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.
Fact check: How do Palestinian militant groups contribute to civilian casualties in Gaza?
Executive Summary
Palestinian militant groups are implicated in civilian harm in Gaza primarily through tactics that mix fighters and military activity into densely populated areas and by launching attacks from or storing munitions in civilian infrastructure, which raises the risk of collateral deaths when Israel responds. Independent and leaked datasets show very high civilian death proportions in Gaza since March–August 2025, while reporting also documents militant rocket fire into Israel and heavy Israeli military operations; both dynamics contribute to the civilian toll and are presented differently by actors with distinct agendas [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Numbers Tell a Stark Story — Who’s Dying, and How Many Are Fighters?
Multiple datasets published in mid–to–late 2025 converge on the conclusion that civilians comprise the vast majority of Palestinian fatalities in Gaza since March. ACLED and other monitoring groups reported near-94% civilian shares in some tallies, while leaked Israeli military databases and joint investigations by outlets like The Guardian put the figure around 83% in August 2025, with Israeli internal counts listing thousands of named fighters among a far larger total death toll [5] [2] [3] [6]. These sources disagree on absolute totals and labeling criteria, but they consistently show a high civilian proportion, undercutting simple narratives that most victims were combatants.
2. How Militant Tactics Increase Civilian Risk — Proximity, Infrastructure, and Visibility
Reporting and investigative accounts indicate that militant groups operate within populated areas, sometimes firing rockets or maintaining infrastructure in or near homes, schools, and hospitals, which increases the likelihood that Israeli counterstrikes will hit civilians. The datasets and reporting do not provide exhaustive forensic breakdowns of every incident, but the pattern described explains how militant placement and tactics transform civilian environments into battlefields, elevating direct and indirect civilian fatalities when major military responses follow [1] [5] [4]. Leaked Israeli classifications of “operatives” versus civilians also reflect challenges in distinguishing fighters from noncombatants in such contexts [7].
3. Attribution Disputes — Who Counts as a Combatant and Who Doesn’t?
A central dispute across sources is how to classify those killed. Leaked Israeli military databases list thousands of named operatives but also show civilians as the majority of deaths; outside monitors use differing methodologies and thresholds, producing civilian shares from 83% to nearly 94% depending on criteria and timeframes [3] [5]. These differences matter because military claims about the number of militants killed are used to justify operations, while humanitarian advocates and some datasets emphasize civilian victimhood to argue against proportionality and for accountability. Each dataset reflects institutional perspectives and possible incentives to label deaths in ways that support particular policy narratives [2] [6].
4. Militant Offensives and Israeli Defensive Claims — Two Sides of Fatality Drivers
While much of the analysis focuses on Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza, reports also document substantial militant attacks on Israeli civilians, including thousands of rockets and incursions cited in mid–2025 coverage; these attacks prompted large-scale Israeli military responses and shaped public and political reactions internationally [4] [8]. The existence of aggressive militant operations complicates assessments: they are both a cause of Israeli military action and, through their tactics, a contributor to the risk environment for Gazan civilians. Sources emphasize this two-way causality differently depending on editorial stance and access to internal data [4] [7].
5. Structural Effects — Demolitions, Displacement, and Long-Term Civilian Harm
Beyond immediate deaths, datasets document massive infrastructure damage and population displacement, with reports of hundreds of building demolitions and widespread humanitarian stressors shaping long-term civilian suffering. Monitoring organizations flagged an increase in demolitions and strategies that critics say could render Gaza unlivable, while Israeli sources frame such measures as aimed at degrading militant capabilities. The long-term human cost — loss of homes, health services, and psychological trauma — compounds the immediate casualty figures and is central to debates about proportionality and post-conflict reconstruction [5] [9].
6. Interpreting Motives and Possible Agendas — What Each Source Emphasizes
Different actors emphasize different facts: Israeli internal data and allied reporting stress the number of operatives killed to justify military strategy, while independent monitors and investigative coalitions emphasize civilian proportions and infrastructure destruction to argue for accountability and humanitarian intervention [3] [1] [2]. Local and regional outlets underscore both the impact of militant attacks on Israeli society and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, reflecting competing domestic pressures. Readers should treat each dataset as produced within institutional contexts that shape what is counted and how it is framed [8] [6].
Conclusion: The materials provided show that militant tactics that blend military activity into civilian spaces materially contribute to civilian casualties in Gaza by increasing the likelihood that Israeli strikes will hit noncombatants, even as Israeli operations account for the majority of those deaths according to multiple datasets. Both immediate tactics and wider strategic decisions shape this tragic outcome, and the exact proportions depend on contested classification methods and the source of the data [1] [5] [3].