Hamas admits 72% of deaths are combat-aged men as it quietly reduces civilian death toll - report

[Mosby]

Hamas quietly removed the names of thousands of Palestinians it had previously alleged were killed during the Israel-Hamas war, Salo Aizenberg, from the US-based non-profit organisation Honest Reporting told The Telegraph on Tuesday after analyzing Hamas’s March 2025 casualty update.

Hamas has previously claimed that 70% of casualties have been women and children, a claim no longer reflected in their recently updated lists, according to the research. Approximately 72% of fatalities between the ages of 13-55 are men - the demographic category aligns with Hamas combatants.

"Hamas’s new March 2025 fatality list quietly drops 3,400 fully ‘identified’ deaths listed in its August and October 2024 reports – including 1,080 children. These ‘deaths’ never happened. The numbers were falsified – again,” Aizenberg asserted.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592

Is it genocide when you kill your enemy? What are the rules for Israel?

[Mossfern]

2. Explain

your reasoning for that statement please.

[OilemFirchen]

3. shocked.

[mcar]

4. Gee, what a surprise

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. HonestReporting is an advocacy group, not a journalistic or reporting group, fwiw.

It's also the org that was out there accusing AP, Reuters and BBC photographers of being "part of the plan" on October 7.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. It's also a promoter of nationalistic propaganda.

Also, isn't it interesting how those who insist any claim by Hamas has no credibility suddenly change their tune when it comes to something Hamas said that they think supports their Israel Can Do No Wrong mindsets? The word hypocrisy springs to mind...

[Beastly Boy]

11. I believe the point of the OP is that Hamas has no credibility, not Hamas suddenly becoming credible.

The new numbers Hamas is using lacks credibility as much as the old numbers, regardless of what they are.

There is no one changing their tune, regardless of what comes to your mind.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. If you read what I posted..

You'd see that I wasn't talking about the opinion of the writer of the OP. I was talking about people who dismiss anything said by Hamas (eg death tolls) as not being credible, but accept it as gospel if Hamas says anything that suits the purpose of making Israel look good. Its something that does happen at DU, and I can point you to examples if you're honestly interested.

Have a lovely day

[Beastly Boy]

15. Neither was I, if you read what I posted.

I addressed your allusion to "those who insist any claim by Hamas has no credibility suddenly change their tune".

This did not refer to the opinion of the writer of the OP. It referred to your statement. My reference to the OP was to question the placement of your statement in this thread.

Like I said, there is no one changing their tune, regardless of what comes to your mind. If you are aware of someone who did, a reference to that someone would be helpful.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I read and comprehended yr post.

You claim you weren't referring to the opinion of the writer, yet yr post begins with '. I believe the point of the OP is that Hamas has no credibility, not Hamas suddenly becoming credible.' If you mean to say something else than that, then I suggest you get some assistance from a writing tool. That will make what you write clear and easy to understand. It's not just me who you appear to have communication issues with. I've seen you do the same time and time again when people post opinions you don't seem to like.

Let me know when yr up for a genuine and constructive discussion. One that doesn't involve defending one side at all costs in that annoying and one-dimensional way that many Americans do. I've got a lot of time for people who can do that, but unfortunately they're few and far between.

I'll leave it to you to have the last word as I'm heading down to the pub for a schnitty

[Beastly Boy]

25. I will certainly respond accordingly the minute I see a genuine effort to have a constructive discussion.

In this instance, however, it appears that I have a rather long wait ahead of me. You may find it strange, but when I see someone make a claim that they cannot back up when challenged, and stray into opinionated assessments of my communication skills instead, I don't find it particularly supportive of a genuine and constructive discussion.

Of course, if your claims of comprehending my post were accurate, I would have had no need to repeat what I already stated: my reference to the OP was in response to YOUR rather transparent and, it turns out, totally unfounded allusion to the OP, not the opinions expressed in it. It was a response to YOUR presumptuous opinion, not that of the OP.

And you are quite right, it is not just you who appears to be completely unserious about having constructive discussions. This happens rarely, but more often than I have time for. But in certain cases, when I find these unserious discussions particularly unencumbered by rhyme or reason, I respond to them in a commensurately abrasive manner. More often than I care for, I get responses of an ad hominem nature that bypass my arguments, and that includes repeated pledges to ignore my posts.

Nothing new. These responses, however, do not create in me a sense of obligation to end my objections, and if you indeed choose to disregard my posts (an outcome which, given explicit nature of such pledges, I find quite rare), it will not stop me from challenging the nonsense I can demonstrate to be objectionable.

[AloeVera]

29. Enjoy!

At least as much as I enjoyed your post!

[sheshe2]

6. Well, well, well, would you look at that.

Quietly. "Quietly reduces, quietly drops."

