Don Radlauer
|
June 24, 2002
Updated: September 29, 2002
An Engineered Tragedy
Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict,
September 2000 - September 2002
Don Radlauer, ICT Associate
Introduction
For the last 23 months, Israel and the Palestinian Arabs have been engaged in a “low-intensity conflict” generally referred to as the “al-Aqsa Intifada”. This conflict has caused over 2,200 deaths so far; and yet, its most significant aspect seems to be the struggle for international public opinion rather than any effort at gaining a conventional military victory. New reports of death and injury appear almost daily in the world’s news media, generally accompanied by the current tally of the total number of people killed on each side. Pundits and laymen read these reports and draw conclusions from the simplistic statistics they convey.
Before many months of this conflict had passed, it became apparent to some observers that the “fatality scorecard” commonly included in coverage of the al-Aqsa conflict was painting an oversimplified and deceptive picture of a complex reality. A more thorough accounting and analysis of the conflict’s incidents and casualties should enable a better understanding of the true nature of the conflict. Accordingly, the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) launched the Al-Aqsa Casualties Database Project to provide such an accounting. (See Project Summary for a brief review of the project’s findings.)
A Note on Terminology
The word “intifada” is properly translated as “uprising”. The use of either of these terms implies a judgement as to the nature of the conflict – specifically that, like the earlier Intifada of 1987-1991, this “intifada” is a spontaneous and authentic expression of “popular rage at Israeli occupation”. Some supporters of Israel, realizing the political significance of the common, often unthinking use of such terms, have attempted to substitute other names for the conflict, such as “the Oslo War”. None of these alternative names has gained general currency.
As this study aims to investigate the true nature of the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it seems most appropriate to avoid the use of all such value-laden terms. Accordingly, we decided to use the more neutral and general term “al-Aqsa conflict” to describe the events which began in September 2000. Even this usage can be criticized, in that it suggests some specific causal connection between the conflict and the al-Aqsa Mosque; but it seems to be a useful compromise.
Another Note: On Reading Graphs
It has been pointed out that readers of this study may be misled by the fact that various graphs are shown with differing scales. According to this critique, some readers may receive a visual impression that minimizes Palestinian fatalities relative to Israeli ones. We have made no attempt to mislead the reader in this way. If all graphs in this study were displayed using a uniform scale, many of them would be difficult or impossible to interpret; thus we have chosen a scale for each graph that best conveys the point made by that graph. Lacking a better solution to the problems of visually conveying numeric information, we can only ask that the reader A) note the numeric scale indicated next to the vertical axis of each graph; and B) remember that when we suggest comparisons be made between two different graphs, the intended comparison is generally one of “shape” rather than “size”. In all cases, the accompanying text should clarify any ambiguities.
Summary of Findings
Our research and analysis shows that the al-Aqsa conflict is different in many respects from what it is generally believed to be. Among our findings are the following:
- The al-Aqsa conflict is not a single, homogenous event. To describe it glibly as “an uprising against Israeli occupation” grossly oversimplifies and distorts our view of the conflict, and obscures much of the significance of its history. The conflict has, in fact, gone through four distinct phases from its beginning until now. Judging by fatality statistics, only the first of these phases, which lasted less than three months, strongly resembled a true “intifada”. The especially high rate of death among the Palestinians during this phase probably created the general public impression of the entire conflict as an overwhelming slaughter of overmatched Palestinians.
- The usual fatality count quoted in news articles presents an inaccurate and distorted picture of the al-Aqsa conflict, exaggerating Israel’s responsibility for the death of noncombatant civilians. For example, our database shows a total of 603 Israelis killed, compared to 1596 Palestinians, up to 29 August 2002 – numbers in general agreement with media reports (see Graph 1.1).
- But such numbers hide as much as they reveal: They lump combatants in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocent civilians, and report Palestinian “collaborators” murdered by their own compatriots as if they had been killed by Israel. Correcting for such distortions, we can arrive at a figure of 617 Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel, compared to 471 Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians (see Graph 1.2). While Israelis account for 27 percent of the total fatalities as generally reported, they represent 43 percent of these noncombatant victims. There are a number of valid ways of arriving at such corrected figures to compare the extent to which each side has been responsible for the killing of noncombatants; they all show a much more balanced picture of the conflict than the raw totals do.
