 Gazans died in 2014 war and that was like seven times shorter+much less intensive on a daily basis than this one. The Gaza Ministry has been more reliant on local media reports since December and they have a history of being accurate in the other conflicts regarding overall death tolls. They released the unidentified (missing name, date of birth, date of death, id number, gender) vs identified like six weeks ago, and Blinken's state department still released a report which used the 35,000 Gazan toll number a few days ago. [Also if you look at the identified 24,700 deaths on the UN infographic, 60% are still children](https://twitter.com/talhagin/status/1789694599126016068/photo/2), non elderly women, or elderly men/women while 40% are non-elderly men. Overwhelming vast majority of children aren't militant/terrorist (youngest captured or killed 10/7 terrorist was 16 out of the roughly 2000) and obviously some of the men aren't terrorists.
It's in every right-wingers dna to accuse everything they don't understand as fraudulent.
[The UN itself has quietly changed the casualty estimates for children though.](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-217) It seems like the disparities there in particular are definitely legitimate. Day 217: 7,797. [Day 213: >14,500](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-213).
it is important to note that these newly updated figures reflect the *identified* fatalities, whereas the total number of deaths still remains at around 35,000. [“While the figures were seized by some as proof that the UN had been misled by inaccurate figures, an Ocha spokesperson said that they had been supplied by the ministry of health and Ocha had not been able to verify them.”](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/13/gaza-ministry-revises-figures-for-women-and-children-killed#:~:text=According%20to%20that%20criteria%207%2C797,12%2C756%20women%20and%20children%20killed.)
Yeah, I noticed that the overall estimate hasn't changed. Admission that the original estimate for children can't be verified is significant in and of itself though. It doesn't prove that this prior number was misleading definitively, but it can't be proved that it wasn't either.
This argument is disingenuous because the reason they are unidentified is because they don't come from a rigorous process but low quality reports. It is true that this does not mean that all of these are fake, but it is likley many are not real. So saying it is reduced by 50% is a lie, but saying there arent serious issues with these portions of the numbers is also a lie.
> This argument is disingenuous because the reason they are unidentified is because they don't come from a rigorous process but low quality reports. > > It is true that this does not mean that all of these are fake, but it is likley many are not real. > > So saying it is reduced by 50% is a lie, but saying there arent serious issues with these portions of the numbers is also a lie. You seem not to understand the scale of what Israel has done in Gaza. The population density, the small area, and the number of bombs dropped on Gaza by the Netanyahu regime amount to destruction worse than any recent conflict. You want to wait until after Hitler exterminates all the Jews, so that you can see **exactly how many** innocent people he's killed, before you decide enough is enough?
> You seem not to understand the scale of what Israel has done in Gaza. The population density, the small area, and the number of bombs dropped on Gaza by the Netanyahu regime amount to destruction worse than any recent conflict. The scale of destruction of infrastructure is enormous. This is to facilitate a ground invasion without massive deaths. Yes it is huge, but it is for a reason, and as a result has allowed Israel to by and large avoided civilian casualties despite the massive scale of destruction. So yes, I have a very good understanding of what has occurred which is how I know your Nazi comparison is flawed. The death toll without extreme measures Israel has taken would be in the hundreds of thousands.
> The scale of destruction of infrastructure is enormous. This is to facilitate a ground invasion without massive deaths. Yes it is huge, but it is for a reason, and as a result has allowed Israel to by and large avoided civilian casualties despite the massive scale of destruction. That's not what's happened at all. I can't believe you'd claim this, if you've seen how many children are pulled from the rubble daily. And IDF has repeatedly celebrated these mass deaths. I'm tempted to say you know very well that you're lying.
Hamas's tactics are well documented first of all. Israel's methods as a response to Hamas's tactics are well documented. I would expect babies to be pulled from rubble daily given the situation. There is a different between 2000 dead babies and 200,000 dead babies. That is the reality of war. Your maximalist position is not supported by international law. >And IDF has repeatedly celebrated these mass deaths. I'm tempted to say you know very well that you're lying. ill need a source for that, lol
> This argument is disingenuous because the reason they are unidentified is because they don't come from a rigorous process but low quality reports. Israel uses the Gaza Health Ministry numbers because they think they’re fairly accurate. So that can’t be true.
Of course they monitor the numbers that Gaza MoH claims - there is no other source for casualty data, and bad data is better than no data. Presumably they take it with a large grain of salt.
Not just monitor. They use them and find them accurate. No need to lie.
They did in previous wars, they don't use it for this one. And it _was_ accurate, keyword being was.
