The UN has denied that the estimated death toll of women and children in the war in Gaza has been revised downward, pointing towards a confusion between the total numbers of dead bodies recorded, and the number of those who have so far been fully identified.
After the Gaza health ministry’s revised totals of those killed first appeared on the website of the UN’s office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs (Ocha), they were quickly seized on as proof by pro-Israel media and commentators that the UN had previously been exaggerating the toll.
They showed 24,686 dead which appeared to be a downward revision from the figure of about 35,000 which had been reported earlier in May, with 7,797 children and 4,959 women confirmed dead, about half the toll cited in previous reports. But the UN said on Monday that estimated overall death toll remained about 35,000.
TL;DR: The previous estimate was a count with the minimum standard of evidence that someone has died, such as: “Look, this is the leg of a previously alive human being”. The most recent estimate is a count where every corpse (roughly) has a first name, a last name, and a somewhat accurate established cause of death. These are different, yet complementary.
Sounds like heavier bombs would keep the second number lower. 🧠☠️
Any number greater than zero is still too high.
So the appropriate reaction to what Hamas did would’ve been what exactly? Waving the white flag and rolling over?
If only there was something between waiving the white flag and rolling over and 40,000 dead. Oh well.
The poster they were responding to said greater than zero was too many. They questioned that. To assume that means all 40k is reasonable is just a gross and blatant misrepresentation of what was said.
Why?
Yeah. Hamas is using the citizens of Gaza as human shield from day one. It was impossible to fight this way with 0 casualties. I was only asking how that person imagined an appropriate response if even a single dead person was too much.
Bibi should be gone today rather than tomorrow - but Israel clearly had a right to respond to what Hamas did and the fact that Hamas was playing dirty all the time makes it impossible to respond in a way that doesn’t cause civil deaths.
'questioned"
Unfortunately for a leader like Bibi there isn’t a middle ground. Even more unfortunately the Israeli right wing has too much political power to allow a prime minister to be elected that would find a middle ground.
Hamas horribly miscalculated when they attacked Israel on October 7th, and now the innocents of Gaza are paying the price.
No, I think Hamas knew to expect this as a possibility. I think they decided that it was do something now, or continue to slowly die under Israel’s oppression.
No they knew they had to do something now or they would eventually be overthrown. People forget that there were mass protest all in Gaza last summer against Hamas. Protest that were brutally suppressed by the way.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Gazans in rare protest against Hamas government
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
So you think they chose right and this is the best outcome for the people of Gaza?
No one said that.
That said, it is a fact that there’s never been so much support for Palestinians
I’m not saying that.
Appropriate or moral? Because I don’t think you people consider thos things the same.
Mods removed the original post due to the article being updated and/or the statistics being “debunked,” so I am reposting with the updated headline and article. If you wish to view the original you can find an archive.org link here.
I would also like to point out while the overall death toll is supposedly unchanged, the reported number of women and children killed absolutely is changed.
The original numbers suggest that 11,244 additional women and children were killed on top of those identified. If 100% of the unidentified remains were women and children, that would still put the death toll at 35,890, or ~890 more than the current numbers.
I believe the discrepancy being corrected in the report goes back to when the ministry started relying on “reliable media sources.” Since that time, they have reported unbelievably high percentages of women and children being killed (~86%).
In the article you link it states:
Gaza’s health ministry says 70% of those killed in the territory are women and children. Its most recent breakdown of casualties recorded in hospitals shows women and children make up 58% of those deaths. Al-Qudra could not explain the discrepancy. Recently, Al Jazeera obtained and published a list of thousands of names of Palestinian children in Gaza killed in the war.
Where do you get 86% from?
We are talking bodys that are mutilated, often beyond recognition. So you find a male body in the age range of 14-20. Now do you count it as a child or as an adult? If you know it is Abdul Raheeem 17 years old, you can make that assessment. But otherwise you can only make a best guess. Problem is, if you only find half a body and it is decayed mostly. The most reliable way to distinguish male and female skeletons is the pelvis. For the other bones you have indications but they aren’t as definite. So if you find an upper body without the pelvis you again have to guess. And digging up mass graves or collecting body parts after a bombing is not exactly the environment for a in depths medical analysis
It’s math from the numbers in that article, which is admittedly a few months old at this point. At that time, according to the ministry 70% of 30,000 deaths (~21,000) were women and children.
For the 17,000 that hospital staff reported, 58% (~9,860) of the deaths were recorded as women and children. For the remaining 13,000 the ministry relied on “reliable media sources.”
For the overall percentage of women and children killed to be 70%, 11,140 of the remaining 13,000 reportedly killed must be women and children. That is ~86%.
Thank you for clearing that up.
The NYT coverage says:
The change came because the United Nations switched to citing a more conservative source for its numbers — the Gazan Ministry of Health — rather than using Gaza’s Government Media Office, as it had in recent weeks.
. . .
That Gaza media office has consistently provided an overall death toll similar to the one given by the ministry of health, but different and often higher figures for the number of women and children killed.
Ismail Al Thawabateh, the office’s director general, said in an interview that the health ministry listed and categorized an individual as dead only when all of their details had been documented and verified by a next of kin. He did not explain why his office used a breakdown of women and children based on the overall death toll.
Most of the coverage, including this Guardian piece, makes it sound like they switched to a different dataset but this sounds like a switch to a different source. The HM numbers have generally been regarded as accurate – historically, at least. I don’t think that the media office has that same reputation. It seems like the previous numbers were calculated from the HM’s total death toll figure, and not from observed data. I’m not really sure what that means for interpreting the numbers.
The Guardian – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rating: Mostly Free
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: Medium Credibility
Thanks for providing this. I’m actually quite surprised media fact check rates the guardian’s reliability as “mixed”
Yeah, I’ve always found the Guardian to be one of the only reliable newspapers in the UK. I don’t know where that’s coming from. Maybe football transfer rumors or something? Even with that, they’re pretty responsible. The rest of the English media just makes shit up.
MediaBiasFactCheck itself is not scientific at all and has some… weirdness to it.
Removed by mod
Any metric like this is only as good at the formulator. MediaBiasFactCheck.com can be an arbiter of truth, if you feel it’s qualified to act as such.