Graph 1.2 shows the gradually increasing number of noncombatant fatalities each side has suffered at the other's hands, along with the “noncombatant gap” – the number by which Israeli killing of Palestinian noncombatants exceeds Palestinian killing of Israeli noncombatants. It is worth noting that this “noncombatant gap” rose quickly in the first few months of the conflict, and has remained within a narrow range since then.
- While Israeli fatalities in the al-Aqsa conflict have consisted of 80 percent noncombatants (and over 80 percent before the substantial IDF casualties suffered during the Jenin incursion of April 2002), Palestinian fatalities have consisted of more combatants than noncombatants (see Graphs 1.3 and 1.4).
As Graph 1.3 shows, the “combatant gap” – that is, the “excess” of Palestinian combatants killed by Israel over Israeli combatants killed by Palestinians – has continued to grow over the life of the conflict. Contrast this with the “noncombatant gap” in Graph 1.2.
The proportion of combatants among Palestinians killed has increased significantly over time, from around 40 percent to its current value of 54 percent. (It is also worth noting that the figure for Palestinian noncombatants includes a large number of fatalities for which combatant status could not be determined – see “Combatants and Noncombatants”, below.)
- The proportion of females among Israeli fatalities was relatively low in the early months of the conflict, and gradually rose to a level of around 30 percent; since June 2001, this proportion has remained fairly stable. Palestinian fatalities, in contrast, have been consistently and overwhelmingly (over 95 percent) male (see Graph 1.5).
 If we restrict our view to each side's noncombatants killed by the opposing side, the gap in the percentage of females among those killed is even wider: 40 percent of Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians have been female, compared to 8.4 percent of Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel (see Graph 1.6). The latter figure represents a slight increase from its previous levels, due to the several women and girls killed in July's Israeli “targeted killing” in Gaza.
- In absolute terms, many more Israeli females have been killed than Palestinian females. If we include combatants and fatalities for whom responsibility is unclear, 70 Palestinian females have been killed; the corresponding Israeli figure is 190 (see Graph 1.7).
Restricting ourselves to cases where clear responsibility can be reliably assigned for noncombatant deaths, we see that Israel has been responsible for killing 52 Palestinian noncombatant females, while Palestinians have killed 187 Israeli noncombatant females – more than three times as many (see Graph 1.8).
- A much higher proportion of Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians have been aged 45 or older than the equivalent proportion among Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel - over 30% of Israeli noncombatants have been 45 or older, compared with only 10% of Palestinian noncombatants (see Graph 1.9).
In absolute terms, nearly three times as many Israeli noncombatants aged 45 and over have been killed as Palestinian noncombatants 45 and over (see Graph 1.10). Israelis have killed 55 noncombatant “mature” Palestinians, while Palestinians have killed 148 “mature” Israeli noncombatants.
- The number of Palestinians killed by actions of their own side – including suicide bombers, “work accidents”, collaborators, and people killed in intra-Palestinian fighting – has increased strongly over time. So far, over 200 Palestinians have died in this way; they represent more than twelve percent of the total Palestinians killed (see Graph 1.11). (Note that this category does not include Palestinian “suicide shooters” – gunmen who carry out attacks with the expectation that they will be killed by Israelis in the course of their attacks – or other attackers whose foolhardiness might be construed as “suicidal”. Only Palestinians who were killed with no “help” from Israel are included.)
- The second phase of the al-Aqsa conflict lasted for nine months; this phase was characterized by a rough parity in each side’s killing of the other side’s noncombatants. The third phase saw a higher (and more erratic) level of violence than the second phase; even so, noncombatant fatalities in the third phase were much more balanced between Israelis and Palestinians than they were in the first phase. The fourth phase appears to be characterized by a lower level of fatalities than has been seen for some time, with fewer successful large-scale terrorist attacks. The demographic composition of Palestinian noncombatants killed in the fourth phase is quite different from that of previous phases.
