Throughout the war in Gaza, Israel has faced accusations of genocide—not only in the International Court of Justice but also in the court of public opinion where media narratives have amplified these claims. Our research has identified strategies that Hamas has used to shape perceptions of the conflict both within Gaza and in the international media. These efforts emphasize civilian suffering while downplaying Hamas’ role as an active combatant, significantly influencing how the conflict is understood globally.

This article examines two specific areas:

The Report Questionable Counting: Analyzing the Death Toll from the Hamas-Run Ministry of Health in Gaza, published by the Henry Jackson Society, examines the methods by which casualty data in Gaza are reported. It provides a critical assessment of the fatality figures released by the Gaza Ministry of Health (MOH) during the ongoing conflict.¹ In doing so, it highlights notable inconsistencies, methodological issues, and potential misrepresentations that appear to inflate civilian casualty figures, potentially shaping international perceptions and media narratives. Below, we provide a summary of the report’s key findings.

A striking discrepancy has also been uncovered in the media’s portrayal of the Gaza conflict. While Israel’s military operations are explicitly aimed at Hamas and its militant infrastructure, media coverage overwhelmingly omits critical context regarding the combatant status of many casualties. As with the MOH fatality lists, the vast majority of reports fail to mention that militants are among the casualties, creating a narrative that obscures the nature of the conflict. In the second part of this article, we will provide details of a recent study examining Gaza coverage by eight major news outlets.

Analysis suggests that the MOH, operating under Hamas, may overstate civilian casualties and obscure combatant deaths through practices such as reclassifying fatalities, including natural deaths, and altering demographic data. These actions can lead to an inaccurate representation of the conflict in international media and policymaking. Practices such as the misclassification of combatants as civilians contribute to a narrative that inadequately addresses the complexities of responsibility in the conflict. They reinforce criticism of Israeli actions while absolving Hamas, ultimately hindering a comprehensive understanding of the situation.

Our study analyzed the operational methods that Hamas used to integrate its military activities within Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. Examples include constructing tunnels beneath residential areas and storing weapons in schools and hospitals. These practices exploit civilian spaces to shield combatants, often leading to retaliatory strikes that result in civilian casualties. Such casualties are then used to support claims of indiscriminate attacks, diverting attention from Hamas’ role as a direct participant in the conflict.

These findings underscore Hamas’ strategic use of misinformation and tactical positioning to shift responsibility for the war’s devastation while obscuring its role in the ongoing violence. This dual approach—manipulating both casualty reporting and physical environments—limits accountability for its combatants while amplifying the visibility of civilian suffering in international narratives. Our research emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating both casualty data and media coverage to counter the deliberate misrepresentation of Hamas’ involvement in the Gaza conflict.

The implications of Gaza’s MOH being directly controlled by Hamas, a principal party to the conflict, have received limited international attention. As such, it cannot be regarded as an impartial source of information. Despite this, international media frequently reference MOH data without adequate scrutiny and often fail to distinguish between civilian and combatant fatalities, mirroring the lack of distinction in the MOH’s reporting. All fatalities are presented uniformly as “murdered by IDF action” without differentiation between combatants and civilians.

Several critical anomalies appear in the lists. Men were repeatedly recorded as women and vice versa; adults were misclassified as children, with cases of individuals in their twenties or thirties recorded as infants. Whether deliberate or accidental, these findings raise significant concerns about the reliability of MOH reporting. The MOH data disproportionately emphasize women and children as casualties despite independent analyses of Hamas’ own figures, indicating that, proportionally to Gaza’s pre-war demographics, the majority of fatalities are males of fighting age (15–45). This aligns with the demographic profile of combatants, considering Hamas’ documented use of child soldiers. Further supporting this observation, a recent report in The Lancet—while arguing that Hamas’s numbers are an undercount—confirms the unreliability of the MOH lists and notes a similarly pronounced increase in fatalities among fighting-age males.² Additionally, we found evidence that the conflict’s casualty figures include natural deaths, such as those from illnesses like cancer as well as fatalities caused by internal Hamas violence or misfired rockets.

