Gaza Death Statistics: How Math Reveals Propaganda and Antisemitism

The Progressive Left, Impossible Numbers, and the Violence of Relational Aggression

All wars are accompanied by propaganda. Particularly in democracies, where the will of the people is required to support the actions of their national military, propaganda is essential to the prosecution of a war. It relies on appealing to the emotions of a population, and it is the nature of propaganda to be biased and misleading. That’s how an enemy is created.¹

Today, body count has been a driving force behind the Hamas’ propaganda war. Hamas and the progressive left have portrayed Hamas’ goals as just and Israel’s as genocidal based on death statistics. To date, Hamas propaganda claims more than 34,000 civilian casualties with breakdowns that highlight the deaths of women and children.² These figures are cited over and over again to demonstrate an injustice. Only recently has the United Nations rethought how it tallies the death toll in Gaza, reducing the number of women and children killed to reflect documented casualties, rather than estimates, while still keeping the 34,000-person estimate.

The Suspicious Math behind Gaza Death Tolls

These death statistics have seemed suspicious to mathematicians, not just in the tally of women and children, but also in the daily progression of casualties. Abraham Wyner, a data scientist and statistician at the University of Pennsylvania, recently analyzed Gaza death statistics from October and November of 2023 and concluded that they were fabricated. Some of the inconsistencies that he uncovered include numerical problems: the number of child casualties reported daily is unrelated to the number of female casualties, despite the expectation that they should be correlated in an urban warfare setting. He also found that the proportions of casualties as presented by the Gaza Health Ministry (70% women and children, 20% Hamas fighters) would imply that adult male civilians account for only a small fraction of the total casualties.³

Most interesting to me, however, was Wyner’s finding that reported daily casualties from October 26 to November 10, 2023 averaged close to 270, rarely being more than 40 above or below that number. These numbers represent an impossible linear progression. Casualties, according to Wyner, should vary far more daily. He concludes on this basis that the death toll in Gaza is being manipulated and exaggerated.

The Hamas-Israeli war isn’t the first time that a suspicious situation produced strange numbers. Back in 2008, malfeasance was revealed when Harry Markopolos, then a portfolio manager at Rampart Investment Management in Boston, found an impossible linear progression in Bernie Madoff’s Fairfield Sentry fund returns, in addition to other inconsistencies. While S&P funds demonstrate volatility over time, Madoff’s growth was predictably constant and didn’t line up with stock market movements.

The impossibility of Hamas’ and Madoff’s numbers isn’t coincidence. While the contexts may seem like apples and oranges, both Hamas’ and Madoff’s numbers rely on their intended audiences’ wishful thinking. In both cases, strong beliefs in the best of all possible worlds — less body count in war, more financial stability in investment outcomes — trump empirical reality.

How the Progressive Left Enables Hamas Propaganda

This sort of wishful thinking is manifesting itself in some Jewish progressive positions on the war. The far left has become so concerned with equating body count to an injustice that they are now relying on debatable statistics and omissions to further their concerns about Palestinian self-determination. These distortions or decontextualization of empirical data may have been used to fuel to a form of non-physical violence, relational aggression, that smears the reputation of opponents in public discourse. Relational aggression is often the precursor to physical violence because it portrays its target as lesser and can even dehumanize the target. If Madoff is the psychopath who used reputation and grandiosity to dupe his investors, some of the progressive left may be the psychopath’s facilitators. They ignore the larger context of Hamas’ charter and methods in service of their concerns about the fate of civilians.

Jon Stewart, currently the Monday night host of The Daily Show, and Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, are known for their principled stances as members of the progressive left. Jon Stewart regularly speaks truth to power and left show business for a time to advocate on behalf of 9/11 first responders in Congress. Reich spent many years focusing on economic inequality and resigned from the Clinton administration because he disagreed with its emphasis on reducing the deficit over improving labor policies.⁴ Today, both believe that Israel’s response to Hamas’ October 7 attack is overzealous and an injustice. Their positions rely on distortions of fact to demonstrate the injustice they are fighting so passionately for.

