Can you provide some context on this statement? I notice you use "confirmed" as a qualifier. What does that mean in this case? Do confirmed deaths constitute a majority of casualties? Are they a representative sampling that we can use to extrapolate? How do we know most of them are militants?
There are several types of Palestinian "casualties":
1. Those Israel claims, and killed in Israel.
2. Those Israel claims, and killed in Gaza.
3. Those Hamas claims, and killed in Israel.
4. Those Hamas claims, and killed in Gaza.
5. Footage from Gaza.
Other claims, for example the UN agencies as well as MSM are either far too partial or are derived from any of the above.
In past wars Hamas was known to inflate civilian casualties and downplay its own casualties. In this war, that's no longer the case. Instead, Hamas does not admit any casualties of its own, and classifies all casualties as civilians. Furthermore, we have witnessed instances where Hamas has extremely inflated civilian casualties. And finally, many casualty faking attempts were uncovered.
Therefore unless Hamas show a body that is verifiably dead, we cannot take their word for anything. This leaves us with categories 1, 2, and 5.
Category 1 is the easiest to verify. IDF, press, and Israeli civilians, released plenty of footage of Hamas terrorists being hunted down and killed. Furthermore, in my memory, Israel and the IDF have no record of lying about own or enemy casualties. Beyond that, in cases of unverified casualties, Israel conducts forensic studies before making conclusively announcing numbers and identities.
Category 1:
This article quotes the Israeli MoD saying 1,500 bodies of terrorists were found and identified in Israel. As of the writing of this article, hundreds of casualties from both sides were unidentified, however the methods of killing employed by both sides mean Palestinian casualties were much easier to identify as none were burnt to a crisp.
www.ynet.co.il
Category 2:
Further, we have claims of casualties units inflicted in combat in Gaza. For example, the 162th armored division is said to have killed 1,000 Hamas combatants since the beginning of the war.
Category 5:
With electricity and internet connectivity in Gaza low and mostly accessible to Hamas in the first place, a sizable amount of footage that comes out is bound to be fake. Catching every bit of footage from Gaza is probably beyond the capabilities of a single mortal, but we can see from the footage we do catch that many videos are viral rather than whatever we manage to catch at the moment, and many show individual casualties. Finally, there is no way to tell whether a casualty is a civilian or Hamas unless it is a woman or a child under 14. Example of a fake:
Of these categories, as I said, category 1 is easiest to verify and most reliable and there are 1,500 claimed Hamas casualties. Category 2 is somewhat reliable but only to an extent. Soldiers do need to try and confirm their kills to understand whether the area is clear. However we cannot assume that they confirm these casualties, and it isn't certain that they have the tools to sufficiently reliable tell between a combatant and a non-combatant.
162th is not the only unit inside, there are multiple divisions including the 36th and elements from the 98th and other divisions. If we go safe and apply a healthy amount of caution, we can say it's in the high hundreds to low thousands. Hamas's reported strength in northern Gaza and Gaza City are 5,500 and 9,000 combatants respectively. It is presumed that many have escaped to the south.
So categories 1 and 2 give us a very high certainty for 1,500 Hamas casualties and high certainty for at least several hundred more Hamas combatants up to a low several thousand. Category 5 gives us gives us a low certainty and low ability to classify casualties, in the region of hundreds to potentially low thousands. Therefore I conclude that the majority of "confirmed" Palestinian casualties are Hamas.
Israeli casualties are reported by Israeli authorities to be in the region of 1,100 civilians and 300 military, roughly, on October 7th. Since then casualties in Gaza were reportedly in the low tens, current number at 46.
Perhaps the word "confirmed" is loosely applied here, as human casualties are nearly impossible to visually verify in numbers without heavy input from a state agency.
The "UN" is a very vague entity, or to be more precise not an entity at all but rather an umbrella under which entities operate. It has authority over countries to the extent that countries have voluntarily surrendered part of their sovereignty through bilateral and multi-lateral agreements. One such agreement is the UN Charter, and being a UN member means being subjected to the authority of the security council. So if the UN Security Council were to pass a binding resolution, it could force Israel to do very many things. Leaving aside the impracticality of this for political reasons, even if a particular UN entity doesn't have authority to impose conditions, this doesn't make them irrelevant. Public opinion matters, and the way other countries act is often influenced if not determined by non-binding statements or positions taken by various entities operating under the UN umbrella. I understand why you would prefer to disregard them, but I think this would be a mistake.
It is true that it is agency-specific. The UNSC is arguably the primary and only truly relevant and permanent agency in the UN. However as of yet, no binding resolution has actually directed Israel to return to 1967 (actually 1949) borders, let alone imposed any specific terms on any party and certainly not via unilateral action.
The UN had a chance to be a moral authority but its structure has largely prevented it from it. Being a truly democratic body with a majority of non-democratic, non-liberal members, it has become a non-liberal entity in itself that allows said authoritarian regimes to use it as a platform. This situation has persisted for so long that although many respect the UN enough to attend its forums, they certainly do not give them much weight.
amp.cnn.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/HPWPYZXO3JIRFGGRV5ISB7WSN4.jpg)