" These ‘deaths’ never happened. The numbers were falsified – again,”

Thank you, Mosby.

[AloeVera]

10. 50,021 deaths happened. Plus 14,000 under rubble.

Awful, horrifying deaths. Terrifyingly lonely and agonizing deaths of those trapped under rubble.

All the rest is propaganda and distraction. Like this one right here by the Orwellian -named "Honest Reporting".

[Beastly Boy]

12. Not even Hamas is taking the numbers you are using seriously anymore.

And the performative outrage? There is a reason why this act acquired its own distinct label.

[AloeVera]

14. For those who can't feel the deaths of innocents

as an outrage and cruelly unjust, resort to attempting to belittle and mock others who do.

Your side simply can't understand why billions of people around the world are genuinely outraged. We can't understand why you are not.

[Beastly Boy]

18. You must have misunderstood what I posted.

The term "performative outrage" does not refer to those who feel outrage, it refers to those who self-righteously scream of their outrage at the top of their lungs to advertise their indignation to cover up the absence of any meaningful action. This is a well known phenomenon which has been subject of serious academic research.

I happen to think such hypocrisy exploits the victims and is therefore worthy of belittlement and mockery. Especially when these performances consistently disregard the vast majority of the equally applicable subjects of outrage and instead end up being a mere blame game.

You know next to nothing about "my side" because it lacks the element of performative outrage. I prefer to keep "my side" rather private. And certainly, "your side" does not include billions of people being engaged in performative outrage exclusively directed at Israel, despite the practice being encouraged, promoted and financed by some powerful and well financed parties in the Middle East and Europe.

BTW, claiming to have billions of people on "your side" is rather hypocritical in and of itself.

[AloeVera]

20. You make no secret of your side lol.

You support and defend whatever Israel does.

You say a lot of words in your attempts to mock but at bottom it's all performative, a word and a mode you like and are rather good at.

Billions of people ARE outraged and disgusted by Israel's actions. They are on the right side of history. I'm on their side.

[Beastly Boy]

31. Nice, I could't have asked for a better illustration of grossly misinformed anti-Israel bias.

It is not possible, if you know anything about Israel, to support and defend everything Israel does.

For example, I cannot possibly support and defend both the Netanyahu government and the tens of thousands of Israelis demonstrating daily against it.

I cannot possibly support and defend both the secular Zionists and religious anti-Zionists.

I cannot possibly support and defend both the rule of law and the judicial reform in Israel.

It is only when one completely, ignorantly and deliberately disregards the incredible diversity of Israel that one can speak of Israel as if it were a comic strip villain. It is only when one strips Israel of all but the worst negative stereotyping that one can so categorically villainize Israel.

It is only when one normalizes this negative stereotyping to the point where it becomes a collection of cartoonish memes that are taken for granted and are by default presumed to be immune from scrutiny, a practice that I find despicable (you don't have to find it despicable to validate my choices), that I step in and challenge the validity of such narratives.

This is "my side". It is so far removed from supporting anything and everything Israel does, so far removed from what you imagine "my side" to be, that I have no words or the time to address the chasm between what it is and what you think it is. Nor am I inclined to get defensive over your accusations.

Performative outrage" is a more polite version of the term "outrage porn", a phenomenon that is well defined and studied (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrage_porn). It is obvious that I am neither the creator of outrage porn nor its consumer or connoisseur. On the contrary, I push back on it every chance I get.

If one wants to look further into what outrage porn is and is not, all one has to do is examine how statements that presume sympathy from billions of people "on one's side" relate to the mechanics of outrage porn.

[AloeVera]

35. I have been critical of Israel's conduct of the war. Bears no relation to Israel as a society.

As you well know.

In relation to the conduct of the war, you have not once criticized or expressed disapproval of it. On the contrary, you defend it at every turn.

You of course twisted my clear meaning to suit your purposes.

I really don't care what kind of society it is that is slaughtering people, I simply want it to stop. Is that so hard to imagine?

I know Israel is not a monolith, and its people diverse. But I also know that there is not much diversity in the opinion of the war conduct - nearly-unanimous in support. No real opposition to the coming ethnic cleansing either. For example, less than 5% view it as "immoral".

It also doesn't matter to me whether you are to the left or right of Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir etc on social or constitutional issues. That's not what we've been discussing for 18 months and it bears no relevance to your unwavering support and defense for the war conduct.

It's a bit amusing that you do not see the irony of your accusations about "outrage porn". I refer you to the Mote and the Beam Parable.

You see, once again, Palestinians and their supporters are accused of the exact same thing that Israel itself has done. Repeatedly, since October 7th.

Maybe I'll head down to the pub myself now. Have the last word if you wish!
Cheers.