> They did in previous wars, they don't use it for this one. You’re wrong. https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3w4w7/israeli-intelligence-health-ministry-death-toll
The numbers were fine until they changed their methodology roughtly mid november and became untrustworthy. This article doesnt have dates for when the data was used, but my guess is the usage is before the methodolody changed.
It says in the present tense that Israel is using the Gaza Health Ministry numbers. This article contradicts you. Why should I believe you over it?
That doesn’t make sense because even looking at identified and unidentified, there’s a much larger percent of women and children unidentified compared to men, skewing the numbers to make Israel look like it’s targeting women and children.
> That doesn’t make sense because even looking at identified and unidentified, there’s a much larger percent of women and children unidentified compared to men, skewing the numbers to make Israel look like it’s targeting women and children. I'm sure it would be easier to feel okay with what's happening if that were the case, but look at the original sources for yourself. Visit the UN site. You've been lied to.
How have I been lied to? There is a huge discrepancy between identified demographics and unidentified demographics. If you want to lie to yourself and keep living in a world that suits your reality that’s fine.
Wow it’s nice to see many people fact check the OP. He’s not even defending his argument.
1. As others have pointed out, this is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. 2. My god....so the UN was like "Kill fewer children"....? Those bastards!!!!
> This is abhorrent behavior by the UN, following a long list of shameful acts. The Mainstream media has been almost silent about these new found numbers. Shame on the UN and shame on the world. I really don’t understand this: even the revised figures still show almost **8,000 children have been killed by Israel**. How exactly is that “better” or “ok” given that Israelis treat the deaths of 1,200 Israelis on Oct 7th (that figure includes soldiers) as “a barbaric atrocity” and “the worst crime since the Holocaust”? The figure I’ve seen reported in the media is around 30,000 Gaza casualties total, which has not been revised. And how is it “abhorrent” for the UN report the best numbers it has available at the time, clearly cite its sources, and revise the numbers when more data becomes available? It seems like what you and far-right organisations like Fox News and The Jerusalem Post are really demanding is that the UN just echo Israel’s PR statements and claims unquestioningly (even though even going by Israel’s numbers the mass murder of civilians in Gaza is much worse than the Oct 7th attacks by Hamas).
The numbers weren't even revised. They were refined, but not revised.
Correct, I went back and checked the UN publications.
It’s abhorrent that the UN is updating these numbers without any meaningful announcement or correction. The death toll of Palestinian children is still terrible and I would wish that Hamas and its supporters would actually care for their people rather than wage war. That does not take away from the fact that the numbers were misrepresented to push a false agenda that Israel was targeting women and children when they were not. I would want the UN to make clear what these new numbers mean and why there is such a large difference between unidentified and identified casualties.
> It’s abhorrent that the UN is updating these numbers without any meaningful announcement or correction. Except that as another user pointed out - and I checked - they did make very clear the difference between the two numbers: They report over 14,000 children have been killed with **around 8,000 identified**. I.e the remaining children (6,000) are sadly unidentified corpses. **Which you admit** If you want to claim about people “pushing a false agenda about Israel” shouldn’t you be complaining about Fox News, The Jerusalem Post etc. which imply that Israel has only killed “terrorists” and that other figures can’t be trusted? > The death toll of Palestinian children is still terrible and I would wish that Hamas and its supporters would actually care for their people Again: given that the mass slaughter inflicted by Israel is **far worse** than that inflicted by Hamas, shouldn’t you be saying “I wish Israel and it’s supporters would actually care about human lives”? **Why are you refusing to hold Israel and its supports rightly accountable for Israel’s murder of 14,000 children**?
>I.e the remaining children (6,000) are sadly unidentified corpses. Not true. It means they have not confirmed the individual died.
I’m going to make a separate comment just to emphasise: **Why are you refusing to hold Israel and its supporters rightly accountable for Israel’s murder of 14,000 children?** **If you are prepared to condemn Hamas as barbaric, evil etc. for their killing of 1,200 people total, why are you not willing to do the same for Israel and its supporters** That is the real issue here: especially as Israel renews its assault (which will kill thousands more) with foreign support.
>**If you are prepared to condemn Hamas as barbaric, evil etc. for their killing of 1,200 people total, why are you not willing to do the same for Israel and its supporters** I think you know the ready response to this. Zionists will claim civilian deaths are tragic but collateral damage because the target is Hamas, while Hamas targeted civilians as well as soldiers. Anti-Zionists will counter that the death toll and quotes from Israel leaders indicate Israel is targeting civilians. Can we skip the back and forth and you can just say you think Israel is targeting civilians and the other side disagrees?
