Study Challenges Genocide Claims in Israel-Gaza Conflict
A comprehensive new study from the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University is challenging allegations that Israel committed genocide in Gaza following Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack. The report, titled “Debunking the Genocide Allegations: A Reexamination of the Israel-Hamas War (2023-2025),” argues that claims of deliberate starvation, indiscriminate bombing, and intentional civilian targeting lack substantial evidence. This research provides a counternarrative to what has become a widely circulated accusation in international discourse about the conflict.
Central to the genocide allegations has been the claim that Israel deliberately starved Gaza’s population – an assertion the study vigorously disputes. According to the researchers, “claims of starvation prior to March 2, 2025, were based on erroneous data, circular citations, and a failure to critically review sources.” While humanitarian organizations maintained that 500 trucks daily were necessary to prevent famine, the study reveals that pre-war Gaza averaged just 292 trucks daily in 2022, with only 73 carrying food – a level that was “completely adequate to meet demand,” according to co-author Danny Orbach, a military historian from Hebrew University. The report indicates that during the conflict, Israel regularly surpassed the required food supply, averaging more than 100 trucks daily through March 2025, with that number climbing to approximately 600 during ceasefire periods. Orbach specifically addresses aid distribution issues, stating: “The idea that Hamas didn’t seize aid is absurd. In every conflict, armed groups take the bulk of humanitarian supplies. We have documents and testimonies proving Hamas did so.”
The study identifies what it calls an “inverted funnel of information” that contributed to the spread of genocide allegations. This pattern involves journalists and aid workers in Gaza relying on Hamas-linked translators and fixers, whose accounts eventually filter into UN reports, mainstream media, and online platforms. “The average Westerner sees dozens of reports about Israeli crimes and assumes they must be true. But they all trace back to a handful of Hamas-affiliated sources,” Orbach explained. Compounding this issue is what the researchers term “humanitarian bias” – the tendency for relief organizations to exaggerate conditions to prompt action. “Organizations warn of famine before it happens, relying on dubious facts to change reality. Questioning becomes an immoral act,” Orbach noted. This combination of information control and humanitarian urgency, the study suggests, created a narrative environment where accusations spread without proper verification.
Regarding civilian targeting, another cornerstone of genocide allegations, the study acknowledges civilian casualties while challenging claims of systematic targeting. Citing BBC data, Orbach points out that between May 2024 and January 2025, about 550 people were killed in designated safe zones – representing just 2.1% to 3.5% of total casualties, despite these areas housing approximately half of Gaza’s population for much of the period. “That indicates the zones were relatively safe, despite Hamas using them to launch rockets,” Orbach stated. The report emphasizes context as crucial, noting that Hamas deliberately positioned itself in civilian areas, used human shields, and blocked evacuations – tactics intended to increase civilian casualties and international condemnation of Israel. This strategy places civilians in danger “intentionally so Israel will be blamed,” according to the researchers.
The study also challenges widespread perceptions about Israel’s bombing campaign. While critics have characterized Israeli airstrikes as indiscriminate, the researchers argue that military operations generally targeted legitimate objectives, though civilian casualties were unavoidable given Hamas’s tactics. “The IDF is the first army in history to issue focused warnings, deliver large-scale aid into enemy territory, and sacrifice surprise to protect civilians,” Orbach contended. “You cannot fight an enemy embedded in 500 kilometers of tunnels, dressed as civilians without massive destruction.” The report pays particular attention to casualty figures published by the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, suggesting they were manipulated to create misleading impressions of the demographics of the dead. Alternative statistical models presented in the study suggest that combatant fatalities may have been significantly underreported, distorting the civilian-to-combatant ratio that forms the basis of many international assessments.
Ultimately, the study argues that the legal threshold for genocide requires systematic intent to destroy a people – an element the researchers find absent in Gaza. “You don’t see the hallmarks of genocidal warfare here,” Orbach stated. “There are no campaigns of rape, frontal massacres or close-range executions. In other conflicts in the Middle East, dozens of such atrocities occurred in just a few hours of fighting.” The authors conclude that allegations of genocide against Israel rely heavily on politicized narratives, selective data interpretation, and the exploitation of humanitarian discourse rather than objective assessment of evidence. As Orbach summarized, “Analyzing devastation or civilian deaths without understanding Hamas’ tactics is absurd.” While this study offers a counterpoint to prevalent genocide accusations, it enters a highly charged international debate where perspectives remain deeply divided on the nature and conduct of the ongoing conflict.
