It is a regular feature of foreign media reports and from there, it makes its way to the chants of anti-Israel protesters around the world and to political commentators such as Thomas Friedman. The news reports highlight claims that since October 7, some huge number of Gazans have been killed by Israel and among that among them are a high percentage of children.
Some of the media, usually the less hostile, then mention how many Israelis were killed, often failing to mention who initiated the war (Hamas) and the brutal manner in which Israelis (largely civilians, ranging from infants to elderly) were murdered, abused, raped, and taken hostage. They then attribute some significance to the number comparison and often conclude with a charge of a disproportionate response by Israel.
There are several issues that need to be addressed regarding this “numbers game.”
The first issue regards the meaninglessness of comparing casualty counts. The trend of tallying casualties is the wrong approach. The current war was launched by the Hamas massacre of 1,200 Israelis and abduction of over 200 others on October 7, and that pogrom was perpetrated by an army of 5,000 armed and unarmed terrorists backed by another 20,000-50,000 terrorists in Gaza. If Israel does nothing, Hamas will do it again, they have publicly said as much in many forums. So, simply as a means of self-defense and survival, Israel must eliminate those terrorists.
Now, let’s say Israel has a fantastic army and can kill all of those terrorists without losing a soldier and without harming a civilian, would anybody argue that the imbalance in numbers is unethical? Would Israel then be accused of a disproportionate response? Indeed, in that scenario, the number of Gazans killed would far surpass the number of Israelis killed. And the number of Gazans dead would be a big number. But it would represent an unquestioned, legitimate self-defense. Hence, the numbers themselves are not the determining issue.
Unfortunately, that scenario is in the ideal world. Israel is fighting a brutal war in the real world. And in that world, despite valiant efforts to avoid harm to civilians, the Israel Defense Forces are not perfect, terrorists fight back, and Hamas hides behind their own civilians, including children. In this realistic war, in order to protect itself from a repeat of October 7, Israel still needs to eliminate those tens of thousands of terrorists.
In so doing, Israel will suffer losses and there will inevitably be collateral losses to the Gazan civilian population. Keeping in mind the goal of eliminating terrorists, a goal that is not subject to criticism, it is reasonable to assume that even if Israel succeeds in minimizing civilian casualties, there will still be an imbalance in the casualty count. But this disparity is justifiable. There is thus no point in presenting these numbers – there are just so many bad guys that it is wholly justifiable for Israel to kill a large number of terrorists.
Intent matters: Israel does not target civilians, Hamas does
THE SECOND issue regards intent and results. Counting might be relevant – not in the number of casualties, but insofar as how many innocents Israel targets and how many Hamas targets. And here the answer is very clear – Israel targets none or very few. Hamas targeted and killed many hundreds of Israeli civilians on October 7 (and also killed many civilians over the last many years) and continues to (and also regularly before October 7) target Israeli civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire of thousands of rockets at Israeli population centers.
Hamas also targets Gazan civilians, either directly when they are viewed as “traitors” or simply by despicably using them as human shields and fighting from within civilian centers. Israel, with vast firepower, indeed has the ability to kill many Gazans; but Israel does not and has never done what Hamas does. Israel does not murder civilians and that is never the intent. In fact, Israel warns civilians to get away from areas of conflict. Gaza’s civilian casualties are largely the result of Hamas’ disregard for human life such as using them as human shields and preventing them from evacuating areas of fighting.
This issue of intent is relevant to how each side treats civilians on the other side and how they treat their own civilians. Israel protects its civilians. It builds shelters and invests significant resources in defending its civilian populations, for instance with the Iron Dome anti-missile system. Hamas does the exact opposite. There is no attempt or even a façade of attempting to protect anyone other than their own fighters, the terrorists.
It is actually the exact opposite – they use their population as human shields, operating out of schools, mosques, and hospitals. And the billions of dollars that have been funneled into Gaza by foreign entities as humanitarian aid have been used to build a vast network of tunnels where the terrorists hide, leaving the population above ground exposed and without protection.
In other words, Israel aims at terrorists but thanks to Hamas there are sometimes collateral civilian casualties; while Hamas aims at civilian centers but thanks to great efforts by Israel there are fewer casualties. Thus, if a news outlet wants to compare civilian causalities, Gazan civilian causalities, including children, should rightly be credited to the Hamas column.
A FINAL issue to keep in mind is the veracity of the numbers. The sole source for the casualty count in Gaza is the Hamas-controlled ministries. Those who murder, rape, behead, burn victims, and commit untold other atrocities are also capable of lying. And they do. Israel and the world have no means of independently verifying the Gazan death count, but it is eminently reasonable to assume it is highly inflated. For example, does the “official” Hamas count include the almost 500 people who were (not) killed in the hospital that Israel did (not) bomb? The reliance on Hamas for numbers is patently absurd.
Keeping those three points in mind, the numbers game is meaningless and should not be played by any responsible media outlet.
And the answer that should have been given to the obnoxious question asked by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at Davos on January 17 is obvious. Friedman asked: “Given the high civilian casualties in Gaza: Do Jewish lives matter more than Palestinian and Muslim lives, Palestinian Christian lives, given the incredible asymmetry in casualties? [sic]” The response should have been to ask of Hamas: Do terrorist lives matter more than civilian lives? And their deeds provide all the answer that is necessary.
The writer is a professor of neuroscience at Bar-Ilan University.