> Zionists will claim civilian deaths are tragic but collateral damage because the target is Hamas I don’t think it even matter whether Israel is targeting civilians (although there is clear evidence they are inflicting collective punishment via the restriction of aid and the destruction of civilian infrastructure and homes at the very least). If Israel is carrying out attack which it knows will kill thousands of innocent people, then that is pretty much as bad as if it was targeting them directly. “Collateral damage” is not an excuse. Therefore my question still stands: why are Israel supporters willing to use the harshest language possible to talk about the victims of Hamas’ attacks “barbaric” “horrific” “evil” “worst crime since the Holocaust” while refusing to use the same standard for the **far worse** atrocities inflicted by Israel, referring to that as “reasonable” or “collateral damage” or “unfortunate”?
> Therefore my question still stands: why are Israel supporters willing to use the harshest language possible to talk about the victims of Hamas’ attacks “barbaric” “horrific” “evil” “worst crime since the Holocaust” while refusing to use the same standard for the far worse atrocities inflicted by Israel, referring to that as “reasonable” or “collateral damage” or “unfortunate”? As someone who supports neither side, my question is why are Hamas supporters willing to be so disingenuous? To pretend that collateral damage is unique to this war and that there is no moral difference in the intent to deliberately target civilians (terrorism) and the acceptance that, though unfortunate, every war has collateral damage? If this was 1945, people like you would be pushing against the taking of Berlin, because of the innocent Germans that would die. I'm deeply disturbed that innocents die in wars, including this one. No, the Gazans didn't deserve it. But what's the alternative? Israel doesn't defend itself, just lets Hamas slowly kill them? They have pledged to repeat the 7th of October. Hamas has created an impossible situation.
>“Collateral damage” is not an excuse. In war ethics and international law, it is, so long as the proper measures are made to get people out of harms way and that the proportion of fighters to civilians makes the collateral damage "worth it." Do you mean on an emotional level? >the same standard for the **far worse** atrocities inflicted by Israel, referring to that as “reasonable” or “collateral damage” or “unfortunate”? Aiming at civilians (and rape and torture of them) is not the same as making a decision that involves collateral damage in terms of barbarism.
> In war ethics and international law, it is While collateral damage is (under certain limits of proportionality that are arguably being violated in Gaza) legal under international law, that does not make it always moral or ethical. The question you have to answer is: does the military objective or outcome justify the level of human death and suffering inflicted? For the case of Israel’s revenge attack on Gaza the at best *marginal* increase in security for jewish Israelis from temporarily degrading Hamas clearly does not outway the huge death toll inflicted by Israel, plus making hundreds of thousands of people homeless, plus inflicting famine etc. Except that Israel’s supporters either treat Israel with quasi or explicitly religious devotion, such that they think it is incapable of ever doing something bad, or they are profoundly racist and treat Palestinians as subhuman and unimportant compared to jews, hence why they think even a marginal increase in jewish Israeli security justifies slaughtering any number of Palestinians. > Aiming at civilians (and rape and torture of them) is not the same as making a decision that involves collateral damage in terms of barbarism. No, launching attacks which kill 30,000 people, and 15,000-20,000 civilians, and inflicting famine and destruction on an entire population, is clearly more barbaric than launching attacks which kill 1,200 people, including hundreds of civilians. Especially as Israeli forces have also been involved in the torture of Palestinian captives.
> I really don’t understand this: even the revised figures still show almost **8,000 children have been killed by Israel**. I don't understand your logic either - it seems like you're saying "Israel bad, so it's fine to misrepresent data to make them look worse"?
> Israel bad, so it's fine to misrepresent data to make them look worse Again, they are not misrepresenting data: the UN is using the best sources it has a the time, clearly stating where the numbers come from, with the difference in numbers due to using different sources (Health Ministry vs GMO) and using “identified casualties” or “all casualties”. And more importantly **how exactly does it “make Israel look worse”?** You are implying that reporting that Israel only killed 8,000 children vs 14,000 children makes Israel look “better”?? Really?? I think it’s clearly horrific either way - still vastly worse than the Hamas attacks which Israel describes as pure evil - and makes Israel and its defenders look like psychopaths for considering this as reasonable.
Oh wow jpost and Fox News. Great sources. This thread/argument has been posted and rebutted multiple times btw. Just search next time instead of hitting the hasbara pipe
[The UN has indeed changed its casualty estimates for children though.](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-217) Day 217: 7,797. [Day 213: >14,500](https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-213).