[Beastly Boy]

40. Coulda fooled me!

Your comments on Zionism, your revisionist views on the history of Israel, your consistent misinerpretations of the Geneva and Rome conventions, your portrayal of Israelis as predominantly European Jewish colonizers, or Israel as an inherently illiberal undemocratic state, are not limited to Israel's conduct of the war, not by a mile. And they bear a very direct relationship to Israel as a society. Not to mention that they are demonstrably false.

So tell me a different implausible denial story. This one is pure fiction.

[AloeVera]

43. All the more reason to believe my outrage and anger are real and not "performative" - no?

Long-held views about Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians and sympathy for their plight of course feeds into my outrage. Perhaps makes me more outraged and angry. But I held the same outrage and anger at the U.S. for what it did to Iraq. Shock-and-awe was the most inhumane thing I had seen up to that point. Just like now with Palestinians, many Americans didn't care much for innocent Iraqis and wildly cheered on that slaughter. In fact, going back to the first Iraq war, I remember being horrified by what the U.S. did to Iraqi soldiers on the "Highway of Death". Yet I had no "beef" with the U.S. prior - though that's changed now of course.

So my point stands. It's the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents that is the catalyst for my anger and outrage - regardless of who is doing the slaughtering or what kind of society it is. You can believe that or not, it matters only that I know it to be true.

That's it for tonight and for this thread.

[ForgedCrank]

30. Those who

insist on hard lines and black/white reasoning seem to be only interested in arguing rather than accepting uncomfortable truths.
All of this can be true at the same time. For example, I think Hamas is full of sh** and propaganda, nothing they say can be trusted. After all, propaganda is their primary weapon in the war against the Jews and Israel. I also think that that majority of those killed are either Hamas operatives themselves, or they are supporters of Hamas who voted these barbarians into power, fully supporting them. I also believe there are a smaller number of innocent people getting killed on both sides of that border. All of these things can be true at the same time so I'm not sure why some people can't accept that.
I also don't think the life of an Israeli Jew has any more value than the life of a Palestinian. But to be very frank about it, I'm going to condemn those who chose war over those who are attempting to stop it, and that means I side with Israel on this matter. War is terrible because casualties and horrible death are a consequence of it. And lets be honest, if Israel intended to commit "genocide" as is often insisted here, it would already be done. There wouldn't be a square inch left in the strip that wasn't charred black.

[sheshe2]

22. It's weird.

You have taken Hama's word/numbers as fact and when they say it wasn't true, now they are lying and it is propaganda. Alrighty then, however you can't have it both ways.

[AloeVera]

28. The 50K+ dead is still true. Verified and ID'd and formally reported.

Whether 3K+ were "quietly" dropped or not makes no difference to the 50K+ dead, does it?

You know what really amazes me is that intelligent, inquisitive people who can smell bullshit from a mile away when it comes to the Trump Regime for example, cannot seem to apply the same intellectual rigour and smarts when it comes to most things about Israel.

Honest Reporting, really? A spreadsheet using mystery methodology, lack of any reporting or supporting evidence as "research", really? Nothing on their website at all about this "research", really? 13-year old boys classified as "men" and therefore combatants, really? Quietly dropped but then apparently quietly replaced by verified "true dead" apparently as the totals didn't change - really?

Obviously the propaganda I was referring to is the one by Honest Reporting. It transparently serves to push the narrative that Hamas' numbers can't be relied on - so maybe it's not true that 50K+ were killed, or that most of them were women and kids? Of course classifying 13-17 year-old dead boys as "men" so that they can be viewed as "combatants" is laughably transparent propaganda. It's also a good example of how when it comes to Palestinians, even their kids are not viewed as kids as if somehow they were lesser humans, closer to animals. And that point is not even noticed, let alone raised by any Israel supporter, very revealing too.

It's exactly this view of Palestinians that allows for any sympathy for Palestinians to be labelled and mocked as merely "performative outrage". As if something like human solidarity and God forbid - EMPATHY - with them is impossible to imagine...

I don't understand this view and never will.

[Hekate]

16. Indeed, She

We shall hang in there

[iemanja]

7. Really? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

https://euromedmonitor.org/img.php?src=

[Beastly Boy]

19. Does your bridge confirm or deny the credibility of Hamas' numbers?

If not, I am afraid your offer has no relevance to the OP.

[Cha]

8. Poor Lying Hamas Butchers. They can Fry in Hell.

[Hekate]

17. Indeed, Cha

We shall hang in there

[Cha]

21. Yes We Shall, Hekate.. on all

Fronts

[AloeVera]

23. I wonder...

If Hamas quietly removed all these names, did they then quietly add in other names to make up the difference? Did they pull these names out of a hat? If so, why isn't Honest Reporting reporting on that travesty?

Because you see the number of total deaths didn't decrease by that amount.

