With the current bombardment, people in Gaza are being killed at an average rate of 2,500 lives lost per week and about 6,000 injured per week. Lets assume that this amounts to about 4,000 life-equivalents per week assuming that each injured person is losing 0.25 of a life on average. These estimates may be low, as there are many people missing in the rubble who are not included in these figures.
The government of Israel appears to be committed to continuing the bombardment for a long time in spite of the civilian casualty rate. So it appears that if there is a charity that can have an influence on decreasing the length of time that the government of Israel bombards Gaza civilians, this would be cost-effective for EAs if this influence cost less than 4000 x $5000/life = $20 million for every week of Gaza civilian bombardment that is avoided.
It is more or less a political question of determining how the length of the bombardment time can be lessened. But if there is an organization that you think might actually have an impact of decreasing bombardment time by a week, and if they have a budget of less than $20 million, then such an organization might be cost-effective from an EA perspective.
As a follow-up: Jewish Voice for Peace seems to be having a big influence in pushing for a cease-fire, and their annual budget is about $3 million per year:
So if their influence can decrease the bombardment of Gaza by more than just two days! They might actually be more cost-effective than GiveWell at saving lives!
With the current bombardment, people in Gaza are being killed at an average rate of 2,500 lives lost per week and about 6,000 injured per week. Lets assume that this amounts to about 4,000 life-equivalents per week assuming that each injured person is losing 0.25 of a life on average. These estimates may be low, as there are many people missing in the rubble who are not included in these figures.
The government of Israel appears to be committed to continuing the bombardment for a long time in spite of the civilian casualty rate. So it appears that if there is a charity that can have an influence on decreasing the length of time that the government of Israel bombards Gaza civilians, this would be cost-effective for EAs if this influence cost less than 4000 x $5000/life = $20 million for every week of Gaza civilian bombardment that is avoided.
It is more or less a political question of determining how the length of the bombardment time can be lessened. But if there is an organization that you think might actually have an impact of decreasing bombardment time by a week, and if they have a budget of less than $20 million, then such an organization might be cost-effective from an EA perspective.
I hope this suggested approach is useful to you.
As a follow-up: Jewish Voice for Peace seems to be having a big influence in pushing for a cease-fire, and their annual budget is about $3 million per year:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/900018359
So if their influence can decrease the bombardment of Gaza by more than just two days! They might actually be more cost-effective than GiveWell at saving lives!
https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/