A thorough debunking of @Mr_Andrew_Fox's report published by the @HJS_Org “think tank”.
In short, this is one of the most misleading and intellectually dishonest reports I have ever read. It contains over a dozen instances of misinformation, misrepresentation of data, or omission of critical details.
To keep things simple and accessible, this thread focuses only on debunking the report's primary claims. If there’s enough interest, I’m happy to dedicate time to addressing other aspects of the report.
The report credits the following individuals for their contributions, so I will too: @Aizenberg55, @ElliotMalin, @MarkZlochin , Patrick Schnecker, and Jacob Haddo.
While you are free to express your disappointment in their actions, I urge you NOT to harass them. We gain nothing from harassment and personal attacks.
I want to emphasize that I generally dislike targeting individuals, I'd much prefer challenging systems and institutions. However, when someone uses their platform to mislead the public on such a serious issue intentionally, I feel a moral obligation to speak out.
Attempting to cast doubt on or deny atrocities committed against a people is one of the lowest forms of conduct. One that we, as a society, should stand against.
In short, this is one of the most misleading and intellectually dishonest reports I have ever read. It contains over a dozen instances of misinformation, misrepresentation of data, or omission of critical details.
To keep things simple and accessible, this thread focuses only on debunking the report's primary claims. If there’s enough interest, I’m happy to dedicate time to addressing other aspects of the report.
The report credits the following individuals for their contributions, so I will too: @Aizenberg55, @ElliotMalin, @MarkZlochin , Patrick Schnecker, and Jacob Haddo.
While you are free to express your disappointment in their actions, I urge you NOT to harass them. We gain nothing from harassment and personal attacks.
I want to emphasize that I generally dislike targeting individuals, I'd much prefer challenging systems and institutions. However, when someone uses their platform to mislead the public on such a serious issue intentionally, I feel a moral obligation to speak out.
Attempting to cast doubt on or deny atrocities committed against a people is one of the lowest forms of conduct. One that we, as a society, should stand against.
Introduction
The core claim of the report is that we cannot trust any information coming out of Gaza and that media reports are unreliable. While Andrew is absolutely wrong in claiming there is no reliable data from Gaza, he is correct that the media is often unreliable.
However, it’s worth noting that the media’s inaccuracies often involve underestimating the civilian death toll, as they rarely mention that indirect deaths and those still buried under rubble have not yet been accounted for.
Throughout the report, Andrew cites data from the Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH), the Gaza Media Office (GMO), and Hamas officials. He at times confuses and conflates these different sources.
Andrew is correct that Hamas has an incentive to lie, especially during times of war, and we shouldn’t blindly trust reports from Gaza. For this reason, I agree that the statements of the GMO and Hamas officials cannot be taken at face value, so I won’t focus on those claims for the remainder of this thread
The MoH, however, releases updated casualty lists every few months, and their data is both verifiable and historically accurate.
The core claim of the report is that we cannot trust any information coming out of Gaza and that media reports are unreliable. While Andrew is absolutely wrong in claiming there is no reliable data from Gaza, he is correct that the media is often unreliable.
However, it’s worth noting that the media’s inaccuracies often involve underestimating the civilian death toll, as they rarely mention that indirect deaths and those still buried under rubble have not yet been accounted for.
Throughout the report, Andrew cites data from the Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH), the Gaza Media Office (GMO), and Hamas officials. He at times confuses and conflates these different sources.
Andrew is correct that Hamas has an incentive to lie, especially during times of war, and we shouldn’t blindly trust reports from Gaza. For this reason, I agree that the statements of the GMO and Hamas officials cannot be taken at face value, so I won’t focus on those claims for the remainder of this thread
The MoH, however, releases updated casualty lists every few months, and their data is both verifiable and historically accurate.
The verifiability of the MoH data
What many people don’t realize is that the MoH operates under significant limitations when it comes to fabricating data. This is because the Palestinian Population Registry is entirely controlled by Israel.
This unique situation gives Israel the ability to easily verify and cross-reference the data released by the MoH, ensuring that individuals on the casualty lists are real. A simple check by even a low-ranking bureaucrat in Israel’s Ministry of Interior could verify this information.
What the MoH can get away with is excluding combatants from their casualty lists, which is plausible and currently impossible to prove or disprove. As a result, we can’t determine the precise civilian-to-combatant ratio, but we can reasonably estimate the minimum number of civilians killed.
