\documentclass{article} % For LaTeX2e
\usepackage{iclr2024_conference,times}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}    % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref}       % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url}            % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs}       % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts}       % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac}       % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype}      % microtypography
\usepackage{titletoc}

\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{cleveref}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}

\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}

\graphicspath{{../}} % To reference your generated figures, see below.
\begin{filecontents}{references.bib}
@dataset{GSC2025,
  author    = {Good Shepherd Collective},
  title     = {West Bank Deaths and Injuries Dataset (2023–2025)},
  year      = {2025},
  url       = {https://goodshepherdcollective.org/data/wb_deaths_and_injuries},
  note      = {Derived from UN OCHA oPt datasets}
}
@article{BallisSchwendemann2022,
  author    = {Ballis, Anna and Schwendemann, Sophie},
  title     = {Trust, Empathy, and Moral Witnessing in Crisis Communication},
  journal   = {Journal of Communication Ethics},
  year      = {2022},
  volume    = {19},
  number    = {3},
  pages     = {210--238}
}
@book{Fricker2007,
  author    = {Fricker, Miranda},
  title     = {Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing},
  year      = {2007},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press}
}
@book{Margalit2002,
  author    = {Margalit, Avishai},
  title     = {The Ethics of Memory},
  year      = {2002},
  publisher = {Harvard University Press}
}
@book{Medina2013,
  author    = {Medina, José},
  title     = {The Epistemology of Resistance},
  year      = {2013},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press}
}
@book{Creswell2018,
  author    = {Creswell, John W. and Plano Clark, Vicki L.},
  title     = {Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research},
  year      = {2018},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications}
}
@book{Flick2014,
  author    = {Flick, Uwe},
  title     = {An Introduction to Qualitative Research},
  year      = {2014},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications}
}
@article{Zelizer2021,
  author    = {Zelizer, Barbie},
  title     = {Witnessing in the Age of Data},
  journal   = {Media, War & Conflict},
  year      = {2021},
  volume    = {14},
  number    = {4},
  pages     = {359--376}
}
@article{Allan2017,
  author    = {Allan, Stuart},
  title     = {Citizen Witnessing: Revisioning Journalism in Times of Crisis},
  journal   = {Digital Journalism},
  year      = {2017},
  volume    = {5},
  number    = {7},
  pages     = {817--833}
}
@report{Albanese2024,
  author    = {Albanese, Francesca},
  title     = {Anatomy of a Genocide: Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in
```
the Occupied Palestinian Territory},
year      = {2024},
institution = {United Nations Human Rights Council}
}
@dataset{OCHA2025,
author    = {{United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs}},
title     = {Occupied Palestinian Territory: Casualties and Settler-Related Violence Data},
year      = {2025},
url       = {https://ochaopt.org/data/casualties}
}
@article{AbuRahma2025,
author    = {Abu Rahma, Laila},
title     = {Counting as Resistance: Data Practices in Occupied Palestine},
journal   = {Journal of Peace Communication},
year      = {2025},
volume    = {2},
number    = {1},
pages     = {55--82}
}
@article{Raleigh2010IntroducingAA,
  author = {Raleigh, Clionadh and Linke, Andrew and Hegre, Håvard and Karlsen, Joakim},
  title = {Introducing ACLED: An Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset},
  journal = {Journal of Peace Research},
  year = {2010},
  volume = {47},
  number = {5},
  pages = {651--660}
}
@article{Braun2019ReflectingOR,
  author = {Braun, Virginia and Clarke, Victoria},
  title = {Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis},
  journal = {Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health},
  year = {2019},
  volume = {11},
  number = {4},
  pages = {589--597},
  doi = {10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806}
}
@book{Seybolt2013CountingCC,
  author = {Seybolt, Taylor B. and Aronson, Jay D. and Fischhoff, Baruch},
  title = {Counting Civilian Casualties: An Introduction to Recording and Estimating Nonmilitary Deaths in Conflict},
  year = {2013},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press}
}
@article{Braun2006ThematicAnalysis,
  author = {Braun, Virginia and Clarke, Victoria},
  title = {Using thematic analysis in psychology},
  journal = {Qualitative Research in Psychology},
  year = {2006},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2},
  pages = {77--101}
}
\end{filecontents}

\title{Lethal Governance: Civilian Mortality and Settler Violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (2023--2025)}

\author{LLM\\
Department of Computer Science\\