A recurring claim in discussions about the conflict is that Hamas’ casualty figures from previous conflicts have been accurate. However, analysis indicates that patterns of data distortion were observed in earlier conflicts, such as Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009) and Operation Protective Edge (2014). These patterns suggest a consistent effort to underreport militant fatalities while emphasizing civilian losses. Additionally, evidence from social media posts during the 2014 conflict showed that Gaza residents were instructed to avoid referencing the combatant status of casualties online. Historical data often aligns with IDF estimates of combatant fatalities, which have been corroborated in past conflicts. In the current conflict, the absence of third-party oversight in data collection presents additional challenges in verifying the accuracy of reported figures.

The MOH relies on three main data sources to compile its fatality reports, each with notable limitations. Initially, fatalities were documented through hospital systems, but the disruption of these systems during the conflict necessitated manual data entry, increasing the likelihood of errors. Misidentification and incomplete records have led to inaccuracies, including cases where individuals—such as 31-year-old men—were mistakenly recorded as infants.

Following the hospital network collapse, the MOH increasingly depended on “reliable media sources” ³ and public reports for data with limited verification mechanisms. Families were invited to report missing or deceased relatives through Google Forms, often without requiring evidence of death or specifying civilian/combatant status.

The report identifies statistical inconsistencies that indicate potential inflation of reported casualties among women and individuals under 18 years of age. On specific days, there were disproportionate and statistically improbable increases in the percentage of children and women among the recorded fatalities. Additionally, unverified spikes in child casualty figures from hospital records were observed, which did not align with the demographic patterns seen in family-reported data. Another discrepancy was observed between family-reported fatalities, which predominantly involved men, and hospital-reported data, which indicated a higher proportion of women and children.

We were also able to verify, to some extent, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) statistics estimating that over 17,000 Hamas combatants were killed during the conflict. However, these figures are largely ignored in global reporting, despite their corroboration and accuracy in previous conflicts. This has contributed to an incomplete understanding of the conflict’s dynamics.

The fatality data provided by the Ministry of Health (MOH) demonstrates significant inconsistencies and appears to be influenced by political and strategic considerations. Such discrepancies can mislead international audiences, challenge the application of international law, and complicate the accurate evaluation of the conflict’s humanitarian impact. While some anomalies could be attributed to the inherent difficulties of reporting fatalities in a conflict zone, patterns observed in past conflicts suggest a consistent trend of underreporting combatant casualties and overstating civilian fatalities. This aligns with established knowledge of targeting processes used by modern militaries, such as the IDF, and previous practices documented in similar conflicts.

Additionally, the deliberate use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes, often described as a human shield strategy, adds further complexity. This strategy, consisting of multiple distinct elements, intensifies the humanitarian toll and obscures the differentiation between civilian and combatant roles.

Since assuming control of Gaza in 2006, Hamas has positioned military infrastructure within civilian areas, creating an urban environment that complicates the distinction between military and civilian spaces during conflicts. This situation presents operational challenges and increases the risk of civilian harm, contributing to heightened international scrutiny of military actions in the region.

The use of subterranean tunnels beneath residential neighborhoods, the storage of weapons in civilian buildings, such as homes, schools, and places of worship, and tactics like booby-trapping civilian structures further complicate the operational landscape. Additionally, the use of civilian clothing by operatives blurs the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Reports also indicate that some civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and humanitarian zones, has been repurposed for military purposes, exacerbating risks to the civilian population.

The human shield tactic has been a point of concern in international assessments of the conflict. The integration of military assets into civilian settings challenges the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), which require the protection of civilians and the maintenance of a clear separation between military and non-military targets. This integration complicates adherence to the LOAC and contributes to the civilian impact observed during hostilities. A comprehensive evaluation of such practices is essential for understanding their implications on both humanitarian outcomes and compliance with international law.

