Did IEDs in homes in Gaza kill a lot of civlinas

1. The question you asked and what sources actually say

You asked whether IEDs placed in homes in Gaza killed “a lot of civilians.” The materials provided focus overwhelmingly on civilian deaths from explosive weapons, air strikes and house-targeting by state forces, and on overall civilian casualty proportions; they do not document a quantified pattern of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) inside civilian homes causing mass casualties (available sources do not mention IEDs-in-homes as a major, quantified cause of civilian deaths) ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Large civilian tolls — mostly attributed to air and other explosive weapons

Independent trackers and NGOs cited here record tens of thousands of civilian casualties from explosive weapons in the occupied Palestinian territory during the campaign: Action on Armed Violence’s Explosive Violence Monitor reported 48,763 civilian casualties (31,158 killed) from explosive weapons use in the OPT as of Aug 1, 2025, and documents that state air‑launched weapons were the deadliest category ^[1]. Amnesty and other groups document repeated strikes on homes and whole families killed by strikes, for example the Harb family houses in Rafah where Amnesty says 25 civilians were killed by strikes ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Investigations flag household-targeted strikes and “obliteration” of families

Amnesty International and other human‑rights reporting describe direct hits on residential buildings that “obliterated entire families” and call some strikes likely unlawful or indiscriminate; Amnesty’s Rafah investigation found no indication the people staying in targeted floors were legitimate military targets ^[3]. Amnesty and other NGOs repeatedly cite cases of entire families killed in their homes by strikes ^[2].

4. Claims about proportions of civilians among the dead

Multiple analyses and leaked data cited here indicate the vast majority of Gazans killed were civilians. AOAV and other investigators estimate at least 74% to 97% of casualties in many datasets are civilians; leaked Israeli military intelligence data reported by outlets later suggest an 83% civilian proportion in one internal database ^{[4] [5] [6]}. These figures speak to the scale of civilian harm, but they do not ascribe those civilian deaths specifically to IEDs placed inside homes ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

5. What the sources do not say — gaps and limits

None of the provided sources offers a systematic count of deaths caused by IEDs planted within civilian homes in Gaza, nor do they present evidence that such devices were a primary driver of mass civilian casualty figures. The coverage instead documents high civilian casualties from air and ground operations, strikes on houses, and explosive‑weapon use broadly (available sources do not mention IEDs‑in‑homes as a main cause) ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

6. Competing perspectives and possible reasons for confusion

Human‑rights organisations and independent monitors emphasize civilian deaths from state strikes on residences and call for accountability ^{[3] [2]}. Israeli official narratives in some reporting have claimed higher proportions of combatant deaths, a position challenged by independent trackers and leaked internal data that indicate much higher civilian rates ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Misattribution can occur in chaotic conflict zones: when destroyed homes contain casualties, sources differ on whether those killed were combatants, civilians, or militants with civilian cover — but the supplied materials do not say IEDs inside homes are a major, verified source of mass civilian deaths ^{[5] [4]}.

7. Bottom line for your question

Based on the documents provided, the high numbers of civilians killed in Gaza are well documented and largely tied to explosive weapons and strikes on residential areas, with NGOs explicitly documenting many family homes wiped out by strikes ^{[1] [3] [2]}. However, available sources do not support the specific claim that IEDs placed inside homes were a widespread, quantitatively significant cause of civilian deaths; that specific assertion is not found in the current reporting you supplied (available sources do not mention IEDs‑in‑homes as a primary driver) ^{[1] [3] [2]}.