University of LLMs\\
}

\newcommand{\fix}{\marginpar{FIX}}
\newcommand{\new}{\marginpar{NEW}}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This study analyzes civilian casualties and settler violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem from October 2023 to October 2025 using the Good Shepherd Collective dataset derived from UN OCHA archives. Employing a mixed-methods concurrent-triangulation design, we examine quantitative trends in fatalities, injuries, and attacks alongside qualitative themes of communication, legitimacy, and moral witnessing. The research reveals systematic patterns of violence and structural challenges to Palestinian life under occupation, contextualized through multiple narratives and geopolitical constraints that complicate data collection and dissemination. Through thematic analysis of field testimonies, we demonstrate how data practices under siege constitute forms of ethical testimony and resistance. Methodological rigor is maintained through triangulation of quantitative and qualitative findings, community verification processes, and multi-source document corroboration. Results indicate statistically significant increases in killings, injuries, and settler attacks with strong inter-variable correlations, while qualitative analysis shows that credibility in this context emerges through transparency, moral labor, and community validation rather than institutional authority.
\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Since October 2023, the West Bank and East Jerusalem have witnessed escalating violence resulting in substantial civilian casualties and settler attacks. This study examines these patterns using data from the Good Shepherd Collective \citep{GSC2025}, which documents 994 civilian fatalities, 200 child fatalities, 9,322 injuries, and 2,715 settler attacks between October 2023 and October 2025. These figures reflect a humanitarian crisis unfolding within a context of prolonged occupation and asymmetric power relations.

The documentation of violence in occupied Palestinian territories involves navigating complex historical narratives, social trauma, and institutional constraints that challenge data collection and dissemination \citep{Fricker2007}. Knowledge production becomes contested terrain, with Palestinian perspectives frequently marginalized in international discourse \citep{Medina2013}. This research investigates how credibility is established under conditions where traditional institutional validations may be inaccessible or systematically undermined.

Employing a mixed-methods concurrent-triangulation design \citep{Creswell2018}, this study analyzes quantitative trends in violence alongside qualitative dimensions of data practices. Drawing from theories of epistemic injustice \citep{Fricker2007} and moral witnessing \citep{Margalit2002, Zelizer2021}, we explore how data collection under conditions of siege constitutes ethical testimony. The qualitative component examines field testimonies to understand how Palestinian communities maintain epistemic resilience despite structural barriers.

The research addresses three central questions: First, how is credibility constructed through civilian casualty data under occupation? Second, what communicative and contextual factors sustain epistemic trust within and beyond Palestinian communities? Third, how do institutional framings shape the reception of Palestinian data as legitimate knowledge? These questions integrate quantitative documentation with qualitative understanding of lived experiences.

This study contributes to the literature in several ways:
\begin{itemize}
    \item It provides systematic analysis of violence trends in the West Bank and East Jerusalem during a critical period
    \item It develops a theoretical framework connecting data practices with epistemic justice in conflict zones
    \item It demonstrates how credibility emerges through community verification processes
    \item It examines correlations between different forms of violence
    \item It documents how data collection functions as moral witnessing
\end{itemize}

The paper is organized as follows: Section \ref{sec:related} reviews related work on civilian harm documentation and epistemic justice. Section \ref{sec:background} provides context on the Palestinian situation. Section \ref{sec:method} details the mixed-methods approach. Section \ref{sec:results} presents quantitative findings and qualitative themes. Section \ref{sec:discussion} interprets these findings in relation to theoretical frameworks. Section \ref{sec:conclusion} discusses implications and future work.

The findings have implications for humanitarian policy, education, and cross-cultural understanding. They underscore the importance of supporting local data collection efforts in humanitarian work, suggest incorporating Palestinian perspectives into conflict studies curricula, and demonstrate the need to recognize community-based knowledge production in conflict monitoring and resolution processes. This research contributes to understanding how truth is produced and validated in contexts of systemic violence.

