The lowest civilian deaths by airstrike occured in Gaza

Question

Is the fewest people have been killed per airstrike in the Hamas/Israel war than any other this century?

Answer 1

The person who posted this statistic on X posted the wrong number. He wrote the casualty per airstrike is 0.8, but when I looked into the article from the source it says that Israel's attack on Gaza has resulted in "an average of 10.1 civilian fatalities per air strike". The source quoted is the AOAV or the Action on Armed Violence. It is a British charity dedicated to detail "advocacy on the incidence and impact of global armed violence". The X post also inaccurately represents the global average stated in the AOAV article. The AOAV and other sources I found claim that this is over the global average of 7.4. Other trusted sources like The Guardian and Relief Web support that many of those included in the shocking death toll of over 23,000 in Gaza include over 60% of civilians. This Twitter post contains misinformation because he used a valid source, but did not quote it accurately and proceeded to make up numbers.

Sources:  

https://aoav.org.uk/2023/occupied-palestinian-territories-aoav-explosive-violence-data-on-harm-to-civilians/#:~:text=So%20far%2C%20Operation%20Swords%20of,stated%20goal%20of%20eliminating%20Hamas.

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/numbers-civilian-deaths-airstrike-2023-gaza-far-higher-previous-israeli-bombings-half-russiansyrian-attacks-mosul-and-aleppo-under-reporting-dead-or-less-lethal-tactics#:~:text=This%20report%20analyses%20civilian%20casualties,fatalities%20per%20casualty%2Dcausing%20strike.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/09/civilian-toll-israeli-airstrikes-gaza-unprecedented-killing-study

Comments

I think that this is a good example of fact checking. The statistical information is presented clearly. I also have a better understanding of what is actually going on not just an understanding of what the article was claiming. Along with this there are new sources given that I can use to learn more and do my own research.

---

This is a very clear and precise factcheck. You used very strong and reliable sources to back up the information given. Adding direct quotes from those sources was a very good addition to the strength of this fact check. I also really liked that you ended the factcheck exaplining why the twitter post contained misinformation. It helps give an understanding of what really is the cause of misinformation.

---

This fact check was done really well. You have to be very cautious when getting information from Social Medias like X. It's a type of "news source" that you have to take with a grain of salt. This response does a good job correcting the information and then providing the correct data. They should have cited the sources within the text when using direct quotes, but other than that small detail it was great.

---

I like that you gave readers some background on your source (re: British charity). So how does the conflict/airstrikes actually rank if it isn't the lowest?