FACT FOCUS: Posts misrepresent report to falsely claim nearly 400,000 Palestinians are missing
'Israel has 'disappeared' nearly 400,000 Palestinians in Gaza since 2023,' reads one X post that had been shared and liked more than 35,700 times as of Thursday. 'Harvard has now confirmed what we've been screaming into a deaf world: This is a holocaust — and it's still happening.'
But Harvard did not publish the report in question. Moreover, these claims misrepresent data from the report that was intended to address an entirely unrelated topic.
Here's a closer look at the facts.
CLAIM: A Harvard University study found that nearly 400,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are missing as a result of the Israel-Hamas war.
THE FACTS: Harvard published no such study. This estimate misrepresents a map included in a report by a professor at Israel's Ben Gurion University that shows the distance between new aid distribution compounds in Gaza and three main populations centers. Using spatial analysis, the report determined that these compounds are inadequate and also does not address how many people in Gaza are missing. It was published on the Harvard Dataverse, a repository managed by the university where researchers can share their work. Contributors do not need to be affiliated with Harvard and publish directly to the repository without approval from the university.
'If anyone had asked me about these numbers I would have set things straight right away,' said the Yaakov Garb, a professor of environmental studies who authored the report. 'Instead the number was circulated and recirculated by people who had not read the report or stopped to think about it for a moment.'
The inaccurate estimate comes from a post on the blogging site Medium. In the post, the author uses a map from Garb's report showing how many people live in what are currently Gaza's three main population centers — Gaza City, central refugee camps and the Muwasi area — according to estimates from the Israeli Defense Forces, to determine how many Palestinians are allegedly unaccounted for. The author subtracts the former number — 1.85 million — from the population in Gaza before the Israel-Hamas war began — 2.227 million — for a total of 377,00 missing people.
But the numbers on the map are not comprehensive.
'These IDF numbers were not intended to sum to 100% of the Gaza population,' Garb said. 'There may be Gazans in other locations outside these areas of concentration.'
Many Palestinians also have left Gaza since the war began in October 2023, a fact the Medium post does not take into account. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics said in January that about 100,000 had left.
According to Garb, the map was meant to show how difficult it would be for people in these areas to reach new aid distribution compounds. He also noted that it had a typo, which he intends to fix. There are approximately 700,000 people in the Muwasi area, not 500,000.
The author of the Medium post did not respond to a request for comment.
Other estimates have put the number of missing people, typically defined as those who are dead under the rubble of Gaza, much lower than what the Medium post alleges. A June 2024 study published in The Lancet, for example, found that between about 15,000 to 38,000 people could have been missing at that time.
'Clearly time has passed, and more have died and been buried under rubble. But it is unlikely that numbers of people buried under rubble could increase to 400,000 since then,' said Shelly Culbertson, a senior policy researcher at RAND who studies disaster and post-conflict recovery. She added that even if missing people included those who had completely lost communication with their families, it is unlikely that the number would reach 400,000.
Garb lamented the negative impact this type of misinformation could have for Palestinians and those trying to help them.
'If somebody like me who's doing serious work thinks twice next time about, oh my god, do I even want to put out something about Gaza if I have to sully myself with this stuff, they've done a disservice — done a disservice to the Palestinian cause, which they are ostensibly trying to further. I mean, they need to realize that,' he said.
___
Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies
President Donald Trump's executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion-related racial and gender preferencing have ostensibly doomed the DEI industry. But DEI was already on its last legs. Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic or gender preferences. Advertisement DEI had enjoyed a surge following the death of George Floyd and the subsequent 120 days of nonstop rioting, arson, assaults, killings and attacks on law enforcement during the summer of 2020. In those chaotic years, DEI was seen as the answer to racial tensions. DEI had insidiously replaced the old notion of affirmative action — a 1960s-era government remedy for historical prejudices against black Americans, from the legacy of slavery to Jim Crow segregation. But during the Obama era, 'diversity' superseded affirmative action by offering preferences to many groups well beyond black Americans. Advertisement Quite abruptly, Americans began talking in Marxist binaries. On one side were the supposed 65 to 70% white majority 'oppressors' and 'victimizers' — often stereotyped as exuding 'white privilege,' 'white supremacy' or even 'white rage.' They were juxtaposed to the 30 to 35% of 'diverse' Americans, the so-called 'oppressed' and 'victimized.' Advertisement Yet almost immediately, contradictions and hypocrisies undermined DEI. First, how does one define 'diverse' in an increasingly multiracial, intermarried, assimilated and integrated society? DNA badges? The old one-drop rule of the antebellum South? Superficial appearance? To establish racial or ethnic proof of being one-sixteenth, one-fourth, or one-half 'non-white,' employers, corporations and universities would have to become racially obsessed genealogists. Advertisement Yet refusing to become racial auditors also would allow racial and ethnic fraudsters — like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the would-be mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani — to go unchecked. Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage to leverage a Harvard professorship. Mamdani, an immigrant son of wealthy Indian immigrants from Uganda, tried to game his way into college by claiming he was African American. Second, in 21st-century America, class became increasingly divergent from race. Mamdani, who promises to tax 'affluent' and 'whiter' neighborhoods at higher rates, is himself the child of Indian immigrants, the most affluent ethnic group in America. Why would the children of Barack Obama, Joy Reid or LeBron James need any special preferences, given the multimillionaire status of their parents? In other words, one's superficial appearance no longer necessarily determines one's income or wealth, nor defines 'privilege' or lack thereof. Third, DEI is often tied to questions of 'reparations.' The current white majority supposedly owes other particular groups financial or entitlement compensation for the sins of the past. Advertisement Yet in today's multiracial and multiethnic society, in which over 50 million residents were not born in the United States and many have only recently arrived, what are the particular historical or past grievances that would earn anyone special treatment? What injustices can recent arrivals from southern Mexico, South Korea or Chad claim, knowing little about, and experiencing no firsthand bias from, Americans, the United States, or its history? Is the DEI logic that when a Guatemalan steps one foot across the southern border, she is suddenly classified as a victim of white oppression and therefore entitled to preferences in hiring or employment? Fourth, does the word 'minority' still carry any currency? Advertisement In today's California, the demography breaks down as 40% Latino, 34% white, 16% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6% black, and 3% Other — with no significant majority and fewer whites than the Latino 'minority.' Are Latinos the new de facto 'majority' and 'whites' just one of the four other 'minorities?' Do the other minorities, then, have grievances against Latinos, given that they are the dominant population in the state? Fifth, when does DEI 'proportional representation' apply, and when does it not? Are whites 'overrepresented' among the nation's university faculties, reportedly 75% white, when they comprise only about 70% of the population? Advertisement Or, are whites 'underrepresented' as college students, making up just 55% of them, and thus in need of DEI action to bump up their numbers? Black athletes are vastly overrepresented in lucrative and prestigious professional sports. To correct such asymmetries, should Asians and Hispanics be given mandated quotas for quarterback or point-guard positions to ensure proper athletic 'diversity, equity and inclusion'? Sixth, DEI determines good and bad prejudices, as well as correct and incorrect biases. 'Affinity' segregationist graduations — black, Hispanic, Asian and gay — are considered 'affirming'. Advertisement But would a similar affinity graduation ceremony for European-Americans or Jews be considered 'racist'? Is a Latino-themed, de facto segregated house on a California campus considered 'enlightened,' while a European-American dorm would be condemned as incendiary? In truth, DEI long ago became corrupt, falling apart under the weight of its own paradoxes and hypocrisies. It is a perniciously divisive idea — unable to define who qualifies for preference or why, who is overrepresented or not, or when bias is acceptable or unjust. And it is past time that it goes away. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tammy Bruce: Putin peace talks 'wouldn't be possible without Trump'
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce joins 'MediaBuzz' to weigh in on President Donald Trump's push for peace in Ukraine and Gaza.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why the ivory tower wants a deal with Trump
First Columbia, Brown and UPenn folded. Harvard is reportedly looking for a way out after President Donald Trump cut its health and science research funding by billions. Now academia writ large is trying to persuade him to back off his plan to slash universities' budgets. At Trump's urging, the National Institutes of Health in February said it was cutting by more than $4 billion the amount it pays to universities to help them cover administrative and facilities costs tied to research grants. The overture from university lobbyists comes even as the universities have succeeded in blocking Trump's plan in court — and have won the backing of key Republican lawmakers. The universities' eagerness to cut a deal shows that they don't think they can hold off Trump indefinitely. A cut of the magnitude the NIH sought would put a major dent in their budgets, slow the search for breakthroughs in health and science, and enable foreign rivals to catch up, they say. The federal government has long provided funding for university administration and facilities. These indirect-cost reimbursements are an add-on to scientific and health research grants. Trump allies accuse the schools of using the payments as slush funds to pursue progressive causes like diversity, equity and inclusion. The universities deny that they are using the money that way but they are hoping to placate Trump by proposing to standardize how the government pays for their indirect costs. Currently, those fees are negotiated separately with each institution and they can vary widely. Trump says they're way too high, pointing to the lower rates private foundations pay when they provide research grants. "It's been made extremely clear to us from day one by members of Congress that if we don't do something, somebody else will," Kelvin Droegemeier, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who's spearheading the effort on behalf of a coalition of universities and research institutes, told POLITICO. "They said continuing forward with the current model is not in the cards. We took it to mean we could help be a part of that change or wait for it to happen." Some leading Democrats on Capitol Hill and party activists across the country are leaning on universities to stand firm against Trump. But the coalition is moving forward with talks anyway. "That's really important for everybody to understand. You can't fight something with nothing," Toby Smith, a top lobbyist at the Association of American Universities, said at a recent town hall on paying for indirect research costs. Among those with the most at stake, either if Trump succeeds in capping the fees or in a compromise, are the titans of the ivory tower: major research universities such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Yale that have long won indirect cost reimbursements in excess of 60 percent of the value of the underlying research grant. Major research institutions command some of the highest rates in part because they have expensive and state-of-the-art research equipment and are located in areas with high utilities costs. A federal district court judge in Boston blocked Trump's plan to cap the fees at 15 percent in