The Magic Number of Dead Palestinians

How many dead Palestinians would be acceptable? The honest answer is, of course, none — and this question is not really a question. It is a trap.

I agree — so long as we are talking about Hamas’ siege of Gaza. (photo: Sophie Popplewell/Unsplash)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

If I had a shekel for every time I heard someone say, “Too many Palestinians have been killed in this war,” I would probably rival Elon Musk — except that I’d invest my fortune in Iron Dome upgrades instead of interplanetary Twitter ventures.

The point is, the refrain is not just ubiquitous; it is also infuriatingly shallow.

The vast majority of Israelis — Jews, Muslims, Christians, or other — do not relish dead Palestinians. Certainly not in Israel, where the Jewish ethos of cherishing life is so deeply ingrained that it feels carved into the collective DNA.

But this widespread lamentation of “too many” invites a peculiar kind of intellectual laziness. It is a protest that substitutes outrage for understanding, as if conflict can be resolved through simple arithmetic.

So, let’s confront this head-on: How many dead Palestinians would be acceptable?

Is it zero? A noble number, surely, but also one entirely divorced from the grim realities of warfare. Zero assumes a world where Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Houthis fight with kindness, where their rockets come equipped with apology notes, and their operatives lay down their arms to join yoga collectives.

It assumes a scenario where Israel can surgically neutralize threats with a wave of a wand rather than the precision of F-16s and ground units. It is a fantasy that leaves Israel defenseless and the aforementioned evil, genocidal Iranian axis emboldened.

Or perhaps the acceptable number is “just a few,” the sort of casualties that might satisfy those who dabble in armchair morality. A quaintly manageable number that fits neatly into a soundbite across mainstream media news, allowing pundits to wag their fingers while still making dinner reservations. But how does one quantify “just a few” when Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Houthis ensure their civilians live, sleep, and die atop weapons caches?

Numbers can be antiseptic. They strip away the humanity, the stories, and the heartbreak. A single civilian death is an unbearable tragedy. A thousand is a statistic that fills spreadsheets and fuels headlines. Yet, focusing solely on numbers divorces us from the context that produces them. It ignores that Iran-backed Hamas dragged Palestinians into a war on October 7th, 2023 that they did not vote for, using them as pawns in a PR game aimed squarely at the world’s conscience.

Israel, meanwhile, walks the tightrope between defending itself and minimizing harm. And let’s be honest: It is a damn near impossible tightrope to walk. Critics demand perfection in warfare — a standard no other military has achieved or even attempted.

The American-led coalition’s operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Civilian casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Russian campaigns in Ukraine? Wholesale devastation. Yet only Israel is subjected to the cruel calculus of civilian casualties as the defining metric of its moral standing.

To the Average Joe, it might be comforting to sit in the ivory tower of Western privilege and tut-tut at Israel’s actions. But here’s a more sobering question: If Islamist terror groups had the firepower, precision, and restraint that Israel possesses, would the numbers still be debated? Or would Israel, heaven forbid, be facing annihilation in a world content to look the other way?

These Islamists do not merely fire rockets indiscriminately at civilians; they fire them with glee, knowing that every one intercepted by Iron Dome is a public relations loss. For them, the calculus is not about minimizing casualties. It is about maximizing headlines. And the more dead Palestinians they can parade before the cameras, the higher they score in the court of international opinion.

In this grotesque game, numbers are weaponized, and narratives are skewed. When Islamists fire rockets at Israeli cities, the world debates Israel’s response rather than the initial provocation. When Israel responds, the conversation swiftly shifts from justice to proportionality, as if war should be a carefully choreographed dance rather than a desperate struggle for survival.

And so, we return to the question: How many dead Palestinians would be acceptable? The honest answer is, of course, none — and this question is not really a question. It is a trap. Embedded within this question is the assumption that Israel’s defensive actions are inherently bloodthirsty; that its military campaigns are indifferent to the suffering of innocents; and that somehow, somewhere, there exists a magical threshold of death where the Jewish state’s actions might finally be deemed palatable.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is not “How many dead Palestinians would be acceptable?” — but rather, “How many dead Israelis must there be before Israel’s actions are deemed legitimate?” How many families must be shattered? How many children must have school cancelled because of endless rocket and missile attacks? How many lives must be lost before the world acknowledges Israel’s unquestionable right to self-defense? The silence to this question is deafening.