- Palestinian fatalities, including those of noncombatants, have shown extremely regular age distributions. In combination with the fact that almost all Palestinians killed in this conflict have been male – and absent any other reasonable explanation for such a non-random pattern of fatalities – this suggests that large numbers of Palestinian men and teenaged boys made a choice to confront Israeli forces, even after many of their compatriots had been killed in such confrontations. The overall pattern of Palestinian deaths is completely inconsistent with accusations that most of these fatalities resulted from random Israeli attacks on residential areas, mixed-sex crowds at roadblocks, or other ordinary civilian gatherings.
- Israeli fatalities do not show such a high regularity in their age or gender distribution. Population segments like women or older people would not normally be specifically targeted for their military importance; thus their higher relative prevalence among Israeli fatalities is an indication of the degree to which these deaths were caused by random attacks on a civilian population.
Data Gathering
The greatest care and effort in carrying out this project has been spent in gathering and evaluating enough information on each fatal incident to enable accurate classification of each claimed fatality. Reliable and detailed data on Israeli casualties of the al-Aqsa conflict has been relatively easy to find, as this information is extensively reported in Israeli and foreign newspapers, as well as various official and unofficial websites. Palestinian Arab fatalities present much greater difficulty, for several reasons:
- Arab names are often long and complex; in many cases different sources give different casualty names for the same incident, and it is difficult to ascertain whether the different names in fact refer to the same person.
- Detailed reports of Palestinian casualties are generally provided by Palestinian organizations and individuals; in some cases these reports are “slanted” or even fraudulent, due to pressures to paint Israel in as negative a light as possible.
- The Israel Defense Forces do not keep a precise record (or at least have not so far provided such a record to us) of every time, place, and circumstance where weapons have been used; thus, certain Palestinian reports of fatalities due to Israeli fire cannot be confirmed or refuted. In many cases, we have given the Palestinian account of events the benefit of the doubt, even though the casualties may have resulted from Palestinian actions, rather than Israeli actions. In cases where the cause of death as reported by Palestinian sources is very much open to question, we have assigned a Low confidence Level to that particular casualty.
We have made extensive use of mainstream media outlets, both in Israel and abroad, for the details of al-Aqsa conflict incidents. Information on Palestinian casualties has been gathered from Arabic-language newspapers, cross-correlated with reports from human-rights organizations in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately, these sources generally disagree on many significant details, including the name, age, and circumstances of death of victims. It should be noted that, since no Israeli official body has been keeping records of Israeli actions and their results, the information reported by the Western media has come almost exclusively from Palestinian sources.
Categorization
In order to provide a better understanding of the nature and significance of al-Aqsa conflict incidents and casualties, we have classified them according to several criteria. This classification system is a reflection of our desire to improve upon the usual reportage, which – to give an extreme example – treats the death of a suicide bomber as equivalent to the death of one of his victims. A good system of classification, combined with carefully-gathered data, provides rich opportunities for analysis.
As the conclusions reached in this study are strongly influenced by the categories we have chosen for our analysis, it is important to understand these categories in some detail.
A note on “Combatants” and “Civilians”
Media reports frequently discuss the fatalities of the al-Aqsa conflict in terms of the number of “civilian fatalities” on each side. We have deliberately avoided this usage. In any conflict between a country with conventionally-organized military and police forces and an opposing force mostly composed of non-uniformed “irregulars”, the uniformed forces cannot avoid killing a disproportionate number of “civilians” – since even their most deadly opponents are usually not members of an official military, and in many cases have perfectly respectable “day jobs”.
In the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the distinction between Palestinian “civilians” and members of the plethora of official Palestinian Authority security forces is even harder to make, since many Palestinian policemen (and members of the other P.A. uniformed forces) combine their official service with membership in one or more unofficial groups such as Hamas or the various arms of Fatah. When Palestinians in this situation have killed Israeli noncombatants, they have generally done so in their “civilian” capacity.