Here’s Jon Stewart’s proposal for Middle East peace as presented on The Daily Show:

Starting now, no preconditions, no earned trust, no partners for peace: Israel stops bombing, Hamas releases the hostages. The Arab countries who claim Palestine as their top priority come in and form a demilitarized zone between Israel and a free Palestinian state. The Arab countries who claim Palestine as their top priority come in and form a demilitarized zone between Israel and a free Palestinian state. The Saudis Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Jordan — they all form like a NATO arrangement guaranteeing security for both sides. Obviously, they won’t call it NATO. It’s the Middle East Treaty Organization — METO.”⁵

Stewart raises all the right points: autonomy for a people without a state, adherence to the international system, the involvement of other Arab nations. He presents a measured image as he balances competing interests and avoids further deaths of civilians. Nevertheless, this is a kumbaya proposal that plays into Hamas’ genocidal charter and international propaganda by creating a false equivalency between Hamas and Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization, not an organization designed to create a legitimate sovereign government. A sovereign Palestinian state buffered by a demilitarized zone won’t stop terrorism. It won’t stop proxy wars. It won’t negate Hamas’ intentions to destroy the State of Israel.

Stewart’s proposal would leave Israel defanged, but it sounds reasonable because a questionable body count becomes the basis for finding simple solutions to a complicated Palestinian history, one that has involved destabilizing some Arab governments and looks forward to future destabilization around the world. Jon Stewart asserted in a separate Daily Show segment that Israel is “just going to kill everyone.”⁶ Without relying on difficult-to-verify body counts, Stewart can’t portray Israel as a monster. He also doesn’t contextualize the high casualty rate typical of urban warfare, where civilians are easily caught in the crossfire. For example, it is estimated that during the battle for Mosul, Iraq, from October 2016 to July 2017, civilians represented between 50% and 70% of the total number of casualties."⁷

Robert Reich also relies on omissions in his recent essay in the Guardian, “Protesting against slaughter – as students in the US are doing – isn’t antisemitism.”⁸ He starts by treating Hamas’ death statistics as accurate despite some of their flaws. As an economist with a good background in mathematics, he should be able to recognize red flags in the data, even if he’s unable to execute a full analysis. From there, he can claim that the recent encampments on university campuses are rightfully protesting an injustice, leaving those who disagree as supporting this injustice.

He handles his fellow Jews who disagree with him by dismissing their complaints. Campus antisemitism is not a threat to Jewish students, but “micro-aggressions,” code for Jewish students being too sensitive when faced with pro-Hamas slogans. The Anti-Defamation League, in contrast, reports regular harassment of Jewish students: Hostage flyers being defaced with “kidnap the Zionists” at Harvard. Jewish students being spat on at Columbia and subjected to antisemitic rhetoric, such as “Fuck the Jews.” Other incidents include arson, rocks thrown, and Jewish students being barricaded at Cooper Union and prevented from attending classes at MIT.⁹

Reich, like Stewart, distorts key facts in his arguments, and much like Columbia President Minouche Shafik’s portrayal of pro-Hamas speech as “hurtful” during the April 17, 2024 Congressional hearings on antisemitism, Reich is willing to portray Jewish students and faculty as too delicate to handle different points of view for the sake of a larger cause. By extension, he also suggests a lack of patriotism from Jews. If incendiary language is considered protected free speech that can be separated from violence, then according to Reich, Jewish demands for safety are simply a way to subordinate the workings of democracy to the unreasonable demands of an entitled minority. A false interpretation of freedom of speech becomes the litmus test for membership in the democratic order.

There’s a lot of gaslighting going on here. Ask Reich or Shafik about the consequences of Donald Trump calling the coronavirus the “China Virus,” and they will probably recognize the incendiary nature of this portrayal and point to the resulting uptick in attacks against people with Asian features. Yet, when it comes to antisemitic speech, they manage to ignore the empirical evidence for the resulting harassment and physical violence. The body count is horrible, so Israel must be genocidal, and any evidence that complicates this argument is suppressed or deemed the complaints of people with mental health issues.

Relational Aggression: The Insidious Precursor to Physical Violence

These distortions are classic relational aggression. Relational aggression is “a set of behaviors that harm others through damage to relationships or social status” and is often the first step of incitement.¹⁰ Most often associated with “mean girls,” it can be used in any adult social context to produce social exclusion and reputation attacks by abusing power dynamics or creating new, abusive situations.¹¹ It is insidious because it requires context, subtext, and nonverbal behavior to be fully understood, rather than soundbites where direct, violent speech is more easily recognizable. As such, it plays into simple, idealistic solutions that appeal to utopian hopes, while at the same time flying under the radar of the law which prefers direct statements of intent.