War is ugly. Urban warfare, against an enemy that thrives on human suffering, is even uglier. Yet Israel’s commitment to minimizing civilian casualties, even at great cost to its own military effectiveness, is unmatched. This is not a government or a people seeking retribution; it is a nation striving to preserve its existence in the face of decades of unrelenting Palestinian terrorism. And that is not just defensible; it is necessary.

So, the next time someone somberly intones, “Too many Palestinians have been killed in this war,” pause for a moment. Resist the urge to roll your eyes (though it is tempting) and instead ask them a simple question: “How many dead Palestinians would be acceptable? What’s the number, then?” Watch closely, because their reaction will be telling.

They might stammer, taken aback that you would ask such a callous question. But is it? After all, they mentioned it, implying there is some moral yardstick by which this war and its toll can be judged. So why not ask for clarity? Is the magic number 100? Fifty? Ten? Or maybe it is zero, a standard no war in history has met.

Even the cleanest, most precise military campaigns leave behind casualties. And when you are facing an enemy like genocidal Islamists — who leverage their own civilians as both shields and props for a global pity party — zero becomes not just unlikely but impossible.

But what if their number is not zero? What if they dare to suggest an actual figure, however reluctantly? Let’s say they throw out “a few dozen.” Now you have them on the hook.

“Fascinating,” you might respond, “so you’re saying 36 dead Palestinians would be morally tolerable, but 37 is where it crosses the line?” Such absurd specificity exposes the hollowness of their critique. Numbers, after all, are arbitrary without context. What matters is why those numbers exist and who is truly responsible for them.

The truth is, asking for a number forces people to confront the uncomfortable reality that war is inherently messy, tragic, and devoid of neat solutions. The only way to guarantee zero Palestinian deaths would be for Israel to surrender its right to self-defense, leaving its citizens at the mercy of an enemy which openly celebrates their slaughter.

(Make no mistake: Surrendering is not an option. Not for a nation that knows all too well what happens when Jews are left defenseless.)

Asking for a number also shines a light on the underlying bias in these conversations. Nobody is asking how many dead Israelis would be acceptable, are they? That question is conspicuously absent, as if Israeli lives are obviously less valuable in this moral equation. The selective outrage becomes even more glaring when you consider that these Islamists’ stated goal is not merely to harm Israelis but to annihilate them entirely.

So, the next time someone balks at the casualty figures and says, “Too many Palestinians have been killed,” lean in with a knowing smile and ask, “How many fewer would make you comfortable? What’s your morally acceptable quota for a defensive war against genocidal, Islamist terrorism?”

It is admittedly a cheeky question, but it forces them to grapple with the absurdity of their stance. Ultimately, it is easy to bemoan numbers from the safety of a suburban coffee shop. It is far harder to acknowledge that in war, as in life, tragic trade-offs are sometimes unavoidable.

The real conversation ought not to be about numbers. It ought to be about accountability. The casualties in Gaza and Lebanon are not the result of Israel’s malice, but of these Islamists’ calculated cruelty. They start wars that they cannot win on the actual battlefields, hide behind the very civilians they claim to champion, and then parade their corpses before cameras to win the sympathy Olympics across mainstream and social media.

Meanwhile, Israel does what any nation under siege would do: It defends itself, as carefully and ethically as possible, against an enemy that revels in death. Until the Palestinians choose a different path, thousands of deaths will be inevitable. The tragedy lies not in Israel’s response, but in the grim necessity of it.

So, next time someone offers their moral outrage without the burden of nuance, ask them for a number. Not to be cruel, but to make them think. Because behind the numbers are real lives, on both sides. And the greatest tragedy of all is that those lives are being sacrificed on the altar of these genocial Islamists’ fanaticism — not Israel’s defense.

---