At first glance, it should be easier to determine which Israeli fatalities are “civilians”. However, even here the distinction between “civilians” and members of official security forces paints a somewhat distorted picture. A substantial number of Israeli fatalities, especially those killed inside “Israel proper”, have been members of the civil police, or noncombatant members of the Israel Defense Forces – such as office workers and mechanics.
As a result of all these factors, dividing this conflict's fatalities into “civilians” and “non-civilians” over-emphasizes the “civilian” status of many of the Palestinian victims, and to a degree distorts the significance of Israeli fatalities as well. At best, such categorization paints an inaccurate picture of the conflict; and in some instances, those who use these categories are clearly being disingenuous. (As an extreme example, one report in a Saudi newspaper contrasted some 1,400 Palestinian “civilians” killed with about 530 Israeli “soldiers and settlers”.)
For this reason, we chose to classify those killed by their actual combatant status, according to the criteria laid out in the “Combatant Level” section above. While this method requires a degree of judgement in categorizing those killed, it offers some hope of making sense of an assymmetrical conflict; whereas the alternative system, while easier to apply, cannot provide meaningful results.
|
| Incident Organization |
This category is used to classify incidents, such as terror attacks, which can be attributed to a particular terrorist organization; it is used as well to identify the groups targeted by Israeli “targeted killings”.
|
| Incident Type |
This category provides a broad description of the type of incident that occurred; examples include “Terror Attack”, “Roadblock Confrontation”, and so on.
|
| Attack Type |
This is a more specific category, identifying the particular form of violence which led to injury or loss of life. Examples include “Car Bomb”, “Suicide Bomb”, and “Lynching”.
|
| Incident Target |
The Incident Target represents the immediate goal of an attack, as opposed to any broader political aims. Examples include “Civilian”, “Vehicle”, “Hotel”, and “Militant”.
|
| Incident Confidence Level |
This category reflects our considered opinion as to the reliability of a report. Confidence Level as applied to incidents represents the degree of certitude that the incident itself took place; applied to individual casualties, it represents the level of certainty that a particular individual was injured or killed in the incident. It is possible that an incident itself may have a high Confidence Level while some of the casualties attributed to the incident have a lower Confidence Level. This is the case where the incident itself was well attested, but some of the reports of casualties attributed to the incident were less reliable.
Confidence levels are as follows:
- Extremely Low
- Low
- Questionable
- High
- Extremely High
|
| Side Responsible for Incident |
This category assigns responsibility for initiating an incident – for example, “Israel,” “Palestinians,” “Probably Israel,” “Probably Palestinians,” or “Unclear.” In the case of a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians by Palestinians, the Side Responsible is listed as “Palestinians”. The same is true of “work accidents.” In the case of a targeted killing of a Palestinian militant carried out by Israel, the Side Responsible is listed as “Israel.” In the majority of incidents—Roadblock Confrontations, Violent Clashes, etc—the Side Responsible is listed as “Unclear.”
Note that Side Responsible in this study refers to physical responsibility only, and does not indicate a moral judgement.
|
| Side Responsible for Casualty |
In the majority of incidents, assigning responsibility for an incident to one side or another is insufficient for purposes of analysis. An incident may be initiated by Palestinians—for instance, an armed attack by Hamas militants on an Israeli bus—but end with the militants being killed by Israelis. In such a case, the Side Responsible for Incident would be “Palestinians”, while the Side Responsible for Casualty would be “Israel” in the case of each militant, and “Palestinians” in the case of each Israeli casualty. There are also cases in which Palestinians killed Palestinians and Israelis killed Israelis.
As with Side Responsible for Incident, Side Responsible for Casualty represents only the physical responsibility for causing death or injury, and expresses no judgement as to the appropriateness of that action.
|
| Combatant Level |
This is one of our most significant ways of classifying casualties, and represents the degree to which someone killed or injured during the course of the al-Aqsa conflict can be considered an “innocent victim”. Our decisions in defining the Combatant Level categories and assigning casualties to these categories are made with reference to ICT’s published definition of terrorism, explained in Boaz Ganor’s article, “Terrorism: No Prohibition Without Definition”.
A non-combatant is an innocent bystander – a person whose death or injury has no justification other than nationality or ethnicity.