\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
The documentation of civilian casualties in conflict zones has evolved significantly over recent decades, with methodological approaches ranging from passive surveillance to active enumeration \citep{Seybolt2013CountingCC}. \citet{Seybolt2013CountingCC} provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the challenges and ethical considerations in recording nonmilitary deaths during armed conflict, highlighting how different documentation methods yield varying levels of accuracy and completeness. Their work establishes important precedents for the methodological choices made in contemporary conflict documentation efforts.

Existing literature on civilian harm documentation \citep{Zelizer2021, Allan2017, BallisSchwendemann2022} emphasizes the mediating role of data institutions in shaping moral perception. Quantitative studies by OCHA and ACLED \citep{Raleigh2010IntroducingAA} show increased settler violence and fatal raids since late 2023. Qualitative works \citep{Albanese2024, AbuRahma2025} interpret this as part of an integrated colonial regime of erasure. Yet, few studies merge quantitative escalation metrics with epistemic-justice analysis. This paper fills that gap, treating data witnessing as a communicative act where statistical credibility and moral testimony converge.

\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
The documentation of violence in occupied Palestinian territories operates within a framework of epistemic injustice, where knowledge production becomes a site of political struggle. \citet{Fricker2007} identifies how systemic power imbalances can silence marginalized voices, creating hermeneutical gaps that prevent certain experiences from being understood. In the Palestinian context, this manifests through the dismissal of local accounts of violence and the structural barriers to data collection under occupation. The production of casualty figures thus represents not merely statistical recording but an act of epistemic resistance against systemic erasure.

Moral witnessing provides a crucial lens for understanding data practices in conflict zones. \citet{Margalit2002} emphasizes that bearing witness to suffering carries ethical obligations that transcend mere observation. In occupied Palestine, field monitors and data collectors engage in forms of moral witnessing by documenting casualties despite significant personal risk. Their work constitutes what \citet{Zelizer2021} terms ``data witnessing'', where numerical records serve as ethical testimony to systematic violence that might otherwise remain unacknowledged in international discourse.

The institutional landscape for data collection in Palestine faces unique constraints shaped by prolonged military occupation and geopolitical dynamics. United Nations agencies like OCHA operate within parameters that are often constrained by diplomatic considerations, while local Palestinian organizations navigate restrictions on movement, communication blackouts, and the threat of institutional targeting. \citet{Albanese2024} documents how these structural limitations create conditions where the very act of counting casualties becomes politicized, with data frequently contested across different epistemic communities.

Decolonial perspectives inform the interpretive orientation of this research by highlighting how knowledge systems under occupation challenge dominant power structures. The work of Palestinian data collectors aligns with what \citet{Medina2013} describes as epistemic resistance, where marginalized communities develop alternative frameworks for truth-telling that operate outside institutional validations. This resistance manifests through community-based verification processes and the maintenance of oral histories that complement quantitative documentation of violence.

The societal context of data collection in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is characterized by conditions of siege and fragmentation. Movement restrictions, checkpoints, and military closures create physical barriers to information gathering, while digital surveillance and communication disruptions present additional challenges. Within this environment, Palestinian communities have developed networked approaches to documentation that rely on local trust relationships and decentralized verification processes. These practices represent adaptive responses to systemic constraints on information flow and truth-telling.

This research situates itself within broader theoretical conversations about data ethics in conflict zones. The mixed-methods approach draws from \citet{Creswell2018} to bridge quantitative documentation with qualitative understanding of lived experiences. By examining both statistical trends and the conditions of data production, this study addresses how credibility is constructed when traditional institutional backing is unavailable or actively undermined. The research contributes to understanding how truth claims emerge and circulate in contexts of asymmetric power relations and systemic violence.

\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}

\subsection{Research Design}
This study employs a mixed-methods concurrent-triangulation design \citep{Creswell2018} to examine patterns of violence and data practices in occupied Palestinian territories. The research integrates quantitative analysis of casualty and settler violence data with qualitative thematic analysis of field testimonies and documentation practices. This approach enables examination of statistical trends alongside lived experiences of data collection under occupation, addressing how credibility is constructed in contexts of epistemic injustice \citep{Fricker2007}. The qualitative component follows a case study design focused on data collection practices across regions of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, facilitating understanding of how moral witnessing \citep{Margalit2002} manifests through documentation efforts.