The role of Hamas in contributing to civilian casualties in Gaza, as well as the challenges surrounding accurate reporting of combatant fatalities, has not been consistently reflected in media coverage of the conflict. Simultaneously, the systematic underreporting of combatant deaths has contributed to an incomplete representation of the conflict dynamics in international discourse.

At the time of writing, the IDF has reported 400 soldiers killed in action and over 2,500 wounded, underscoring that this is a conflict involving active combatants on both sides. However, the complexity of the situation and the involvement of both parties are often underrepresented in global commentary, highlighting the need for a more balanced analysis in media narratives.

Conducting warfare in densely populated urban areas, Israel faces the challenge of fighting Hamas—a terrorist organization that, according to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, deliberately uses civilians as “human shields.” ⁴ The absence of critical reporting on Hamas’ actions perpetuates a one-sided narrative that emphasises Israel’s culpability while obscuring Hamas’ violations. Combined with the deliberate blurring of civilian-combatant lines discussed above, this strategy contributes to the overrepresentation of civilian fatalities in global reporting.

Despite these challenges, Israel has achieved one of the lowest civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios in modern conflicts. Based on data from the IDF and Hamas, the civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio in Gaza stands at approximately 1.4 to 1. ⁵ This is low compared to past conflicts. For instance, a 2009 study by Adam Roberts revealed that during the Bosnian War (1991–1995), the ratio was roughly 2 to 3, while in the Iraq War (beginning in 2003) estimates ranged from a 5-to-1 to a 3-to-1 ratio. ⁶

While Israel’s military operations explicitly target Hamas and its militant infrastructure, media coverage overwhelmingly omits crucial context regarding the combatant status of the many casualties. As with the MOH fatality lists, the vast majority of reports fail to acknowledge that militants are among the casualties, thereby creating a narrative that obscures the nature of the conflict.

The systematic omission of the fact that Hamas militants were among the dead has led to a distorted media narrative, portraying Israel as waging war not against the terrorist organization Hamas but against innocent civilians. A recent study highlights this imbalance, revealing that the BBC referred to Israel’s actions as “genocide” 17 times more often than it used the term to describe Hamas’ actions—an apparent violation of its own editorial policies.⁷

This is a unique phenomenon that demands the attention of journalistic communities, editorial boards, ethics committees, and the broader public. Fifty Global, a research group supported by the International Institute for Social and Legal Studies, conducted a study using Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) methodologies. Their analysis focused on six major media outlets and two leading news agencies, selected based on their reputation, credibility, mass-market focus, and global coverage mandates. The outlets examined were CNN, BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC (Australia), Reuters, and the Associated Press. The study analyzed publicly available articles containing data on the total number of casualties in Gaza between February and May 2024. A total of 1,378 articles were reviewed with sample sizes ranging from 111 to 245 articles per outlet.⁸

The methodology involved an exhaustive sampling of articles reporting Gaza casualty statistics with a confidence interval of ±4 percent. The data were meticulously coded into 76 categories and independently verified multiple times to ensure neutrality and accuracy. The use of a diverse research team and strict exclusion criteria for ambiguous data was intended to prevent bias and ensure objectivity (full details of the methodology are available on the research group’s website: https://fifty.global/).

Below is a summary of the study’s findings. The research focused on all instances where journalists cited overall casualty statistics in Gaza as well as those where they specified the number of militants among the casualties. Researchers identified the following characteristics and problematic aspects inherent in the coverage of the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip.

The findings reveal that the overwhelming majority of publications systematically omitted mentions of militants in the casualty counts. Only 3 percent of outlets cited specific figures for militants, while just 15 percent noted that the Gaza MOH, which is controlled by Hamas, does not differentiate between militants and civilians when reporting casualty statistics.