March. The national average now is almost 30 percent. The case is now on appeal. In the meantime, GOP senators such as Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine and Alabama's Katie Britt have protested the administration's plan because it would hurt the public universities in their states. Collins noted that Congress has explicitly barred the administration from tinkering with the indirect cost system in spending legislation. But even as schools were seeking relief in court and in Congress, a cadre of groups that lobby for them, including the Association of American Universities, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of Independent Research Institutes and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, was working out a compromise plan to offer Trump. Others in the crosshairs of Trump's bid to cut costs, such as hospitals and research institutes, are working with them. "Those who say, 'Well, let's just wait and see, maybe the lawsuits will be fine.' No, there is change happening," said Droegemeier, who has some cache in Trump's orbit because he led the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the president's first term. "I can tell you for sure that [the White House Office of Management and Budget] is working on things. We're working on things. We're working together. But change is coming, and if people simply deny that they're fooling themselves — they'd better prepare for change one way or another." This week, Trump tried a new tactic to wrest indirect funding from top-tier universities by issuing an executive order calling for agencies to give preference to universities with lower indirect costs when issuing awards. The university-led group announced this spring that it was working on a new model, one that was "simple and easily explained," and in a nod to the administration's priorities: "efficient and transparent." The Financial Accountability in Research, or FAIR plan, would consist of two options for research organizations to recoup facilities and administrative expenses from the government. The first, a detailed accounting of indirect project costs, and the second, a shorter, simpler fixed percentage of a project's budget. (Think itemized deductions vs. the standard deduction on federal taxes.) "The biggest difference is rather than having an indirect cost rate, which is negotiated across the entire university, this model calls for indirect costs to be estimated for every project," Jeremy Berg, former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, an arm of the $48 billion grant-giving National Institutes of Health, told POLITICO. Debate over how much the government should pay for indirect costs has raged for decades. Both former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama suggested capping facilities and administrative costs, to no avail. In Trump's first term, he proposed a 10 percent cap on indirect costs — meaning a $100 grant would come with a maximum of an additional $10 for administration and facilities. Lawmakers stopped him by adding language to appropriations bills barring the change. After the Trump administration announced the 15 percent cap in February, Droegemeier reached out to House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) to see if universities and Congress could work together on a compromise. Soon, Droegemeier had helped assemble a team of seasoned subject matter experts beyond the traditional academic echo chamber, including representatives from hospitals and medical centers, foundations, private companies, and former government officials from NIH and OMB. Droegemeier's team then worked to engage Senate appropriators, including Collins and Britt. They briefed Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. More recently, they've talked with the offices of Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Shelley Moore Capito ( and Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), as well as Democrats. Since February, the team held two weekend fly-ins and a virtual retreat to work on the model together and multiple town halls to explain the FAIR plan and get feedback from universities. Beyond Congress, the group has sought buy-in from the Office of Management and Budget, the White House arm that is leading Trump's cost-cutting initiatives. Droegemeier worked with OMB Director Russ Vought during Trump's first term. The administration has appealed Judge Angel Kelley's March decision, which she made permanent in April, to the federal appeals court in Boston. In the meantime, senators on the Appropriations Committee approved language in their version of the spending bill for the National Institutes of Health that restricts changes to the current methods of setting indirect costs. Even so, Collins floated the new model to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya at an NIH budget hearing in June and signaled her support for a compromise. She called Droegemeier's plan 'far fairer' than Trump's flat rate and said she believed it would 'increase accountability.' Bhattacharya said he had talked with Droegemeier during the early planning stages of the model. "I think they're quite promising," he said. Talks are expected to resume when Congress returns from recess next month. The bigger challenge may be getting OMB to sign off. So far, the university groups and OMB have not been able to reach an agreement to present to lawmakers, according to a person familiar with the negotiations on the congressional side granted anonymity to avoid influencing the ongoing discussions. One sticking point for OMB: The White House wants assurances the plan will cut spending on facilities and administrative expenses, the person said. From Droegemeier's vantage point, they're working together on finer points of the model, and talks with OMB are ongoing. The university team isn't promising cost reductions. That's not their role, according to Droegemeier. Instead, the model is designed to show what it really costs to do research. Then the government and lawmakers can decide what they want to pay for. Berg, the former NIH official, thinks it has the potential to be cumbersome to implement, but more transparent. Like Droegemeier, he doesn't think schools have a choice. "There's been so much of a fuss made at this point," Berg said, adding, "If the universities dug in their heels and said, 'We like the old model.' That's not going to happen. Instead, there'll be some fixed cap, the way the administration proposed out of the blue." "From that point of view, it's a thoroughly sensible thing to do, and I'm supportive of the effort, because I think it's the best path to ending up somewhere that's actually rational."