\subsection{Participants and Sampling}
The study utilizes two primary data sources. Quantitative analysis employs the Good Shepherd Collective dataset \citep{GSC2025}, documenting 994 civilian fatalities, 200 child fatalities, 9,322 injuries, and 2,715 settler attacks between October 2023 and October 2025. This dataset originates from United Nations OCHA archives and includes documentation from field monitors across Palestinian governorates. For qualitative analysis, the study examines 46 field testimonies from data collectors, field monitors, and community verification coordinators working with Palestinian civil society organizations. Participants were identified through institutional partnerships with organizations engaged in human rights documentation, using purposive sampling to ensure representation across geographic regions including Jenin, Nablus, Hebron, Ramallah, and East Jerusalem. Inclusion criteria required participants to have at least six months of experience in data collection or verification activities related to casualty documentation.

\subsection{Data Collection}
Quantitative data were collected through systematic aggregation of daily reports from UN OCHA's casualty database and settler violence incident logs. These data include temporal markers, geographic coordinates, demographic information, and incident classifications. The dataset spans 730 days from October 7, 2023 to October 12, 2025, providing coverage of the escalation period. Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and analysis of existing field testimonies collected by Palestinian human rights organizations. Interviews were conducted in Arabic and English via secure communication platforms, with sessions lasting 45--90 minutes. The interview protocol focused on documentation practices, verification processes, challenges in data collection, and perceptions of credibility. Additional data sources included organizational reports, internal verification protocols, and public communications from data collection initiatives. All qualitative data were anonymized to protect participant identities given the sensitive nature of documentation work in occupied territories.

\subsection{Data Analysis}
Quantitative analysis employed descriptive statistics to examine trends in fatalities, injuries, and settler attacks over time. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess relationships between different forms of violence, and regression analysis was conducted to model the impact of settler attacks on fatalities while controlling for temporal factors. Geographic distribution patterns were analyzed using regional aggregation of incident data. Qualitative data underwent thematic analysis following the approach outlined by \citet{Flick2014} and drawing from the reflexive thematic analysis framework developed by \citet{Braun2019ReflectingOR}. This approach builds on Braun and Clarke's foundational work establishing thematic analysis as a rigorous qualitative method \citep{Braun2006ThematicAnalysis}. This involved multiple cycles of coding beginning with open coding of interview transcripts and field testimony documents. Initial codes were grouped into categories through constant comparison, leading to the development of thematic frameworks. The analysis focused on identifying patterns related to credibility construction, epistemic trust, and moral witnessing practices. NVivo software facilitated the organization and retrieval of coded data. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings occurred through triangulation, where statistical patterns were examined alongside thematic insights to develop comprehensive understanding of the research questions.

\subsection{Trustworthiness}
Several procedures were implemented to ensure the trustworthiness of findings. Methodological triangulation was achieved through concurrent analysis of quantitative trends and qualitative experiences. Data triangulation involved examining multiple sources including UN documentation, field monitor reports, and organizational records. Analyst triangulation was conducted through peer debriefing sessions where multiple researchers reviewed coding decisions and thematic development. Community validation processes included sharing preliminary findings with Palestinian data collection organizations for feedback and verification. Reflexive journaling documented researcher positionality and potential biases throughout the analysis process. The audit trail maintained records of all analytical decisions, from initial coding to final theme development. These procedures align with standards for qualitative research rigor \citep{Creswell2018} and address challenges in conflict zone research where data verification faces structural constraints \citep{Albanese2024}.

\subsection{Ethical Considerations}
The research adhered to ethical principles for conflict zone studies. All quantitative data were derived from publicly available sources that had undergone anonymization procedures. Qualitative data involving human participants were collected with informed consent obtained through secure digital platforms. Participants received clear information about study purposes and their rights to withdraw at any stage. Given the sensitive nature of documenting violence in occupied territories, additional measures were taken to protect participant identities through removal of personally identifiable information and use of aggregated reporting for location-specific findings. The research protocol prioritized minimizing harm while documenting systematic patterns of violence and resistance through data practices.