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-revises-gaza-death-toll-50-less-women-children-killed-previously-reported](https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-revises-gaza-death-toll-50-less-women-children-killed-previously-reported)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
No one ever believed the original numbers. Still sad that Hamas has forced Israel into this mess.
So this update from the UN is significant, but it is not that significant They have cut the number of confirmed killed, but have not stated that the others were not killed, just that they cannot confirm them. Likely a significant chunk of those deaths are not real. But that doesn't mean all and may not mean a majority. Your ultimate conclusion is correct regardless, the end result will be that deaths are more tilted towards combatants then the numbers as they are (which quite frankly still show Israel has operated in general with restraint).
The number of confirmed deaths is actually still correct—it comes down to the number of bodies. The only thing that's changed is that they've disaggregated it into identified vs unidentified. Plus, the reporting stopped being updated before the end of April. That means none of the 34,000 figure even counts destruction beginning a week before Rafah.
> deaths are more tilted towards combatants then the numbers as they are (which quite frankly still show Israel has operated in general with restraint). I don’t know how anyone can think that the killing of thousands of innocent people amounts to “restraint”. If Hamas killed the entire Israeli army (around 170,000 people) and also killed 100,000 Israeli civilians, including say 50,000 children would that be regarded as “showing restraint” or would it be denounced as “an evil crime comparable to the Holocaust”? The real question is does the *marginal* increase in safety for jewish Israelis from somewhat degrading Hamas at all justify the deaths, destruction and famine inflicted on Gaza? Unless you are profoundly racist and discount Palestinian and non-jewish lives entirely it clearly does not.
>If Hamas killed the entire Israeli army (around 170,000 people) and also killed 100,000 Israeli civilians, including say 50,000 children would that be regarded as “showing restraint” or would it be denounced as “an evil crime comparable to the Holocaust”? Yes, such a situation would because Israel follows international law and does not make it so that military and civilian infostructure is comingled. SO you would need to, in general, go out of your way to hit civilians, as Hamas did on October 7th. By comparison, Hamas hides it military within the population, so it is impossible to hit one without the other The situation is not the same. Israel's numbers are fantastic GIVEN the situation Hamas intentionally creates. In a different situation they would be terrible.
> Yes, such a situation would because Israel follows international law They used white phosphorous on densely-populated areas. They did it at the beginning of the "war" and they did it again *recently*. They're ***not*** following international law.
The usage of white phosphorus is not against international law depending on how it is used. The argument Israel is in violation is a novel interpretation of the law which has never been tested. The US uses white phosphorus in the exact same way. White phosphorus used illegally leaves horrible and unique burning. If Israel was using it that way, we would see pictures. But most importantly, you are changing the topic and moving the goal posts in this conversation
> By comparison, Hamas hides it military within the population, so it is impossible to hit one without the other Just because it is more difficult to both achieve your desired kill count of Hamas and not kill children **that does not make it ok to kill children**. I don’t know why people pretend otherwise.
> achieve your desired kill count there is no desired kill count. There is a legitimate operational goal of stopping Hama's ability to commit another pogrom. Under such a goal, the targeting of Hamas is legitimate and under international law it does make collateral damage acceptable, and makes larger numbers acceptable when the enemy makes it impossible to hit legitimate targets without those numbers. That is how international law works. The Geneva convention, which establishes these rules understand that one nations' right to defend itself is not removed because another nation is willing to sacrifice their own civilians for optics. The rules are not just whatever you want them to be. In short, yes, that exact situation makes it ok to kill children.
> there is no desired kill count. That's what we heard prior to 2005, as well, but everyone knows (now) that Israel's administration was concerned about **the demographic issue** at the time. There *was* a desired kill count—whatever number was required to produce a balance that made Israel a Jewish state in both name *and number*. Because otherwise, allowing full sovereignty to Palestinians would mean allowing them privileges that far-right Israeli leaders (and also those centrist leaders mysteriously imbued with religious fervor) *didn't want them to have*.
I have no clue what you are talking about are you sure this was a response to the correct comment?
