Rethinking the Narrative: New Israeli Study Challenges Genocide Claims in Gaza

A comprehensive new Israeli study is challenging one of the most explosive accusations of the Gaza war—claims of genocide—and is urging the global community to rethink the way conflicts are analyzed and reported.

Conducted by a team of Israeli academics and legal experts, and published by Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, the study examines allegations of war crimes and genocide made against Israel during Operation Iron Swords. It concludes not only that these accusations lack evidentiary basis, but also that many of the data sources driving international outrage are methodologically compromised or manipulated.

Led by Prof. Dan Orbach, a military historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the research team includes Dr. Yonatan Buxman (quantitative research), Dr. Yagil Henkin (military history, Shalem Center and the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security), and attorney Yonatan Braverman (law of armed conflict). The report combines quantitative-statistical analysis, forensic documentation, primary sources, and comparative military history to separate propaganda from verifiable fact.

A Two-Fold Mission: Truth and Method

The researchers set out with two goals: to verify or disprove factual claims related to Israel’s conduct during the war, and to examine how information is gathered and disseminated in conflict zones—particularly in environments controlled by hostile or authoritarian regimes.

They emphasize the need to cross-reference Israeli, Palestinian, and international sources while minimizing ideological bias and resisting preloaded narratives.

Key Findings of the Study:

• No Evidence of Starvation Tactics:
  The widely circulated claim that Gaza requires 500 aid trucks per day is traced to a misquote of the UN Secretary-General. UN records before the war show an average of 73 food trucks per day. Between October 2023 and January 17, 2025, Israel actually allowed an average of 109 daily aid trucks. Although deliveries declined during the Rafah operation (May 2024), they rebounded strongly during the March 2025 ceasefire—resulting in a higher average food supply per day than before the war.
• Local Agriculture’s Role Greatly Overstated:
  Contrary to the claim that 44% of Gaza’s caloric intake comes from local agriculture, the study finds the number is likely below 12%, even before export restrictions.
• No Systematic Policy of Targeting Civilians:
  While isolated incidents of potential negligence or misconduct occurred, the study found no evidence of an organized policy or top-down directive to deliberately harm civilians.
• Data Manipulation by Hamas:
  Gaza’s Health Ministry classifies all casualties—including militants—as civilians, under internal Hamas guidelines. International organizations relying solely on this source have thus propagated distorted casualty figures.
• Unprecedented Caution by the IDF:
  The IDF employed early warnings, precision strikes, and aborted missions to avoid civilian harm—measures that came at strategic cost but demonstrably reduced casualties.
• “Safe Zones” Were Actually Safe:
  Less than 1.2% of casualties occurred in the al-Mawasi and central camp zones, which Israel designated for civilian evacuation—contradicting claims of deliberate attacks on these areas.
• Systemic Failures in UN and Humanitarian Methodology:
  The study highlights a pattern of circular sourcing, unverified estimates, and silent corrections in UN and humanitarian reporting—echoing similar issues from past conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza.

A Case Study in False Alarm

To further test the methods used by human rights groups and UN bodies, the researchers revisited the case of Iraq in the 1990s. During the U.S.led sanctions, global headlines claimed that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children had died, citing data from Saddam Hussein’s Health Ministry and a UN Food Agency survey.

However, after the fall of the regime, it emerged that the data were likely fabricated. The infant mortality surge had never occurred. Yet, even after the researcher who published the findings admitted she’d been misled, the humanitarian ecosystem largely ignored the correction.

The “Humanitarian Bias”: A Cautionary Concept

The researchers coin the term “humanitarian bias” to describe the tendency of aid organizations to accept alarming data from interested parties in order to prevent perceived catastrophe. In such contexts, even fact-based rebuttals are painted as morally callous attempts to downplay suffering.

Prof. Orbach warns that this approach has dangerous consequences:
“If every difficult urban war is labeled as genocide, we strip the term of its moral and legal force. Genocide becomes just another political tool—empty of meaning.”

A New Way Forward

In light of their findings, the team proposes a new methodology for conflict analysis—rooted in transparency, cross-verification, and rigorous skepticism of politically motivated data. They underscore that allegations of war crimes must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. However, facts—not slogans—must guide justice.

The full study will be published in both English and Hebrew at https://besacenter.org/ .