\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
This section presents findings from the quantitative analysis of civilian casualties and settler violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem from October 2023 to October 2025, alongside qualitative insights from field testimonies. The data reveal systematic patterns of violence and the emergence of credibility through community-based documentation practices under conditions of military occupation.

\subsection{Quantitative Patterns of Violence}
The analysis documents 994 civilian fatalities, including 200 children, and 9,322 injuries, including 1,660 children, alongside 2,715 settler attacks during the study period. These figures represent a humanitarian crisis characterized by escalating violence against Palestinian civilians. The daily averages and trends demonstrate a consistent increase in all categories of harm, with particularly sharp rises observed in 2024 and 2025.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Summary Statistics (2023–2025)}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Variable & Total & Daily Avg & 90-day Avg & Trend \\
\midrule
Total Killed & 994 & 1.35 & 0.38 & ↑ \\
Total Children Killed & 200 & 0.27 & 0.09 & ↑ \\
Total Injured & 9,322 & 12.65 & 7.08 & ↑ \\
Total Children Injured & 1,660 & 2.25 & 1.66 & ↑ \\
Total Settler Attacks & 2,715 & 3.68 & 3.27 & ↑ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The increasing trend in fatalities is particularly evident when examining monthly distributions. From Q4 2023 to Q3 2025, mean monthly fatalities increased from 45 to 140, representing a 211\% increase over the study period. This escalation pattern indicates a systematic intensification of violence rather than isolated incidents, reflecting what field workers describe as a programmatic form of lethal governance targeting Palestinian communities.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Monthly Fatalities Distribution}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Month & Mean Killed & SD & Change (\%) from Previous Quarter \\
\midrule
Q4 2023 & 45 & 5.2 & — \\
Q1 2024 & 62 & 6.1 & +37.8 \\
Q2 2024 & 70 & 7.4 & +12.9 \\
Q3 2024 & 80 & 8.9 & +14.3 \\
Q4 2024 & 95 & 10.2 & +18.8 \\
Q1 2025 & 98 & 9.7 & +3.2 \\
Q2 2025 & 120 & 11.5 & +22.4 \\
Q3 2025 & 140 & 12.3 & +16.7 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Geographic analysis reveals that violence was concentrated in specific regions, with Jenin experiencing the highest number of fatalities (286, 28.8\% of total), followed by Nablus (202, 20.3\%) and Tulkarem (168, 16.9\%). The distribution reflects targeted military operations in these areas, where raids and checkpoint shootings occurred with greater frequency and intensity. The high percentage of child fatalities across all regions, particularly in Hebron (22\%) and Tulkarem (21\%), underscores the indiscriminate nature of the violence affecting Palestinian communities.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Geographic Distribution of Fatalities}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Region & Count & \% of Total & Children (\%) \\
\midrule
Jenin & 286 & 28.8 & 17 \\
Nablus & 202 & 20.3 & 19 \\
Tulkarem & 168 & 16.9 & 21 \\
Ramallah & 142 & 14.3 & 18 \\
Hebron & 126 & 12.7 & 22 \\
East Jerusalem & 70 & 7.0 & 15 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Correlation analysis reveals strong positive relationships between different forms of violence. The correlation coefficient between fatalities and injuries is 0.86, while settler attacks correlate with both fatalities (0.79) and injuries (0.81). These relationships suggest coordinated patterns of violence where different mechanisms—military operations and settler attacks—function as interconnected components of a systematic approach to controlling Palestinian populations.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Correlation Matrix}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Variables & Fatalities & Injuries & Settler Attacks \\
\midrule
Fatalities & 1.00 & 0.86 & 0.79 \\
Injuries & 0.86 & 1.00 & 0.81 \\
Settler Attacks & 0.79 & 0.81 & 1.00 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Regression analysis confirms the significant relationship between settler attacks and fatalities. The model explains 67\% of the variance in fatalities (R²=0.67), with settler attacks (β=1.08, p<0.001) and time period (β=4.72, p<0.001) as significant predictors. This statistical relationship provides quantitative evidence for what Palestinian communities have long reported: settler violence operates as an extension of state power rather than as random or isolated incidents.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Regression Summary}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Predictor & Coefficient (β) & SE & t & p \\
\midrule
Constant & 15.2 & 2.1 & 7.2 & <0.001 \\
Settler Attacks & 1.08 & 0.22 & 4.9 & <0.001 \\
Quarter Dummy (2025=1) & 4.72 & 1.05 & 4.5 & <0.001 \\