The “negative leaders” in this ranking are the New York Times (with zero percent mention of militant casualty figures), CNN, and the Guardian (only 1 percent). The outlets that mentioned the highest number of militant casualty figures were ABC Australia (8 percent) and the Associated Press (7 percent), though these numbers remain critically low.

The essential clarification that Hamas, when providing overall casualty statistics, does not differentiate between militants and civilians was most frequently made by the Washington Post (43 percent) and the Associated Press (41 percent). The “negative leaders” in this category were the BBC (only 1 percent), Reuters (2 percent), and CNN (4 percent).

Excluding combatant casualties from reports creates a misleading narrative that disproportionately portrays Israeli actions as targeting civilians. This narrative has been popularized by journalists, bloggers, and even international organizations.

For example, in April 2024, Fareed Zakaria stated on CNN in April that the cost of the war was “35,000 civilians dying,” mistakenly presenting the total number of casualties, including tens of thousands of militants, as civilian deaths. The CNN audience on YouTube exceeds 17 million. ⁹

Another example is an exclusive interview that CBS aired in June 2024, featuring Army Major Harrison Mann, a 13-year veteran who resigned in protest against U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza. During the interview with CBS’s Jim Axelrod, Mann said, “I don’t know how you kill 35,000 civilians by accident.” ¹⁰ CBS has more than 6 million viewers on YouTube.

Journalists’ mistakes are often fueled by international organizations’ failure to provide accurate data. One striking example is a U.N. video from January 2024 titled “25,000 Civilians Killed in Gaza War as Humanitarian Needs Continue to Rise,” featuring interviews with UNRWA workers.¹¹ The figure of 25,000 casualties was the total number reported by Hamas at the time.

The study analyzed the level of trust journalists placed in various sources of information. Remarkably, Hamas sources were questioned in only 1 percent of all publications citing Hamas figures. In contrast, in the very limited number of articles that referenced figures from the IDF, nearly 50 percent of journalists explicitly stated that Israeli data could not be independently verified.

Another noteworthy phenomenon is the legitimization of Hamas casualty figures as “common knowledge.” Nearly 20 percent of all publications cited Hamas’ figures without referencing any source. The Guardian leads in this regard with 43 percent of its reports omitting attribution, while CNN (17 percent), the Associated Press (20 percent), and the New York Times (20 percent) occupy middle positions.

It is important to clarify the reality of the situation: Hamas figures “are yet-to-be verified by the UN” and lack independent verification, as stated in a disclaimer on the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) website.¹² However, the credibility of Hamas figures is scrutinized far less frequently than that of the IDF’s.

This discrepancy may stem from the following factors:

1. Legitimizing Terminology: Hamas uses the name “Ministry of Health,” which lends legitimacy to its activities in the eyes of most Western audiences.
2. Assumed Historical Credibility: There is a prevailing belief that Hamas’ figures are trustworthy because “in the past, their data were verified and appeared accurate.” This trust is based not on current verification but on the perception that Hamas “did not deceive” in previous conflicts. Various humanitarian organizations that have worked with Hamas share this perspective. ¹³ However, our research has conclusively demonstrated that this perception is false—Hamas has consistently concealed combatant deaths in past conflicts.

This reliance on historical trust rather than current verification underscores a significant issue in how data from different sources is treated in the media landscape.

In this military conflict, there are two sources of information regarding casualties: the Hamas-controlled Gaza MOH and the IDF. Both sources provide incomplete data on casualties. While Hamas reports overall numbers without distinguishing between civilians and militants, the IDF provides data on the number of militants killed. In a situation where information is incomplete and one of the sources is a terrorist organization, it is critically important to approach the figures with scrutiny and present data from both sides.

The study revealed that Israel is systematically absent as a source of information in the media landscape and that the “statistical narrative” of this conflict is predominantly defined by Hamas. Despite the exceptionally high public interest in the conflict, Israeli sources on casualty figures were mentioned in only 4 percent of all publications (or 3 percent with actual numbers). In contrast, Hamas’ figures were cited in a total of 100 percent of all publications with 80 percent explicitly referencing Hamas (Gaza’s MoH).