Andrew does acknowledge that the names and ID numbers exist in the Palestinian population registry. However, he conveniently omits the fact that Israel has the capacity to easily discredit the MoH’s data if it were wrong but they haven't done so.
A significant portion of the report focuses on identifying minor errors in the data and presenting them as proof that the list is unreliable.
Yet, when examining these errors, Andrew either misrepresents them or highlights issues that account for roughly 1% of the total list, a margin that is completely negligible.
When you’re working with 34,344 lines of data, some errors are inevitable. The fact that Andrew went to such lengths yet could only identify errors affecting about 1% of the list is, in reality, a testament to its overall validity.
If the list contained major discrepancies, Israel first and foremost would have exposed them. Andrew’s report, and the propaganda surrounding it, wouldn’t be necessary.
What many people don’t realize is that the MoH operates under significant limitations when it comes to fabricating data. This is because the Palestinian Population Registry is entirely controlled by Israel.
This unique situation gives Israel the ability to easily verify and cross-reference the data released by the MoH, ensuring that individuals on the casualty lists are real. A simple check by even a low-ranking bureaucrat in Israel’s Ministry of Interior could verify this information.
What the MoH can get away with is excluding combatants from their casualty lists, which is plausible and currently impossible to prove or disprove. As a result, we can’t determine the precise civilian-to-combatant ratio, but we can reasonably estimate the minimum number of civilians killed.
Andrew does acknowledge that the names and ID numbers exist in the Palestinian population registry. However, he conveniently omits the fact that Israel has the capacity to easily discredit the MoH’s data if it were wrong but they haven't done so.
A significant portion of the report focuses on identifying minor errors in the data and presenting them as proof that the list is unreliable.
Yet, when examining these errors, Andrew either misrepresents them or highlights issues that account for roughly 1% of the total list, a margin that is completely negligible.
When you’re working with 34,344 lines of data, some errors are inevitable. The fact that Andrew went to such lengths yet could only identify errors affecting about 1% of the list is, in reality, a testament to its overall validity.
If the list contained major discrepancies, Israel first and foremost would have exposed them. Andrew’s report, and the propaganda surrounding it, wouldn’t be necessary.
Claim #1: Men being listed as women
Andrew claims he found 103 men on the list who were incorrectly listed as women, accounting for 0.3% of the data. He suggests that the MoH intentionally altered these entries to inflate the number of women killed.
What Andrew conveniently omits is the following:
1. 0.3% is negligible and does not meaningfully alter the overall data.
2. Some of these gender errors involve young children, where changing their gender would serve no logical purpose.
3. There are instances of women being mistakenly listed as men, which he fails to acknowledge.
What Andrew frames as intentional manipulation is far more plausibly explained by the expected margin of error when dealing with tens of thousands of data entries.
(Below are two lists. One is young boys accidentally listed as girls the other is women of military age listed as men. As I do not have access to the Palestinian Population Registry this was done simply by identifying girls names listed as boys and vice versa)
Thank you @History__Speaks for putting together these lists.
Andrew claims he found 103 men on the list who were incorrectly listed as women, accounting for 0.3% of the data. He suggests that the MoH intentionally altered these entries to inflate the number of women killed.
What Andrew conveniently omits is the following:
1. 0.3% is negligible and does not meaningfully alter the overall data.
2. Some of these gender errors involve young children, where changing their gender would serve no logical purpose.
3. There are instances of women being mistakenly listed as men, which he fails to acknowledge.
What Andrew frames as intentional manipulation is far more plausibly explained by the expected margin of error when dealing with tens of thousands of data entries.
(Below are two lists. One is young boys accidentally listed as girls the other is women of military age listed as men. As I do not have access to the Palestinian Population Registry this was done simply by identifying girls names listed as boys and vice versa)
Thank you @History__Speaks for putting together these lists.
Claim #02 - Statistical concerns with how the data is updated.
This claim appears to be a copy-paste of work done by Professor Abraham Wyner, who initially identified statistical concerns with the GMO data but falsely attributed them to the MoH. Professor Wyner himself acknowledged this mistake to me in an email (shown below), blaming it on the misleading nature of a UN report.
While it’s possible that Professor Wyner was misled (though other parts of his work involve clear misrepresentation of data), Andrew’s decision to repeat this mistake, even after the UN clarified the error, is at best extremely sloppy and at worst intentionally misleading.