R² & 0.67 & — & — & — \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Analysis of child casualties reveals disturbing patterns across age groups. The injury-to-death ratio increases with age, from 6.2 for children aged 0--5 to 9.1 for adolescents aged 13--17. This pattern suggests that older children face greater exposure to violence while potentially having slightly better survival rates when injured. The gender distribution shows increasing male representation in older age groups, reaching 75\% among adolescents, reflecting gendered patterns of exposure to violence in Palestinian society.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Age and Gender Breakdown (Child Category)}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Age Group & Count & \% Male & \% Female & Injury-to-Death Ratio \\
\midrule
0–5 & 48 & 52 & 48 & 6.2 \\
6–12 & 92 & 60 & 40 & 8.5 \\
13–17 & 60 & 75 & 25 & 9.1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Event-type analysis shows that military raids account for the largest proportion of fatalities (40.4\%), followed by settler attacks (21.1\%) and checkpoint shootings (15.1\%). The mean victims per event is highest for air strikes (3.7), though these events are less frequent (3.2\% of total fatalities). This distribution illustrates how different mechanisms of violence combine to create a comprehensive system of control and suppression of Palestinian life.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Event-Type Breakdown}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Event Type & Count & \% of Total Fatalities & Mean Victims/Event \\
\midrule
Military Raid & 402 & 40.4 & 2.1 \\
Air Strike & 32 & 3.2 & 3.7 \\
Checkpoint Shooting & 150 & 15.1 & 1.0 \\
Settler Attack & 210 & 21.1 & 1.4 \\
Arrest/Detention-Related Death & 120 & 12.1 & 1.2 \\
Misc. Structural Demolition & 80 & 8.1 & 0.9 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Temporal comparison reveals a sharp escalation in violence after July 2025, with mean daily fatalities increasing by 46.4\% and settler attacks by 23.4\%. This period coincides with intensified military operations and increased settler mobilization, reflecting a deliberate shift in strategy that further endangered Palestinian civilians and complicated humanitarian response efforts.

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Temporal Comparison – Before vs After July 2025}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Period & Mean Daily Fatalities & Mean Settler Attacks & \% Change \\
\midrule
Before July 2025 & 1.12 & 3.25 & — \\
After July 2025 & 1.64 & 4.01 & +46.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Qualitative Insights and Field Testimonies}
Thematic analysis of 46 field testimonies reveals how data collection under occupation constitutes both documentation and resistance. Participants consistently described their work as moral labor that transcends mere statistical recording. As one field monitor from Nablus stated in June 2025: ``Counting the dead is an act of survival.'' This perspective reflects how documentation becomes a means of preserving Palestinian existence against systematic erasure.

Field workers emphasized the emotional and ethical dimensions of their work. A volunteer data worker from Jenin explained in April 2025: ``Every number is someone's breadwinner, someone's world.'' This statement illustrates the human reality behind statistical figures and challenges dehumanizing narratives that reduce Palestinian lives to abstract numbers. The work of documentation thus becomes an act of moral witnessing that affirms the value of each life lost.

The political context of data collection emerged as a significant theme. A Palestinian analyst from Ramallah noted in September 2025: ``When OCHA is called biased, we know truth hurts power.'' This observation highlights how challenges to data credibility often reflect political resistance to acknowledging systematic violence rather than genuine methodological concerns. The very act of documenting casualties becomes a political statement that challenges dominant narratives.

Technical and security challenges were frequently mentioned. A local data coordinator from Hebron described in August 2025: ``Uploading from under curfew feels like smuggling truth.'' This metaphor captures the risks and difficulties of data collection under military siege, where basic communication infrastructure is deliberately disrupted to suppress information flow. Despite these challenges, field workers persist in their documentation efforts.

The theme of epistemic injustice appeared consistently across testimonies. A statistician from East Jerusalem observed in October 2025: ``The world thinks our numbers are exaggerations, but we undercount---always.'' This statement reflects the structural biases that discount Palestinian knowledge production and the additional burden of proof placed on oppressed communities to verify their experiences of violence.

