Listen to the article
The controversy surrounding Gaza’s death toll reporting has intensified after left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz claimed the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had accepted Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry’s estimate of 70,000 Palestinian deaths since October 2023. Major media outlets quickly declared this an Israeli “u-turn,” with some commentators claiming vindication after long defending these figures.
However, the IDF has explicitly denied the report. Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani of the IDF Spokesperson’s Department stated the 70,000 figure “does not reflect official IDF data” and emphasized that any formal casualty assessment would come through official channels. This crucial caveat has been largely omitted from subsequent media coverage.
The fundamental dispute was never about whether tens of thousands died in Gaza—a fact no serious observer contests—but rather about the composition of those casualties, the credibility of the sources reporting them, and the proportion of Hamas combatants versus civilian casualties.
Media reporting throughout the conflict has shown concerning patterns. A study of international coverage between February and May 2024 found 84 percent of major reports failed to distinguish between combatant and civilian deaths when citing Gaza’s death toll. Nearly all reports (98 percent) cited Hamas’s numbers, while only 5 percent referenced Israeli estimates. One in five articles presented Hamas’s figures without attribution, treating them as uncontested facts.
Research from the Henry Jackson Society identified significant problems with the Gaza Health Ministry’s casualty lists. These included misreported ages and genders that artificially inflated female and child victim counts, inclusion of people who died before the war began, deaths caused by Hamas’s own misfired rockets, and a complete absence of Hamas combatants from the lists. The methodology appeared to include natural deaths that would have occurred regardless of the conflict, and even used a public Google Form for self-reporting deceased relatives—a system vulnerable to duplication or misuse.
In March 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry quietly removed approximately 3,400 names from previous casualty lists, including about 1,000 supposed child victims, suggesting these were errors, duplicates, or invalid entries—validating concerns about the reliability of the data.
Hamas has historically concealed combatant casualties during conflicts, only acknowledging them much later, if at all. By late 2025, the IDF reported killing at least 22,000 Hamas and allied fighters in Gaza, estimating a ratio of one-third combatants to two-thirds civilians among all fatalities. While Israel is also a party to the conflict, its casualty estimates have proven more reliable in past Gaza conflicts. After the 2014 war, independent analyses ultimately aligned closer to Israeli estimates than to Hamas’s initial claims that almost all casualties were civilian.
The current casualty figures also include deaths from secondary effects like lack of medical care, people trapped under rubble, and strikes from stray rockets launched by Palestinian militants. The Gaza Health Ministry claimed over 440 deaths from malnutrition or starvation, which Israel disputes, suggesting these were likely individuals with severe illnesses misclassified as starvation victims.
The media’s reaction to the Haaretz report has largely overlooked these critical distinctions. Instead of engaging with the complex reality, many outlets chose self-congratulation, failing to acknowledge their own role in uncritically reporting Hamas figures without proper verification. When the Gaza Health Ministry quietly removed thousands of names from its records, major news networks largely ignored this significant development.
The mishandling of casualty reporting has done a disservice to truth and to the historical record. Gaza’s dead deserve to be remembered accurately, with honest accounting that acknowledges both the tragic civilian losses and the context in which they occurred.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The mining and commodities sectors are closely watching this conflict, given the potential impact on energy and mineral supply chains in the region. Accurate data on the situation’s human toll will be important for assessing the broader economic and geopolitical implications.
That’s a good point. Reliable information on casualties, infrastructure damage, and disruptions to operations will be crucial for businesses and investors in the mining and energy industries.
This conflict has major ramifications for global energy and commodity markets. Establishing a clear, impartial understanding of the human toll and damage to infrastructure will be crucial for businesses, policymakers, and the public to assess the broader impacts.
Absolutely. Accurate data will be essential for understanding the conflict’s potential disruptions to supply chains and commodity prices in the mining, energy, and related sectors.
This is a complex and contentious issue with much uncertainty around the casualty figures. It’s important to rely on credible, verified sources and to be cautious about claims from any side, whether government or media outlets. Objective analysis is needed to understand the true scale and nature of the casualties.
Agreed, the dispute over the composition of casualties and the credibility of sources is crucial. Clarifying the official IDF position seems important to avoid misleading coverage.
The dispute over casualty figures highlights the need for thorough, independent investigations to establish the facts. Relying on official channels and verified data, rather than unsubstantiated claims, should be the priority for all stakeholders.
Agreed. Fact-finding missions and transparent reporting will be key to building a credible record of what has occurred and its consequences.
Reporting on complex conflicts often involves challenges in verifying information and maintaining objectivity. I hope journalists and policymakers can work to separate fact from fiction and provide the public with a clear, balanced understanding of this situation.
Absolutely. Upholding journalistic standards of accuracy and impartiality is critical, especially on sensitive issues with significant geopolitical implications.