This claim appears to be a copy-paste of work done by Professor Abraham Wyner, who initially identified statistical concerns with the GMO data but falsely attributed them to the MoH. Professor Wyner himself acknowledged this mistake to me in an email (shown below), blaming it on the misleading nature of a UN report.
While it’s possible that Professor Wyner was misled (though other parts of his work involve clear misrepresentation of data), Andrew’s decision to repeat this mistake, even after the UN clarified the error, is at best extremely sloppy and at worst intentionally misleading.
Claim #03 - Men are dying at a higher rate than women
This claim is true, and Andrew is quick to frame it as definitive proof of militant deaths.
However, what he conveniently fails to mention is that, in almost all conflicts, civilian men are killed at higher rates than women.
This is largely because men are more likely to be:
1. Suspected of being militants.
2. Taking risks, such as going out to obtain food, water, and aid.
There’s strong reason to believe this trend holds true in Gaza as well based on testimonials and photo and video evidence.
Below are two quotes from IDF whistleblowers who served in Gaza.
B. said that it was difficult to distinguish civilians from combatants in Gaza, claiming that members of Hamas often “walk around without their weapons.” But as a result, “every man between the ages of 16 and 50 is suspected of being a terrorist.”
A. said “Shoot first, ask questions later.’ That was the consensus … No one will shed a tear if we flatten a house when there was no need, or if we shoot someone who we didn’t have to.”
Even Andrew’s own chart (below) supports this argument: boys and men of all ages are being killed at a higher rate than girls and women.
When we account for this, the death distribution is not all too different from the Palestinian Population Pyramid. While we can’t determine exactly how many combatants, if any, are included in this list, the significant number of women, children, and elderly killed suggests that the list is likely 80%–100% civilian.
This claim is true, and Andrew is quick to frame it as definitive proof of militant deaths.
However, what he conveniently fails to mention is that, in almost all conflicts, civilian men are killed at higher rates than women.
This is largely because men are more likely to be:
1. Suspected of being militants.
2. Taking risks, such as going out to obtain food, water, and aid.
There’s strong reason to believe this trend holds true in Gaza as well based on testimonials and photo and video evidence.
Below are two quotes from IDF whistleblowers who served in Gaza.
B. said that it was difficult to distinguish civilians from combatants in Gaza, claiming that members of Hamas often “walk around without their weapons.” But as a result, “every man between the ages of 16 and 50 is suspected of being a terrorist.”
A. said “Shoot first, ask questions later.’ That was the consensus … No one will shed a tear if we flatten a house when there was no need, or if we shoot someone who we didn’t have to.”
Even Andrew’s own chart (below) supports this argument: boys and men of all ages are being killed at a higher rate than girls and women.
When we account for this, the death distribution is not all too different from the Palestinian Population Pyramid. While we can’t determine exactly how many combatants, if any, are included in this list, the significant number of women, children, and elderly killed suggests that the list is likely 80%–100% civilian.
Claim #04 - Ages are being changed to increase the number of children killed.
Here, Andrew copies and pastes @Aizenberg55's sloppy work from a few months ago. They point out how many of the 18-year-olds listed in the April report were changed to 17-year-olds in the updated June list. Andrew then claims this is evidence of an intentional effort to lower the ages in order to inflate the number of children killed.
What Andrew conveniently omits is that approximately 70% of the entire list had their ages changed between April and June. So, how can this be explained?
Before the April list was released, the MoH reported that they didn’t have access to their usual reporting systems and had to manually compile the information. The estimated 70% change in ages can easily be explained by the fact that the MoH calculated ages based on year of birth rather than full birth date. People born between January and April would be listed with the correct age, while those born later in the year would have been listed as one year older, leading to an estimated 70% change in age data.
This change doesn't only increase the number of children it also increases the number of military age men.
Andrew previously showed to have access to the Palestinian Population Registry by identifying males listed as females. So why didn’t he mention that the updated ages were, in fact, the correct ones? Another convenient omission of crucial information.
What Andrew attributes to malice should actually be attributed to the MoH attempting to be as accurate as possible under challenging circumstances.
Here, Andrew copies and pastes @Aizenberg55's sloppy work from a few months ago. They point out how many of the 18-year-olds listed in the April report were changed to 17-year-olds in the updated June list. Andrew then claims this is evidence of an intentional effort to lower the ages in order to inflate the number of children killed.
What Andrew conveniently omits is that approximately 70% of the entire list had their ages changed between April and June. So, how can this be explained?
