Have you heard that the real death toll in Gaza may be 186,000?
It's the latest and wildest attempt to inflate the casualty numbers, courtesy of @thelancet, a medical journal with a habit of spreading propaganda that suits its political agenda. Let me explain (a long 🧵) 1/
So far, the mainstream media haven't picked up on @thelancet letter -- do they just need a bit more time, or does it strain even their credulity?
Israel-bashers on @X are jumping on the bandwagon, however, starting with the chief @UN anti-Semite: 2/
For months, we heard famine in Gaza was "imminent." But there has been no famine.
The same UN-backed experts who predicted the famine have confirmed it did not materialize. But the headlines, citing their reports, still say Gaza is starving. What is going on? (A long 🧵) 1/
The top international authority for famine-monitoring is the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC. It includes the UN, NGOs, and nat'l aid orgs.
The IPC has a five-phase scale for measuring the severity of food shortages. See here: ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user…
In March, the IPC said famine was imminent and would strike northern Gaza (not the entire strip) by end of May. The banner on its website read:
"Famine is imminent as 1.1 million people, half of Gaza, experience catastrophic food insecurity" 3/ ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-websit…
I'd call this a stunning admission from the @AP that they naively treated casualty data from the Gaza Ministry of Health as trustworthy. Let me explain with (a 🧵): 1/ apnews.com/article/israel…
Here's the @AP lede: "The proportion of Palestinian women and children being killed in the Israel-Hamas war appears to have declined sharply, an Associated Press analysis of Gaza Health Ministry data has found" 2/
@AP And here's the admission of fault on @AP's behalf: "the shift went unnoticed for months by the U.N. and much of the media, and the Hamas-linked Health Ministry has made no effort to set the record straight." 3/
This is a short 🧵about @gcaw's excellent article in @TheAtlantic that looks at the UN casualty data from Gaza. I want to highlight @gcaw's work both because it's so good, and because @TheAtlantic's audience is very different from ours at @FDD. 1/ theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
.@gcaw's piece begins with a statement of the basic problem: Where did those 11,000+ previously deceased individuals go? 2/
@gcaw Key point: "The apparent downward revision was made without any accompanying statement to explain the change or sudden precision." The UN's lack of transparency is really something. 3/
If you want the full backstory (2,500 words!) on how the Gaza Ministry of Health manipulates the casualty numbers, check out my new article (co-authored with intrepid @FDD intern Kevin Chen) in the June issue of @Commentary: 1/ commentary.org/articles/david…
I regret there are no links, since its an article from the @commentary print edition, but I'll try to share key sources in the forthcoming thread. Or if you want to know the source for a particular assertion, respond to this tweet with your question. 2/
Correction: There are no links in the first section of the article, but plenty of links from that point onward. Still glad to answer questions about sources.
Now, from some quotes to entice folks to read the whole thing: 3/
It's time for another 🧵-- yesterday, the UN tried to explain why it reduced its estimate of the number of women and children killed in Gaza by more than 11,000. But the explanation was misleading in several key respects. 1/
Before I dive in, let me just say thank you to everyone who, read, shared, liked, and quoted my previous threat, which got amazing traction. 2/
The UN response is from yesterday's daily press briefing with deputy spokesman Farhan Haq. His comments begin at about 18:30 in this video -- the link should take you directly there: 3/