Wartime casualty figures are not merely statistics—they are a critical element in the broader informational warfare that surrounds conflicts. Scholars consistently highlight the profound impact of human costs on political and strategic phenomena. Casualty numbers impact the legitimacy and stability of regimes;¹⁴ the outcomes and duration of wars;¹⁵ and even the terms of surrender.¹⁶

In democracies, these figures hold particular weight, shaping public opinion—a cornerstone of democratic peace theories. As Ray argues, public opinion in democracies exerts a pacifying influence because the populace bears the heaviest costs of war.¹⁷ This relationship underscores the instrumental role of public sentiment in initiating, sustaining, and terminating military engagements.¹⁸

The framing and dissemination of casualty data serve as powerful tools in shaping perceptions, influencing decisions, and defining the narratives of conflict. Understanding this dynamic is essential to unravelling the interplay between information, casualties, and political outcomes in modern warfare. As Matt Evans notes, “The degree of empathy in media framing is key to the public’s and policymakers’ understanding and opinion of various conflicts. Such framing has influenced decision-makers directly and indirectly through its influence on public opinion.” ¹⁹

The scale of this issue, where a distorted perception of the conflict has been created in the minds of hundreds of millions of people, should serve as a starting point for re-examining the responsibility of journalists and editorial departments for such systematic distortions. A systematic bias in reporting creates a problem known in media framing theories as the “authoritative version of reality.” ²⁰ This term refers to a situation where the media constructs a dominant interpretation of events that appears objective and definitive, even if it does not reflect the full picture. As a result, the public and policymakers develop a distorted and inaccurate understanding of the conflict and its developments.

To better understand how media coverage shapes public perception, it is essential to recognize the following key factors:

1. Media Narrative Creation: Media outlets actively construct the public’s understanding of events. They do not merely relay information but shape reality itself. This (constructed) version often reflects the interests of powerful groups such as governments, corporations, or advocacy organizations.
2. Selective Representation: Certain perspectives dominate the narrative, becoming the “objective truth” even when they are biased or incomplete.
3. Role of Sources: “Authoritative sources” (e.g., government agencies, major NGOs) wield disproportionate influence in shaping this “reality” due to their access to resources, expertise, or ability to disseminate information quickly.
4. Legitimization Effect: Specific interpretations gain legitimacy through repeated reinforcement in media coverage, sidelining alternative viewpoints even if those are more accurate or balanced.

An authoritarian version of reality creates a broader pattern in media framing, a phenomenon some scholars refer to as “tunnel vision.” ²¹ This term describes the tendency of journalists, as a collective, to adopt similar attitudes and perspectives on the events they cover.

In conflicts such as the Arab-Israeli one, this dominant narrative often oversimplifies complexities, portraying one side as the aggressor and the other solely as the victim. As a result, historical, contextual, and bilateral nuances are frequently overlooked, leading to a skewed portrayal of events.

This issue is compounded by the traditionally disproportionate attention mass media gives to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a phenomenon well-documented by researchers. Matt Evans provides a striking example, noting that during 12 days of fighting in Jenin in 2002, the New York Times published 36 news stories on the fighting, whereas it ran only 22 stories covering all of Africa—despite significantly higher death tolls and multiple ongoing conflicts across the continent.²² Such patterns of disproportionate coverage amplify the impact of incomplete narratives, particularly when key details such as the presence of militants among casualties, are routinely omitted.

As Seib and Fitzpatrick have noted, conflicts that receive the most media coverage are often perceived as the most newsworthy, creating a cyclical effect—heightened public concern drives greater policy attention, which in turn attracts even more media attention. ²³

The main consequences of “tunnel vision” and “the authoritative version of reality” are their profound influence on public perception and policymaking. These two factors heavily shape public opinion, leading audiences to accept specific narratives without critical scrutiny. Additionally, the constructed narratives often serve as the foundation for political decisions, which may become one-sided due to the omission of alternative facts or perspectives.

