Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do casualty reporting methodologies differ between Gaza health authorities, the UN, and independent NGOs?
Executive summary
Different actors use distinct casualty-counting methods in Gaza: the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH) has shifted from hospital/morgue verification to mixed approaches that include “media reports” and an opaque “unidentified” category, the United Nations (primarily OCHA) has at times relayed MoH or Government Media Office (GMO) figures while flagging verification limits, and independent researchers/NGOs use household surveys, capture–recapture and other statistical methods to estimate likely undercounts — for example, a Lancet capture–recapture analysis estimated tens of thousands more traumatic-injury deaths than official lists [1] [2] [3]. Coverage in available reporting highlights major methodological disagreements and transparency gaps among these sources [4] [5].
1. The MoH’s evolving “central collection” then “media” patchwork
Early in the war, the Gaza MoH relied on a central collection system drawing from hospitals and morgues to certify deaths; once hospitals in northern Gaza closed or evacuated, the ministry began using press and “reliable media sources” and an “unidentified” category that appears to rebrand media-derived entries, producing an opaque hybrid methodology [6] [1]. Analysts say that shift undermines real-time verification and that the MoH’s internal revision and vetting processes remain nontransparent even where long lists of identified names have been published [4] [1].
2. The UN’s relay, caveats and occasional reliance on third‑party claims
OCHA and other UN offices have sometimes relayed figures attributed to the Gaza MoH or the Government Media Office, but they have added disclaimers that figures “yet-to-be verified by the UN are attributed to their source,” and have at times stopped using GMO claims when methodology was described as “unknown” [2] [5]. Critics say the UN’s use of unverified counts is “unusual” given its typical verification standards; defenders point to operational limits in accessing conflict zones — the UN has explicitly noted when numbers are MoH-identified subsets rather than full tallies [1] [2].
3. Independent NGOs and academic teams: surveys, capture–recapture and triangulation
NGOs and academic teams have used independent methods such as household surveys, capture–recapture, and multi-source triangulation to estimate under-reporting. A Lancet capture–recapture analysis (and related NGO summaries) estimated substantial undercounting of traumatic-injury fatalities — claiming over 64,000 deaths in one study period and suggesting roughly 41% under-recording compared with official lists — and organizations like AOAV have used event-level matching to compute civilian deaths per strike [3] [7]. Independent large-scale household surveys like the Gaza Mortality Survey are presented as empirical checks on facility-based lists [8].
4. Key differences in definitions and inclusion criteria
A central divergence is what counts as a reportable casualty: the MoH historically listed named, identified deaths and has at times excluded deaths from disease or indirect causes; independent studies often estimate both direct traumatic deaths and excess mortality from health-system collapse, malnutrition and disease, widening their scope beyond “battle” fatalities [9] [8]. Whether combatants are classified as civilians or fighters further complicates breakdowns by age and sex, and the MoH’s shifting methodologies have altered demographic shares attributed to women, children and men [9] [6].
5. Transparency, verification and political context
Analysts repeatedly flag opacity in the MoH’s revisions, the GMO’s unknown methodology, and OCHA’s on‑again/off‑again use of GMO claims as major problems for public trust [1] [5]. The Washington Institute and other critics emphasize that methodological choices have political consequences: counts shape international perceptions and policy debates, and reliance on unattributed media-based or GMO figures can be framed as amplifying party-generated claims [1] [5].
6. How to read conflicting numbers: triangulate and note limits
Available sources recommend treating each dataset according to its method: the MoH’s named lists reflect identification work but may omit or misclassify deaths after hospital closures; UN snapshots explicitly label which numbers are MoH-identified and which are unverified; independent studies aim to quantify undercounting using statistical corrections [4] [2] [3]. Because each approach has strengths and blind spots, responsible reporting and analysis triangulate across named lists, UN caveats, and independent estimates while flagging what is not independently verifiable [4] [2] [3].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a single technical protocol comparison chart; the summaries above rely on policy analyses, UN snapshots, and published independent studies that each describe different aspects of methodology and critique [1] [2] [3].