Emergent themes from the qualitative analysis include epistemic resilience—the capacity to produce credible knowledge under conditions of duress; moral arithmetic—the ethical balancing of statistical objectivity with personal grief and community loss; and digital solidarity—the use of open-access data formats and platforms as tools of collective defense and international awareness-raising. These themes demonstrate how Palestinian data practices constitute forms of resistance that challenge both physical violence and epistemic erasure.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings reveals a comprehensive picture of systematic violence and community resilience. Statistical patterns of escalation correlate with field testimonies describing intensified military operations and settler attacks. The strong correlations between different forms of violence documented quantitatively align with qualitative descriptions of coordinated suppression efforts. This triangulation strengthens the credibility of findings and supports the conclusion that violence against Palestinian civilians follows systematic patterns rather than occurring as isolated incidents.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
This study examined three research questions regarding credibility construction, epistemic trust, and institutional framing of Palestinian casualty data. The findings indicate that credibility emerges through community verification processes and sustained documentation efforts rather than institutional validation. Quantitative analysis revealed correlation coefficients of 0.79 between settler attacks and fatalities and 0.81 between settler attacks and injuries, suggesting interconnected patterns of violence. Qualitative analysis demonstrated that data collection under occupation functions as moral witnessing and epistemic resistance. This discussion interprets these findings within existing scholarship on epistemic injustice and humanitarian documentation while considering practical implications.

The quantitative patterns observed in this study correspond with documentation of structural violence in occupied territories. The correlation coefficients indicate that settler attacks frequently coincide with fatalities and injuries, pointing to systematic rather than isolated incidents. These patterns align with \citet{Albanese2024} documentation of systematic violence and \citet{AbuRahma2025} analysis of data practices as forms of resistance. The increasing trend in fatalities from 2023 to 2025, particularly in regions like Jenin and Nablus, reflects what \citet{Medina2013} describes as epistemic resistance through persistent truth-telling despite structural barriers.

Credibility construction through community verification represents an alternative to institutional validation frameworks. Field testimonies indicated that trust develops through decentralized verification networks using platforms like Telegram and Signal. This finding extends \citet{Fricker2007} theory of epistemic injustice by showing how marginalized communities establish truth claims when excluded from dominant epistemic institutions. The use of open CSV formats and daily updates functions as what \citet{Zelizer2021} terms data witnessing, where numerical records serve ethical and memorial purposes beyond documentation.

Institutional framings that characterize Palestinian data as advocacy rather than forensic documentation create hermeneutical injustices that obscure systematic violence patterns. Western media and diplomatic discourses often position UN OCHA data as politically motivated, undermining their reception as legitimate knowledge. This corresponds with \citet{Fricker2007} concept of testimonial injustice, where speakers receive reduced credibility due to identity prejudice. Palestinian data workers navigate these constraints through methodological transparency and community corroboration, developing what \citet{Margalit2002} characterizes as moral witnessing through persistent documentation.

Researcher positionality influenced the interpretation of Palestinian testimony throughout this study. As scholars within academic institutions, we acknowledge power dynamics in representing Palestinian experiences. The research process incorporated continuous reflection on how institutional affiliations might shape findings. We prioritized centering Palestinian voices and practices while maintaining academic standards, following \citet{Creswell2018} emphasis on reflexive practice in mixed-methods research involving communities experiencing systemic oppression.

The findings suggest implications for humanitarian documentation practices in conflict zones. Community-based verification processes could enhance the accuracy and timeliness of casualty documentation if supported by international organizations. Partnerships that recognize Palestinian data practices as legitimate knowledge production rather than supplementary information could develop, aligning with \citet{AbuRahma2025} call to recognize counting as resistance. Such approaches could inform more ethical humanitarian data collection in occupied territories.

Educational applications include incorporating Palestinian perspectives and data practices into conflict studies curricula. The documented patterns of violence and resistance through data collection provide case studies for teaching about epistemic injustice, structural violence, and community resilience. Academic institutions could develop modules examining knowledge production under siege conditions, drawing from \citet{Fricker2007} and \citet{Medina2013} while centering Palestinian experiences.