A “health related” fatality is someone who died from a cause only indirectly related to violence – for example, due to a heart attack following an incident, tear-gas inhalation, or a roadblock delay that prevented an ilperson from receiving medical treatment in a timely manner.
A “probable combatant” is someone killed at a location and at a time during which an armed confrontation was going on, who appears most likely – but not certain – to have been an active participant in the fighting. For example, in many cases where an incident has resulted in a large number of Palestinian casualties, the only information available is that an individual was killed when Israeli soldiers returned fire in response to shots fired from a particular location. While it is possible that the person killed had not been active in the fighting and just happened to be in the vicinity of people who were, it is reasonable to assume that the number of such coincidental deaths is not particularly high. Where the accounts of an incident appear to support such a coincidence, the individual casualty has been given the benefit of the doubt, and assigned a non-combatant status.
A “uniformed non-combatant” is a non-civilian, but is not actively involved in the conflict. This category can include civil police as well as soldiers in uniform but not at their post.
A “violent protester” may be a civilian, but has chosen to take an active and violent part in the conflict – such as rioting or vigilante activity.
A “protestor unknown” is anyone who was killed during a protest, for whom information as to violent behavior is unavailable.
A “full combatant” is a soldier on active duty, an active member of a terrorist group, or a civilian independently choosing to perpetrate an armed attack on the opposing side. In general, rock-throwers are not considered to be combatants; an exception to this generalization would be, for example, someone dropping large rocks from a bridge onto fast-moving traffic. A rioter throwing "Molotov cocktails", grenades, or the like can be considered a full combatant.
Mere possession of a weapon does not imply combatant status. A civilian driving with a weapon in his/her car, or a pedestrian with a holstered pistol, is normally considered a noncombatant. However, a civilian who encounters a terror attack in progress and draws his/her weapon in an attempt to stop or prevent the attack is a combatant once the weapon is out of its holster.
This is a special category for Palestinian or Israeli Arabs targeted by militants who suspect them of aiding Israel.
In a large number of cases, the information at hand has been insufficient to decide the circumstances of death for a given Palestinian casualty. As the project continues and additional information is accumulated, we believe that the number of “unknowns” will steadily decrease. When we divide fatalities into the broader categories of “Combatant” and “Noncombatant”, only “Full Combatants”, “Probable Combatants”, and “Violent Protestors” are counted as combatants. All others, including “Unknowns”, are considered to be noncombatants.
|
| Casualty Confidence Level |
This category reflects our considered opinion as to the reliability of a report of an individual death. A Confidence Level is applied to individual casualties as well as to incidents because we found that in many cases an incident itself was well attested, but some of the reports of casualties attributed to the incident were less reliable.
Confidence levels are as follows:
Extremely Low
Low
Questionable
High
Extremely High
All the casualty statistics mentioned, along with the associated charts and graphs in this report, are based upon casualty reports with a confidence level of High or Extremely High. Unless specically indicated, Questionable, Low-confidence, and Extremely Low-confidence casualty reports have been filtered out.
|
| Age |
Where known, the age of the casualty is entered into the database. There are a number of casualties, particularly on the Palestinian side, where the age is unknown, or uncertain.
|
| Gender |
The gender of casualties has turned out to be central to our analysis, as discussed below.
|
| Nationality and Secondary Nationality |
The casualty’s nationality is obviously at the heart of any comparison of casualties between the two sides. In some cases, the casualty had dual citizenship. For this reason, we’ve included a field for Secondary Nationality.
|
| Residence |
This category was added in order to serve as a basis for a geographical analysis of both casualties and incidents.
|
| Casualty Type |
Casualty Type describes whether the casualty was killed or injured, and if the latter, the extent of the injury. The Casualty Types are: Injured Lightly
Injured Moderately
Injured Seriously
Injured Unclear
Killed
For this first phase of the project only fatalities have been entered into the database.
|
| Organizational Affiliation |
This category describes the casualty’s membership in an existing non-governmental organization. This is particularly useful in the case of Palestinian combatant fatalities, who were largely active members of known terrorist groups, rather than individuals acting on their own.
|
|