“From the River to the Sea” is a prime example of relational aggression on college campuses. It is coded language that taunts its victims, but may not be immediately understood by others outside the Jewish community. To someone not familiar with the history of Israel, it can require some context and understanding of subtext to recognize it as a genocidal statement, and for those not willing to examine its full meaning, it can seem like a contested statement instead of an indication of intent. Who doesn’t want freedom? Understood, however, in terms of the history of the region, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this slogan is that Israel should be Judenrein.

The confusion that this slogan creates is precisely the kind of confusion often found at the beginning of a relational aggression attack. The victims, while offended, may not yet be sure of its full intent, and educating bystanders about its full meaning can take too long to prevent escalation into more incendiary rhetoric.¹² Nonverbal behavior can also help to isolate the victims. The wearing of the keffiyeh may seem like an innocuous statement, but en masse in public spaces, it is a form of intimidation to keep Jewish students from using university facilities.

As such, many pro-Hamas protesters, based on the World Health Organization’s definition, should be considered violent. Here’s the WHO’s definition:

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation … The inclusion of the word ‘‘power’’, in addition to the phrase ‘‘use of physical force’’, broadens the nature of a violent act and expands the conventional understanding of violence to include those acts that result from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation. The ‘‘use of power’’ also serves to include neglect or acts of omission, in addition to the more obvious violent acts of commission. Thus, ‘‘the use of physical force or power’’ should be understood to include neglect and all types of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, as well as suicide and other self-abusive acts.¹³

The use of power is an integral part of violence, even if no physical injuries occur. When prominent people portray Jewish students and faculty as overly sensitive to hostile protest speech, as Reich does, it is at the very least uncivil and has the potential to damage their reputation. Reich takes this one step further by turning demands for physical safety into delusional thought, uses the defamatory language of stigma to undermine legitimate grievances, and ignores the statistics gathered over the last six months from students who are afraid to walk across campus. Likewise, Stewart’s omissions in his Daily Show statements imply that Jewish objections to his position are a moral failure. When Jewish objections to their mistreatment are portrayed as supporting genocide, power on and off campus has been corrupted. Supporters of Hamas, especially on campus, have been handed the power to intimidate under the guise of Free Speech.

It gets worse. The fallout of harassment and intimidation can last far beyond the reported incidents of antisemitism on campus. There is brain research that confirms the effects of power imbalances described in the WHO report. It is not a matter of sticks and stones, as suggested by Reich. A 2003 fMRI study demonstrated that social rejection activates regions in the brain that are associated with pain.¹⁴ Its effects on the brain and body can be damaging. The immediate consequences of social exclusion include anxiety, depression, exhaustion, and poor concentration. Long-term consequences for the victim may include negative self-perception, reduced social functioning, and a decline in cognitive abilities.¹⁵ In other words, relational aggression can result at best in a social death and at worst in suicidal ideation.¹⁶ Loss of reputation has the potential for dehumanization, and dehumanization is the basis for and precursor of physical violence.¹⁷

The Dangers of Well-Intentioned Enablers

In 1984, Andrew M. Lobaczewski, a Polish psychiatrist and psychologist, published the book, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes. It was based on his experiences under Nazi occupation. Lobaczewski believed that people with personality disorders, particularly psychopathy, are attracted to positions of power. They manipulate the general public with ideologies that have widespread appeal and play to the average person’s prejudices and fears. Fear, anger, and resentment toward targeted groups are played up, and utopian visions of the future may also come into play. These destructive leaders don’t expect the public to buy into their positions right away; rather, they use an incremental approach that begins with moderate positions that escalate over time and upend the traditional moral order. To solidify power, these leaders suppress dissent by discrediting their opponents, as well as using intimidation and censorship. Along the way, they attract “useful idiots” who are rewarded for their loyalty.