Before the April list was released, the MoH reported that they didn’t have access to their usual reporting systems and had to manually compile the information. The estimated 70% change in ages can easily be explained by the fact that the MoH calculated ages based on year of birth rather than full birth date. People born between January and April would be listed with the correct age, while those born later in the year would have been listed as one year older, leading to an estimated 70% change in age data.
This change doesn't only increase the number of children it also increases the number of military age men.
Andrew previously showed to have access to the Palestinian Population Registry by identifying males listed as females. So why didn’t he mention that the updated ages were, in fact, the correct ones? Another convenient omission of crucial information.
What Andrew attributes to malice should actually be attributed to the MoH attempting to be as accurate as possible under challenging circumstances.
#05 Deaths attributed to Hamas added to the list.
Andrew found a single instance of a 17-year-old who was reportedly killed by Hamas and added to the list. He then speculates that many more deaths, attributed to Hamas, must be on the list.
While it's likely that Hamas has killed more people than just that one boy since October 7th, there is no evidence to suggest that such deaths occur to an extent that would meaningfully impact the overall data.
He then cites Israel’s claim that over 9,000 rockets have been launched at Israel since October 7th, of which 1,700 misfired and fell within Gaza. If we were to assume that it is true we can estimate how many Gazans might be killed by misfired rockets by looking at past conflicts.
During the 2021 violence between Israel and Hamas, Hamas & PIJ launched an estimated 4,300 rockets at Israel. Israel reported that 21 Gazans were killed by misfired rockets. If we assume a similar rate of misfires and casualties, this would account for an estimated 50 deaths. Even if we are generous and triple that estimate, we get 150 deaths. This would represent only 0.44% of the total list.
The MoH does not investigate the cause of death; once a body is confirmed dead from violence, it is added to the list. Therefore, it is plausible that some individuals on the list were killed by Hamas. However, there is no reason to believe this accounts for more than a fraction of 1% of the total deaths.
Andrew found a single instance of a 17-year-old who was reportedly killed by Hamas and added to the list. He then speculates that many more deaths, attributed to Hamas, must be on the list.
While it's likely that Hamas has killed more people than just that one boy since October 7th, there is no evidence to suggest that such deaths occur to an extent that would meaningfully impact the overall data.
He then cites Israel’s claim that over 9,000 rockets have been launched at Israel since October 7th, of which 1,700 misfired and fell within Gaza. If we were to assume that it is true we can estimate how many Gazans might be killed by misfired rockets by looking at past conflicts.
During the 2021 violence between Israel and Hamas, Hamas & PIJ launched an estimated 4,300 rockets at Israel. Israel reported that 21 Gazans were killed by misfired rockets. If we assume a similar rate of misfires and casualties, this would account for an estimated 50 deaths. Even if we are generous and triple that estimate, we get 150 deaths. This would represent only 0.44% of the total list.
The MoH does not investigate the cause of death; once a body is confirmed dead from violence, it is added to the list. Therefore, it is plausible that some individuals on the list were killed by Hamas. However, there is no reason to believe this accounts for more than a fraction of 1% of the total deaths.
#05 Natural Deaths being added to the list
Andrew claims that natural deaths are being added to the list, citing the lack of a separate list of natural deaths from the MoH as evidence. However, this is a serious claim based on very weak evidence. It’s also easily disproved when we look at the data of those killed.
The vast majority of natural deaths are elderly individuals, yet when examining the breakdown of the casualties, we see no unusual spike in deaths among the elderly.
While it’s possible that a small number of natural deaths are being added to the list, doing so would require a very careful selection process to ensure that no unusual spikes occur in the data. This would limit the number of natural deaths that could be included, and their impact would be negligible.
Andrew claims that natural deaths are being added to the list, citing the lack of a separate list of natural deaths from the MoH as evidence. However, this is a serious claim based on very weak evidence. It’s also easily disproved when we look at the data of those killed.
The vast majority of natural deaths are elderly individuals, yet when examining the breakdown of the casualties, we see no unusual spike in deaths among the elderly.
While it’s possible that a small number of natural deaths are being added to the list, doing so would require a very careful selection process to ensure that no unusual spikes occur in the data. This would limit the number of natural deaths that could be included, and their impact would be negligible.
Claim #06: The media is underreporting combatant deaths
I personally have no issue with Andrew calling out the media, as they often act irresponsibly, and the amount of attention his report has received is a testament to that fact.