Collectively, misreporting carries significant consequences. The misrepresentation of casualty figures, for example, fosters a skewed understanding of the Gaza conflict. Such distorted narratives erode trust in legitimate sources of information and hinder efforts to address the root causes of conflict. In democratic societies, public opinion plays a critical role in shaping foreign policy. By prioritizing unverified figures from Hamas while sidelining Israeli data, media outlets contribute to imbalanced policy debates and potentially misguided international interventions.

As seen in South Africa’s case against Israel in the International Court of Justice, which relied on total casualty figures without distinguishing between civilians and combatants, casualty data played a significant role in shaping legal proceedings and international relations. Similarly, the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) movement weaponizes total casualty figures in the opening of letters sent to universities and organizations calling for divestment from Israel. Accurate reporting is essential for making informed, fair assessments and fostering genuine conflict resolution.

The findings of this study illuminate a critical issue in the media’s framing of the Gaza conflict—the systematic omission or distortion of key facts, particularly regarding casualty figures and their attribution. By disproportionately relying on statistics from Hamas while sidelining Israeli sources, media narratives have shaped a perception of the conflict that misrepresents its operational realities. This phenomenon, coupled with a lack of critical scrutiny towards Hamas-supplied data, underscores a significant gap in journalistic ethics and responsibility.

Distortions such as those outlined above are not just academic concerns—they have real-world implications, influencing public opinion, political decisions, and international policy. Wartime casualty figures are powerful tools in shaping narratives; their misuse can perpetuate misunderstandings and deepen polarization. Addressing these systemic issues is essential for restoring balance and integrity in conflict reporting. The global media must reexamine its standards, ensuring accountability and providing audiences with an accurate and nuanced understanding of complex conflicts like Gaza.

This conflict underscores the complex interplay between violence, information dissemination, and media narratives. The integration of military operations within civilian areas and the challenges surrounding casualty reporting have significantly shaped public perceptions of the conflict. These dynamics complicate efforts to assess the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved and their compliance with international law.

The challenges associated with casualty reporting—such as discrepancies and the reliance on unverified figures—contribute to a misrepresentation of the conflict’s realities. The emphasis on civilian casualty statistics without sufficient scrutiny of their sources or context can lead to an incomplete and skewed narrative. Media coverage that fails to critically evaluate data or provide diverse perspectives risks oversimplifying the situation, thereby limiting a nuanced understanding and informed decision-making.

To address these issues, it is crucial to ensure rigorous evaluation of data, balanced media representation, and adherence to journalistic standards. Accurate reporting and critical analysis play a vital role in fostering an informed global discourse on the Gaza conflict. Developing a comprehensive understanding of the conflict’s complexities is key to supporting informed dialogue and exploring pathways toward sustainable solutions.

Andrew Fox

Andrew Fox served in the British Army for 16 years (2005–2021), leaving the Parachute Regiment with the rank of Major. He completed three tours in Afghanistan, including one attached to the U.S. Army Special Forces, as well as deployments to Bosnia, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East. Fox served in the British Army for 16 years (2005–2021), leaving the Parachute Regiment with the rank of Major. He completed three tours in Afghanistan, including one attached to the U.S. Army Special Forces, as well as deployments to Bosnia, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East. He was a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, teaching in the War Studies and Behavioral Science departments. He is currently a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, specializing in defense, the Middle East, and the psychology of disinformation.

Tatiana Glezer

Tatiana Glezer, M.A. in Sociology (University of Manchester), is head of the Fifty Global research group and founder of the largest Russian-speaking online community for new immigrants in Israel, with 93,000 members. She also leads international recruitment at Boyar International High School in Jerusalem. Before immigrating to Israel with her children in 2022, she lived in Moscow, where she worked as creative director of the Nikitskaya Jewish Community Center and pursued a Ph.D. in Education.