Hamas’ propaganda lines up with Lobaczewski’s interpretation of public psychopathology in its reliance on the pathos of death statistics that not only may be inaccurate, but also decontextualize the typically high body count of urban warfare. There is a ready audience for utopian visions that quickly turn dystopian, as we have seen in the pro-Hamas protests since October 7. Nevertheless, I want to make one thing clear: Stewart and Reich are not the psychopaths in Lobaczewski’s theory. Bernie Madoff is. Madoff created false numbers that destroyed many lives, including his own family, for no apparent reason. The willingness for so many to rely solely on trust and reputation, rather than taking the time to verify his returns, indicates a false melding of spiritual needs with good business.

While Stewart and Reich are not the psychopaths, they may have some affinities with the “useful idiots” who a priori and wholeheartedly back social and political systems despite empirical data that indicate something is very wrong. They are so focused on the emotional impact of the war’s outcome on civilians that they miss the antisemitic implications of their arguments. This outcome is unfortunate, since Stewart and Reich have been such important voices for those left behind or disenfranchised. It is disappointing to see how they are ignoring outcomes for their fellow Jews. In a free society, Stewart and Reich have every right to express their opinions, but those opinions should be able to incorporate data that confirm violence against their own people. Instead, Stewart and Reich buy into false numbers for the sake of utopia. Unfortunately, their prominence, coupled with their idealism, could turn out to be just as destructive as direct antisemitic speech.

1. "What Is Propaganda?" GI Roundtable Series, American Historical Association, accessed May 15, 2024, https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-2-what-is-propaganda-(1944)/war-propaganda.

2. "Hamas-run Health Ministry Says Gaza Death Toll at 34,596." Times of Israel, May 15, 2024. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-run-health-ministry-says-gaza-death-toll-at-34596/.

3. Abraham Wyner, “How the Gaza Ministry of Health Fakes Casualty Numbers,” Tablet Magazine, March 6, 2024. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers

4. "Robert Reich." Wikipedia. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich.

5. Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, February 26, 2024.

6. "Jon Stewart, Christiane Amanpour Use Daily Show Interview to Muddle Image of Israel." HonestReporting, March 1, 2024. https://honestreporting.com/jon-stewart-christiane-amanpour-use-daily-show-interview-to-muddle-image-of-isra

7. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), "International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts," accessed May 15, 2024, https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-report-ihl-and-challenges-contemporary-armed-conflicts.

8. "Israel, Gaza and Campus Protests," The Guardian, April 23, 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/23/israel-gaza-campus-protests?CMP=share_btn_url.

9. See Anti-Defamation League, "Campus Antisemitism Report Card," accessed May 15, 2024, https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-report-card?utm_source=paidsearch&utm_medium=googlegrant&utm_campaign=campusreportcard&c_src=campus+report+card&c_src2=googlegrant&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw3NyxBhBmEiwAyofDYZwYT2QUrSMSkFTvfE86-BiZ-mH83U4RB5yX3M7iAuUmu7dBdNWi4hoCQEYQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds; "From Arson to Death Threats: The 10 Worst Acts of Campus Antisemitism in 2023," The College Fix, January 5, 2024, https://www.thecollegefix.com/from-arson-to-death-threats-the-10-worst-acts-of-campus-antisemitism-in-2023/.

10. L. D. Sheppard and S. K. Johnson, "The Femme Fatale Effect: Attractiveness Is a Liability for Businesswomen's Perceived Truthfulness, Trust, and Deservingness of Termination," Sex Roles 81, no. 11-12 (2019): 779-796.

11. A. Sheingate, "Structure and Opportunity: Committee Jurisdiction and Issue Attention in Congress," American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 4 (2006): 844-859.

12. J. Archer and S. M. Coyne, "An Integrated Review of Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression," Personality and Social Psychology Review 9, no. 3 (2005): 212-230.

13. E. G. Krug et al., eds., World Report on Violence and Health (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2002).

14. N. I. Eisenberger, M. D. Lieberman, and K. D. Williams, "Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion," Science 302, no. 5643 (2003): 290-292.

15. J. M. Ostrov and S. A. Godleski, "Relational Aggression, Victimization, and Adjustment During Middle Childhood," Development and Psychopathology 25, no. 3 (2013): 801-815.

16. SB. Spears et al., "Behind the Scenes and Screens: Insights into the Human Dimension of Covert and Cyberbullying," Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology 217, no. 4 (2009): 189-196.

17. A. Bandura, "Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities," Personality and Social Psychology Review 3, no. 3 (1999): 193-209.