More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Latest Analysis Of Gazan Casualties In Operation Protective Edge: As of July 25th

Following on from the two previous casualties analyses I published, here is the latest based on the 627 names listed at Al Jazeera, and taken from the Gaza Health Ministry.

Note that this analysis eliminates duplicated names found, and delineates those whose age or gender was not identified, in order to make the analysis as accurate as possible.

I have also added two new graphs comparing the casualties for each demographic category with their percentage of the Gaza population as a whole.

graph new1
graph new2
graph new3graph new4
graph new5graph new6

What this analysis indicates even more clearly than the previous two is how even those numbers provided by the Gaza Health Ministry do not support claims that Israel is targeting civilians or indiscriminately killing them, and do support IDF claims that we are trying to pinpoint the terrorists. How else do you explain:

  • The highest demographic category of those killed being young males of fighting age (18-28) – 32% (73% x 44%)
  • Over 42% of those killed have been males of age 18-38 (i.e including others who could very well be combatants)
  • When compared to the overall population of Gaza, a disproportionately high percentage of young to middle age males have been killed
  • Despite comprising approximately 50% of the population, the percentage of women killed is 21%.
  • Despite comprising  approximately 50% of the population, the percentage of children under 14 killed is 15%.

Bear in mind also that some of these casualties were likely not killed by Israeli strikes (e.g. killed by Hamas’ rockets landing in their own territory, or killed as “collaborators”).

17 thoughts on “Latest Analysis Of Gazan Casualties In Operation Protective Edge: As of July 25th”

  1. Can you add another tag to these analyses (Gaza casualties, or something like that)?

    I know I’m going to want to find them very quickly and frequently.

    Thanks.

  2. To Dine George Above in the Facebook comments,

    I am the person who has been doing most of these analyses with the exception of those last graphs above. I actually DO have a PhD in a science related subject. I am quite aware of statistical requirements. That is why the Y-Axis is labeled discrete units, because either a person is dead or not. There is no standard deviation (currently) because I took the names from these two sources below. As more analyses are preformed (by other people than me) and I see more graphs it would then be feasible to average them out and determine the overall average causalities per age segment with full error bars (standard deviations).

    http://gazadeaths.com/
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/gaza-under-seige-naming-dead-2014710105846549528.html

    As you can tell they are VERY pro-Israeli/sarcasm.

    The point of this data is breakdown the Death toll presented, as a number of ‘1000 deaths’ is misleading. As you can clearly see from Al-Jazeera’s own mouth, that they even admit that the majority of casaulties are Male between ages of 18-38. This displays quite clearly that there is no random attacks as then the distribution of killed should match the population distribution of Gaza. Which it does not.

    Now can you actually recommend better sources and better statistical methods of determining deaths by age and gender?

  3. Perhaps you can add a chi-square test to the breakdowns to show the chance that the distribution of deaths produced is the result of random chance given the demographics of Gaza.

    1. Hi Joseph,

      You make a good point, the problem with including Chi-square test is two fold.

      1. The unidentified/unknown age groups are problematic. Because as expected values they would obviously be zero, but in reality we observe these values. So basically I would have to ignore them to be able to get the series of values to either equal the same sum or have the percentages equal to 100. On the other hand everyone will argue that removing this data manipulates it by changing the size of the data set.

      (Though thankfully GraphPad has wonderfully included this and other statistical tools online, avoiding a lot programming pain and annoying tables!: http://graphpad.com/quickcalcs/chisquared1.cfm)

      2. I’m not trying to sound arrogant but from my experience when it comes to explaining science and observing data, keep it simple. Generally most people have a hard time reading a P-value and numerous statistical test. And tend to zone out when you start talking about too many things they are not familiar with.

      (Further whenever I was reading scientific literature I was always very suspicious when I started seeing a very heavy use of a multitude of statistical tests to prove or disprove a relationship, because a lot of those situations tended to be more ‘sexed up’ so people would overlook questionable conclusions because of ‘fancy’ statistical analysis)

      But I’m blabbing on. Basically, you make an excellent point, but the results are quite overwhelming and clear cut. Obviously if there is a heavy demand, I can do it, but it does require me to manipulate the data, which I’m not a fan of.

      1. Oh, I wouldn’t explain the P-value and numerous statistical tests. This isn’t science – Hamas provided the data set. Just write an piece with a headline “Research indicates 3% chance Israel is randomly targeting civilians” – write up a paper with a synopsis, explained limitations, methodology etc… and link to it in the piece. The article can go into details (including effects of assigning things like Al Shifa casualties to different parties) and past variations between Hamas data and other sources. The piece can be almost interview style showing why you were interested (something about the data set and the common storyline seemed incongruous). I’m sure you can get linkage from various organizations etc…

  4. Do you have any explanation why the number of killed girls (under 14) is twice as low as the number of boys. The same relation also for boys and girls under age 10

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top