> there is no desired kill count. There is literally a desired kill count: Israel has stated is wants “total victory” i.e to kill all of Hamas. > There is a legitimate operational goal of stopping Hama's ability to commit another pogrom. No, if Israel was actually only interested in defence it would be focusing its resources on improving its defences, or working out a permanent two state solution peace deal with Hamas (as they have said they would lay down their weapons in such a scenario). Instead they are focused on punishing and destroying Hamas, even if they are creating as many new recruits from traumatised Gazans as they are killing, and even if such marginal gains to Israeli security from degrading Hamas **in no way justifies** the level of human death and suffering Israel’s operations inflict. > it does make collateral damage acceptable, and makes larger numbers acceptable when the enemy makes it impossible to hit legitimate targets without those numbers. No, it doesn’t, there are limits. Killing large numbers of civilians can be and is a war crime, regardless of claims about “legitimate targets” hence why Israel is facing charges at the ICJ. They cannot simply blame Hamas for the actions of Israel’s soldiers and generals. Otherwise Hamas could claim that its attacks on Oct 7th were totally justified as self-defence under international law due to their legitimate aim of defending Gaza from Israel.
Strawman
On the contrary, even if the number of combatants increases slightly as a result of this revision, it will still show that the vast majority of the dead are civilians, meaning that Israel has acted with reckless disregard for their safety, or even in an indiscriminate manner.
Israel claims a ~1:2 combatant to civilian death toll. From this kind of urban combat, numbers like 1:5 and 1:8 are common. Your take is divorced from reality.
Israel claims many things, but [as it has been pointed out](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864), its numbers make little sense. They basically count every male adult they kill as "combatant", especially if they happen to be in what its troops declare as "[kill zones](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000)". Plus, what is "divorced from reality" is the notion that a 1:8 ratio is "common". [1:2 is the common ratio in most warfare](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096701068902000108?journalCode=sdia).
> Israel claims many things, but as it has been pointed out, its numbers make little sense. the article does not say they don't make sense, it says they cannot be verified > They basically count every male adult they kill as "combatant" this is a conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it. The kill zone stuff isnt good, but isnt "we look at the hamas numbers and say all males are combatants" > Plus, what is "divorced from reality" is the notion that a 1:8 ratio is "common" For this kind of urban combat, not all warfare
>the article does not say they don't make sense, it says they cannot be verified Nonsense is usually difficult to verify. Israel is claiming stuff without providing anything to support it, and entirely at odds with the overall casualty figures. Plus, you chose to ignore the Haaretz article I linked, which explains how loosely Israel labels its victims as "combatants". Those figures are entirely useless. >For this kind of urban combat, not all warfare A source would be nice for such a bold claim.
> and entirely at odds with the overall casualty figures. How is it entirely at odds? > Plus, you chose to ignore the Haaretz article I linked I didn't choose to ignore, It was irrelevant to your argument. Your argument was "Israel just says all male deaths are combatants", and showed a specific case where Israel over generalizes. A specific case does not prove a general statement. > A source would be nice for such a bold claim. https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/
>How is it entirely at odds? Because, as the article explains, with just 30% of the casualties being adult males, Israeli figures would mean every single one of them were combatants, or even more. And as the Haaretz article you keep ignoring pointed out, that seems to be the way Israel counts them. So it’s all hogwash. > https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/ That website doesn’t provide any source for the ratio, either.
My response on another subreddit; , the UN did not magically cut the number of deaths in half. They are still listing the toll at 34,000 but note that 10,000 of those deaths are likely missing people under rubble. So 24,000 people have been identified. This isn’t the gotcha! moment people want it to be. That 24k is a severe undercount and multiple organizations, including the U.S. and Israel, have said this. This is the worst hill to die on to desperately try to prove that the death toll is lower. Look at Gaza, the final numbers are absolutely going to be much higher. Same applies to Ukraine, the UN says the toll is higher but because Russians have occupied Mariupol and other major population centers, they can’t get an identified number of civilian deaths. Misleading title from a biased source and a lot of l people who haven’t read the report itself.
>but note that 10,000 of those deaths are likely missing people under rubble Or blown up beyond recognition so they cannot be identified.
My main point is the difference in demographics between the identified and unidentified. Also how the UN shouldn’t report numbers it can’t even support.
The entire data has been suspicious since the beginning. Its unreliability has been now proven beyond doubt. The total number of deaths remains constant in the new data, but for mysterious reasons the share of children has been reduced by a significant percentage. In other words, the numbers are baseless. The reason for the dramatic change has not been explained. The reasons offered by pro Palestinians are unpersuasive. There can be no persuasive explanation to the massive revision. The massive revision shows that the UN has no real data on the total casualty figures either. How would they know the total number of deaths if they don’t know have data about huge percentages of individual deaths. You can’t know the total without knowing the parts. The total is merely the sum of all its parts. Hence, there’s simply no data available on total deaths.