1. Andrew Fox, Questionable Counting: Analyzing the Death Toll from the Hamas-Run Ministry of Health in Gaza (The Henry Jackson Society, 2024), https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/HJS-Questionable-Counting-–-Hamas-Report-web-v2.pdf (hereafter, Fox, Questionable Counting).

2. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02678-3/fulltext.

3. Fox, Questionable Counting, 8.

4. António Guterres, Secretary-General’s Press Conference on the Middle East, (UN Headquarters, Nov. 6, 2023), https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-11-06/secretary-generals-press-conference-the-middle-east

5. The latest reported number of combatant casualties is 20,000 (based on Israeli data from Nov. 2024), https://www.gov.il/en/pages/spoke-statement261124. Hamas has reported a total of 43,972 casualties as of Nov. 2024, https://www.ochaopt.org/content/reported-impact-snapshot-gaza-strip-19-november-2024.

6. Andrew Barros and Martin Thomas, eds., The Civilianization of War: The Changing Civil-Military Divide, 1914–2014 (Cambridge University Press, 2018), 1

7. https://campaignformediastandards.org.uk/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1KQrkO7MOC0l4H9I1HC3kF1HgMrknuaOJKXRU5KO2UzGRjZUHS7Gftvcs_aem_i4IMsvbpYgfjwhBnuSBOcQ#Reports

8. For more information, see https://fifty.global/.

9. x.com/FareedZakaria/status/1777037486704795680

10. https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1799158424023765102

11. https://youtube.com/shorts/7zhSn8aFIZk?si=4dF5zZQAU2pqdsJy

12. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/reported-impact-snapshot-gaza-strip-31-december-2024

13. For instance, a spokesperson for the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights provided the following statement to Le Monde (as quoted in this passage): “Like most humanitarian organizations, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights considers the government source to be reliable. ‘We have been working with the Palestinian Ministry of Health for many years, particularly during previous conflicts. Our assessments are very close to theirs, and in some cases, we even had higher figures,” its spokesperson assured Le Monde. The assessments carried out by the UN over the last 15 years are more or less similar to the ministry’s figures.” See https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/10/13/why-the-gaza-health-ministry-s-death-count-is-considered-reliable_6729264_8.html.

14. Allan Stam III, Win, Lose or Draw (University of Michigan Press, 1996); and Robert Jackman, “Rationality and Political Participation,” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1993): 279-90.

15. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Randolph M. Siverson, and Gary Woller, “War and the Fate of Regimes: A Comparative Analysis,” American Political Science Review 86 (1992): 638-46; and David Scott Bennett and Allan C. Stam III, “The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985,” American Political Science Review 90 (1996): 239-57.

16. Suzanne Werner, “Negotiating the Terms of Settlement: War Aims and Bargaining Leverage,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1998): 321-43; and Scott Sigmund Gartner and Gary M. Segura, “War, Casualties, and Public Opinion,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 42, 3 (1998): 278–300.

17. James Lee Ray, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition (University of South Carolina Press, 1995).

18. Scott Sigmund Gartner, “Predicting the Timing of Carter’s Decision to Initiate a Hostage Rescue Attempt: Modeling a Dynamic Information Environment,” International Interactions 18 (1993): 365-86.

19. Matt Evans, “Framing International Conflicts: Media Coverage of Fighting in the Middle East,” International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics 6, 2 (2010): 211 (hereafter, Evans, “Framing International Conflicts”).

20. Bernadette Barker-Plummer, “News as a Political Resource: Media Strategies and Political Identity in the U.S. Women’s Movement, 1966–1975,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12, 3 (1995): 306–324.

21. Philip M. Seib, P. and Kathy Fizpatrick, Journalism Ethics (Harcourt Brace, College Publishers, 1997); (hereafter, Seib and Fitzpatrick, Journalism Ethics).

22. Evans, “Framing International Conflicts,” 209-233

23. Seib and Fizpatrick, Journalism Ethics.