What responsible media should look like:
1. Israel claims that between 17,000 and 20,000 combatants have been killed, but we cannot confirm or deny this claim.
2. The MoH has released 34,344 names. Based on the demographic breakdown of this list, we can reasonably assume that 80-100% of this list consists of civilians.
Combatants may not be added to the list, or they may be underreported.
3. The real civilian death toll is likely far higher, as many Gazans remain missing and unaccounted for, and indirect deaths, such as those caused by the collapse of the healthcare system, have not yet been counted.
We know that indirect deaths haven’t been added, because including them would show an unusual spike among the elderly and very young children. Indirect deaths in some conflicts account for the majority of all deaths.
I personally have no issue with Andrew calling out the media, as they often act irresponsibly, and the amount of attention his report has received is a testament to that fact.
What responsible media should look like:
1. Israel claims that between 17,000 and 20,000 combatants have been killed, but we cannot confirm or deny this claim.
2. The MoH has released 34,344 names. Based on the demographic breakdown of this list, we can reasonably assume that 80-100% of this list consists of civilians.
Combatants may not be added to the list, or they may be underreported.
3. The real civilian death toll is likely far higher, as many Gazans remain missing and unaccounted for, and indirect deaths, such as those caused by the collapse of the healthcare system, have not yet been counted.
We know that indirect deaths haven’t been added, because including them would show an unusual spike among the elderly and very young children. Indirect deaths in some conflicts account for the majority of all deaths.
In conclusion, Andrew’s strategy seems to be simply throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. He relies on blatant misinformation, misrepresenting data, and the omission of key information. The intent behind his report is clear: to obfuscate and cast doubt. However, despite all his efforts, he has been unable to invalidate more than 1% of the list.
Countless media organizations have picked up this report as truth. If this topic matters to you, I encourage you to help me reach out to these outlets and inform them of their irresponsible reporting.
I invite Andrew or anyone else involved in this report to a Twitter Space, Livestream on my YouTube channel, or any other platform to have a good-faith debate on this issue.
Countless media organizations have picked up this report as truth. If this topic matters to you, I encourage you to help me reach out to these outlets and inform them of their irresponsible reporting.
I invite Andrew or anyone else involved in this report to a Twitter Space, Livestream on my YouTube channel, or any other platform to have a good-faith debate on this issue.
Sources:
Andrew's Report
henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/upl…
Israel controls the Palestinian Population Registry:
gov.il/en/Departments….
Whistle Blower Report of IDF soldiers who served in Gaza:
972mag.com/israeli-soldie…
Hamas misfired rockets:
jpost.com/arab-israeli-c…
Andrew's Report
henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/upl…
Israel controls the Palestinian Population Registry:
gov.il/en/Departments….
Whistle Blower Report of IDF soldiers who served in Gaza:
972mag.com/israeli-soldie…
Hamas misfired rockets:
jpost.com/arab-israeli-c…
Some have asked how I reached the conclusion that 80%-100% of the list are civilians. Here's the breakdown.
58% of the list are women, children & elderly.
If we assume that civilian men are dying at the same rate as women then the list is 78% civilians. However, we have much reason to believe that civilian men are dying at a higher rate than women. As we don't know the extent to which men are dying at a higher rate, we're left with the range of 80%-100%.
When it comes to "child soldiers" we don't have reason to believe that this is significant enough to change the data meaningfully.
There are only 1483 more boys on the list than girls (similar to the differential between elderly men & elderly women). Some of those excess boys are as young as 7 years old. The excess boys between the ages of 15-17 may be combatants or they may just be killed at a higher rate for the same reason military-age men are being killed at a higher rate. We can't know for sure but again it has a negligible impact on the data.
Demographic breakdown of the raw data:
data.techforpalestine.org/docs/killed-in…
58% of the list are women, children & elderly.
If we assume that civilian men are dying at the same rate as women then the list is 78% civilians. However, we have much reason to believe that civilian men are dying at a higher rate than women. As we don't know the extent to which men are dying at a higher rate, we're left with the range of 80%-100%.
When it comes to "child soldiers" we don't have reason to believe that this is significant enough to change the data meaningfully.
There are only 1483 more boys on the list than girls (similar to the differential between elderly men & elderly women). Some of those excess boys are as young as 7 years old. The excess boys between the ages of 15-17 may be combatants or they may just be killed at a higher rate for the same reason military-age men are being killed at a higher rate. We can't know for sure but again it has a negligible impact on the data.
Demographic breakdown of the raw data:
data.techforpalestine.org/docs/killed-in…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