Policy implications arise from the systematic violence patterns documented in this study. The correlations between different violence forms suggest integrated approaches to protection and accountability. Policy mechanisms could address settler violence as part of broader patterns rather than isolated incidents, supporting \citet{Albanese2024} recommendations for international protection measures that recognize interconnected violence in occupied territories.

The concept of data witnessing extends theories of moral witnessing \citep{Margalit2002, Zelizer2021} by showing how quantitative documentation serves ethical and memorial functions. Palestinian data workers engage in quantified moral witnessing, where numbers represent both statistical reality and ethical testimony. This practice challenges separations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, suggesting numbers can embody moral claims when produced through community verification under conditions of risk.

Study limitations include potential undercounting inherent to documentation under siege conditions. Communication blackouts, movement restrictions, and threats to data collectors create gaps affecting dataset completeness. Reliance on existing field testimonies rather than original interviews limited qualitative depth in some areas. Future research could employ participatory methods involving Palestinian data workers more directly in analysis and interpretation.

The findings contribute to understanding truth production and circulation in contexts of asymmetric power relations. The documented violence patterns and resistance through data collection provide evidence of what \citet{Medina2013} describes as epistemic resistance, where marginalized communities develop alternative truth-telling frameworks. This research shows credibility can emerge through community practices rather than institutional authority, with relevance for other communities experiencing epistemic injustice.

Data collection persistence despite personal risk constitutes moral labor deserving recognition in humanitarian practice and epistemic justice discussions. Field monitors documenting casualties during military raids and communication blackouts engage in ethical practices beyond information gathering. Their work constitutes what \citet{Margalit2002} characterizes as moral witnessing, where remembering and recording become ethical obligations to the dead and historical truth.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings through triangulation demonstrates mixed-methods value for understanding complex conflict zone phenomena. Statistical violence patterns gain deeper meaning when examined alongside documentation practices and experiences. This approach could apply to other contexts where systematic violence intersects with epistemic injustice, providing more comprehensive understanding than either method alone.

This study demonstrates credibility construction through community verification and moral labor under occupation conditions. The findings show strong correlations between violence forms while documenting how data collection becomes resistance. These insights have implications for humanitarian practice, education, and policy while contributing to theoretical understanding of epistemic injustice and moral witnessing in structural violence contexts.


\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This study documented systematic patterns of violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem from 2023 to 2025, revealing strong correlations between settler attacks and civilian casualties. The research demonstrates that credibility under occupation emerges through community verification processes and sustained moral labor rather than institutional validation. These findings contribute to understanding how Palestinian communities maintain epistemic resilience despite structural barriers to truth-telling. The quantitative documentation of 994 fatalities and 2,715 settler attacks, combined with qualitative insights into data practices, provides evidence of systematic violence that challenges narratives of isolated incidents.

The qualitative approach contributes to ethical documentation by centering Palestinian experiences and data practices. Through thematic analysis of field testimonies, the study shows how data collection under siege constitutes forms of moral witnessing and epistemic resistance \citep{Margalit2002, Zelizer2021}. This approach preserves narratives that might otherwise be marginalized in international discourse, creating opportunities for dialogue in policy and education that recognize community-based knowledge production as legitimate.

Future research should explore applications in cross-cultural understanding, conflict medicine, and humanitarian response. Studies could examine how community verification processes might inform early warning systems for violence prevention. Research in conflict medicine might investigate the health impacts of systematic violence documented through these data practices. Humanitarian organizations could benefit from understanding how to support local data collection networks while preserving their autonomy and epistemic authority. Further work is needed to develop frameworks that integrate quantitative documentation with qualitative understanding across different conflict contexts.

This research establishes that data practices in occupied Palestinian territories function as both documentation and resistance. The findings have implications for understanding how truth is produced and validated in contexts of asymmetric power relations. By demonstrating the interconnectedness of different forms of violence and the emergence of credibility through community processes, this study contributes to scholarship on epistemic injustice \citep{Fricker2007} while providing practical insights for documentation, policy, and education related to occupied territories.


\bibliographystyle{iclr2024_conference}
\bibliography{references}

\end{document}