Pondering these questions I moseyed over to Honest Reporting's website and to my amazement could find no mention of this "research" let alone a report. Very odd.

I sure would like to see that spreadsheet mentioned in the article. The pdf file from the Hamas-run Health Ministry is 1500 pages. I can't comprehend such a long list of dead people. Translating it to reality I mean.

The other odd thing is that 13-year olds would be categorized as "men". Or even 17-year olds for that matter. The universally accepted definition of a child is a human being under 18 years of age.

Are Palestinians not considered human beings? Or their kids not considered kids after the age of 12 and thus legit targets? Seems to me that is the narrative being pushed here.

[Beastly Boy]

32. Good question. If you can't confirm or deny what Hamas is reporting at any given moment,

by definition their reporting becomes more suspect as the inconsistencies emerge.

And then, it's the credibility of the reporter, regardless of the statistics being reported at any given moment, that is on the line.

BTW, I don't find it surprising at all that Hamas doesn't follow the universally accepted definition of "men" in their recruitment of fighters. Do you? In fact, it is reasonable to assume that they follow the Koran definition of men, which starts at the age of 13, when they recruit fighters.

[AloeVera]

37. It's not Hamas that categorized them as "men".

"Honest" Reporting did that. But you already knew that.

They did that to appeal to the credulous and provide propaganda fodder for the complicit.

Not very honest of them. Not a credible source of "research" or reporting. Not surprising to see so many fans here though.

Oddly enough, Israel too made some serious overestimates of the number of October 7 victims. From 1400 to 1200 to 1139 or so at last count. Was that lying too? Of course not and I for one would never say that. I recognize that in those circumstances, even with all the resources, mistakes are made. Though I draw the line at 40 beheaded babies and babies baked in ovens. Clearly war porn and "outrage porn".

Now imagine the circumstances at Gaza's destroyed hospitals and morgues subject to attacks and blackouts where the counting and reporting is done. But of course no reciprocal leeway or understanding is given to them. Or heaven forbid a search for an explanation. Certainly not the usual applied rigour and disbelief about the unseen "research" of a questionable source.

Two sides, two very different standards applied. Not surprising to me at all, just galling.

[Beastly Boy]

39. You don't say!

As far as I know, Hamas doesn't categorize ANY casualties as "men", or "men of fighting age", which, by Hamas' standards includes 13 year olds, and there are no separate accounts for deaths of Hamas members, or males between 13 and 50 years of age, or an account of natural deaths.

This gaping lapse in methodology is enough to doubt the accuracy of Hamas reporting. Added to it, the most recent discrepancies with previously reported numbers makes Hamas' reliability even more suspect.

And I am not a fan of honestreporting. My observations, although prompted by the OP, are not contingent on their research. The discrepanceis in Hamas reporting had been noticed by a number of sources previously.

[AloeVera]

41. Of course "men" are categorized by Hamas.

You know that.

If others doubt it, see post #36.

13-17 year olds are children. Not men.

Just ask Israel. It categorized victims of Oct 7th who were between 0 and 19 years of age as children.

To point out there is no 13-50 year-old category in the casualty reporting reveals the same attitude toward Palestinian kids as that of Dishonest Reporting. For them, all 13-17 year old kids killed by the IDF -probably in the thousands - are not children, they are just "Hamas".

These kids are devalued even in death.

[atreides1]

26. Right

So, now we believe Hamas...

[Beastly Boy]

34. No, we just have one more reason to disbelieve Hamas.

[LexVegas]

27. Freedom fighters do not lie. nt

[betsuni]

33. Not unusual for them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Where are those numbers? They don't agree with the UN numbers

Late August 2024: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/reported-impact-snapshot-gaza-strip-28-august-2024
Late October 2024: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/reported-impact-snapshot-gaza-strip-22-october-2024
Late March 2025 (latest on the website): https://www.ochaopt.org/content/reported-impact-snapshot-gaza-strip-25-march-2025

........ 25/03 22/10 28/08
men..... 22265 16735 12927
women... 8304. 7216. 5956
children 15613 13319 10627
elderly. 3839. 3447. 2770


identified 50021 40717 32280
The proportion for 'men' has gone up slightly (40% in August, 45% in March), but the absolute numbers for women, children and elderly killed went up between the named months too.

"Honest Reporting" needs to show its work.

[AloeVera]

38. Will "Honest Reporting" do that?

If they categorize 13-17 year olds as "men" so they could be considered combatants I seriously doubt their "research" is anything but fodder for propaganda by the complicit. Who then mischaracterize it as "Hamas admits".

Thanks for the UN numbers. I was looking for those!

[Oopsie Daisy]

42. Naturally. And I have my doubts if that is accurate. The civilian death toll is likely much less.

Time will tell.