The highly regarded British medical journal, The Lancet, estimates the death toll in Gaza is 64,260 from direct attacks and deaths from malnutrition and bodies still buried under the rubble raising the number to 180,000.
Thanks for your contribution to the conversation. I’m confident that you’re not suggesting that I’ve included anything for “dramatic effect” or exaggeration and I’m gratified that we’re working together to expose Israel’s genocidal policy in Gaza.
All I'm suggesting is that any misrepresentation, exaggeration, or distortion, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is ammunition for the hasbaristas and it would be prudent not to feed it to them. I'd like to think that everybody reads attentively and critically, checks sources, evaluates methods...expresses themselves clearly and takes responsibility for what they imply - all the usual things that adults do. Judging from the use many have put Khatib et al. to, that would be wishful thinking. I read an essay just yesterday that attributed the 186,000 'estimate' to Jamaluddine et al., which actually criticises Khatib's method, and proceeds to draw truly outlandish and unexplained conclusions.
Good post! As one Israeli soldier commented regarding the killing of Gazans desperately seeking food, 'we are trained to view all people in Gaza as combatants.' Says it all!
‘Senior Israeli officers…’ acknowledged ‘that civilians had been killed due to "inaccurate and uncalculated" ARTILLERY fire. According to officers of the Israeli military's Southern Command, the shelling was aimed at maintaining order at food distribution sites’ [my emphasis] (https://archive.md/kmg4A#selection-669.0-677.136)
Who but the IOF could have thought of using artillery shells for crowd control?
The 'estimate' of 186 000, including indirect fatalities comes from an unreviewed letter from Khattib, et al. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext). Since the figure nominally includes deaths that hadn't yet occurred, it could be relevant in the here and now. But their method, which is not robust (https://bureauofcounterpropaganda.substack.com/p/counting-the-dead), relies on multiplying the Health Ministry's (MoH) count of direct fatalities also in June 2024 by an arbitrary factor of four. Applying the same method to the current MoH figure of 56 647, which I emphasise is NOT a valid approach, would yield a total of 283 235.
Spagat et al. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.19.25329797v3.full-text) in a preprint, report the results of a household survey conducted in January that suggests that MoH counts of 'violent deaths' were about 39% lower than respondents reported, estimated at 75 200. They also estimate 8 540 'excess nonviolent deaths'. Much has changed since January, so it would probably be a distortion simply to add 39% to current MoH counts or the like.
The nearest thing we have to a reliable, robust estimate of the death toll remains the MoH counts. We know the factors that ensure that the true number of direct fatalities is MUCH higher, but the only estimates based on sound methods are too dated to be useful. The number of indirect fatalities is going to continue to mount even if Israeli attacks cease. And it is important to remember that the dead are not the only victims. MoH counts 134 405 wounded so far, many of whom will survive with devastating lifelong disabilities, quite apart from the social costs of their care.
The point is that relying on secondary and tertiary sources and grasping for higher and higher numbers for dramatic effect just opens us to justifiable accusations of exaggeration.
Thanks for your contribution to the conversation. I’m confident that you’re not suggesting that I’ve included anything for “dramatic effect” or exaggeration and I’m gratified that we’re working together to expose Israel’s genocidal policy in Gaza.
All I'm suggesting is that any misrepresentation, exaggeration, or distortion, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is ammunition for the hasbaristas and it would be prudent not to feed it to them. I'd like to think that everybody reads attentively and critically, checks sources, evaluates methods...expresses themselves clearly and takes responsibility for what they imply - all the usual things that adults do. Judging from the use many have put Khatib et al. to, that would be wishful thinking. I read an essay just yesterday that attributed the 186,000 'estimate' to Jamaluddine et al., which actually criticises Khatib's method, and proceeds to draw truly outlandish and unexplained conclusions.
Writing in too much haste this morning. Thanks!
Good post! As one Israeli soldier commented regarding the killing of Gazans desperately seeking food, 'we are trained to view all people in Gaza as combatants.' Says it all!
‘Senior Israeli officers…’ acknowledged ‘that civilians had been killed due to "inaccurate and uncalculated" ARTILLERY fire. According to officers of the Israeli military's Southern Command, the shelling was aimed at maintaining order at food distribution sites’ [my emphasis] (https://archive.md/kmg4A#selection-669.0-677.136)
Who but the IOF could have thought of using artillery shells for crowd control?
Thanks Gary. Just a correction: Max's last name is Blumenthal.
Mansoor's article (https://theintercept.com/2025/06/27/israel-killed-palestinians-food-aid-gaza/) attributes those claims not to 'The highly regarded British medical journal, The Lancet', but to 'two reports published' there.
The source of the estimate of 64 260 direct fatalities is Jamaluddine et al (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02678-3/fulltext), which covers the period to 30 June LAST YEAR! So it is hardly relevant to the current situation.
The 'estimate' of 186 000, including indirect fatalities comes from an unreviewed letter from Khattib, et al. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext). Since the figure nominally includes deaths that hadn't yet occurred, it could be relevant in the here and now. But their method, which is not robust (https://bureauofcounterpropaganda.substack.com/p/counting-the-dead), relies on multiplying the Health Ministry's (MoH) count of direct fatalities also in June 2024 by an arbitrary factor of four. Applying the same method to the current MoH figure of 56 647, which I emphasise is NOT a valid approach, would yield a total of 283 235.
Spagat et al. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.19.25329797v3.full-text) in a preprint, report the results of a household survey conducted in January that suggests that MoH counts of 'violent deaths' were about 39% lower than respondents reported, estimated at 75 200. They also estimate 8 540 'excess nonviolent deaths'. Much has changed since January, so it would probably be a distortion simply to add 39% to current MoH counts or the like.
The nearest thing we have to a reliable, robust estimate of the death toll remains the MoH counts. We know the factors that ensure that the true number of direct fatalities is MUCH higher, but the only estimates based on sound methods are too dated to be useful. The number of indirect fatalities is going to continue to mount even if Israeli attacks cease. And it is important to remember that the dead are not the only victims. MoH counts 134 405 wounded so far, many of whom will survive with devastating lifelong disabilities, quite apart from the social costs of their care.
The point is that relying on secondary and tertiary sources and grasping for higher and higher numbers for dramatic effect just opens us to justifiable accusations of exaggeration.