Gaza City, Gaza Strip – The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict that ignited on October 7 has sparked controversy surrounding the number of casualties in Gaza. The Hamas-run health ministry reports over 30,000 deaths, without differentiating between civilians and combatants. Previous conflicts in the region have seen the reported death toll align closely with estimates from organizations like the UN and IDF, albeit with disputes over the civilian versus combatant classification.
However, the current war in Gaza presents a new challenge regarding data accuracy. A recent report by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy highlights changes in data collection methods due to the scale of the conflict. Unlike past confrontations, where figures were primarily based on official hospital records, a larger proportion of reported deaths now come from “reliable media sources” and submissions via a Google Form by Gazan citizens.
The current death toll stands at 32,414, with approximately 54% based on hospital records and 45% from alternative sources. A letter published in Lancet in December disputed claims of inflated mortality reporting by the Gaza Health Ministry, citing a comparison between total deaths in Gaza and a database documenting UNRWA worker fatalities. While this analysis was not peer-reviewed, it raises questions about the accuracy of reporting by Gazan authorities during the conflict.
Data shared with The Telegraph by UNRWA reveals discrepancies between their casualty figures and those reported by Gaza authorities. The UNRWA dataset covers a period between October 7 and January 4, documenting 150 worker deaths in Gaza, with half occurring before the Israeli land incursion into Gaza. Notably, men constitute 62% of the deaths despite representing only 41% of UNRWA staff in Gaza.
These discrepancies in casualty data shed light on the complexities of reporting during conflicts and raise concerns about the accuracy of the numbers provided by the Gaza Health Ministry. As the Israel-Hamas conflict continues, the debate over casualty figures and the distinction between civilians and combatants persists, underscoring the challenges of capturing accurate data in the midst of a war zone.