Published claim files

The World against Israel Case

Evidence archive and research command center for claim files, source chains, public source links, and debunk packs.

Open brain map How evidence is weighted Source authority

Main dossiers first.Component evidence tracks are hidden from the default list so the archive reads as headline dossiers plus evidence modules, not hundreds of disconnected accusations.

GenocideBundled accusation, intent threshold, ICJ/ICC context, source-chain and evidence tracks.Hospitals / LOACParent verdict with facility tracks, warnings, military use, evacuation and feasibility questions.ApartheidLegal-category audit with citizenship, West Bank, security restrictions and source roles separated.Rafah Tel al-SultanIncident-level LOAC file: target, munitions, secondary explosions and attribution limits.US aid / AIPACSeparates U.S. aid, foreign influence, FARA, university funding and domestic advocacy lanes.Anti-ZionismIdentity, antisemitism, slogan, campus and public-discourse source chains.

All status groups Debunked Disputed Narrow evidence tracks Under investigation

Main dossiers Include evidence tracks Evidence tracks only

Showing 3 of 413 public file(s): 141 main dossier(s) and 272 component evidence track(s)Clear filters

DebunkedMisleadingLegally inaccurateNarrow track partly supported

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high0 pack(s)

Famine / aidMedia / journalistsUN / NGO chainsCasualty data

ARTE programme description stated a foreign-journalist access restriction in October 2025

This record verifies the wording of ARTE’s English programme description dated 3 October 2025. It records ARTE’s written access statement, not an independently established universal ban, a current access assessment, or a transcript of spoken dialogue. The preceding sentence reports the Israeli government’s objection that Hamas, the UN and international media were orchestrating an antisemitic campaign; the following sentence explains that ARTE commissioned Palestinian journalists. The description does not specify whether the access wording excludes military-escorted visits or distinguish every access category. The film itself and its footage have not been independently reviewed here. The wider description attributes starvation-as-weapon accusations to UN and humanitarian organisations and contains casualty allegations; none of those allegations, criminal intent or individual liability is established by this narrow publication. The first queued version encloses the sentence in typographic quotation marks; only those outer quotation marks are removed, leaving the original words and terminal punctuation unchanged. Two separately ingested legacy leads map to the same governed public instance and evidence asset; they are not two independent sources.

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high0 pack(s)

Media / journalists

Die Presse berichtete über fortgesetzte Kämpfe trotz Waffenruhe

Belegt ist die Veröffentlichung von Die Presse vom 21. Juni 2026, 13:38 Uhr, mit Quellenangabe APA/dpa. Der Bericht stellt fortgesetzte Kämpfe einer angekündigten Waffenruhe gegenüber. Er enthält sowohl den israelischen Vorwurf von Verstößen und die Sicherheitsbegründung als auch die Darstellung der Hisbollah, auf vorrückende Truppen reagiert zu haben. Die Redaktion bezeichnet die Angaben der Konfliktparteien ausdrücklich als zunächst nicht unabhängig überprüfbar. Dieser Eintrag dokumentiert die Berichterstattung; er bestätigt weder Opferzahlen noch die Verantwortung für Verstöße oder die tatsächliche Umsetzung des Rahmenabkommens.

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)19 high-authorityEvidence track

Military / LOAC expertsGenocide / ICJ critiqueICJ / state legal record

LawfareUN / NGO chains

Self‑defense vs conduct under IHL

The claim rejects arguments that invoking self‑defense (UN Charter Article 51) settles the legality of military operations. It emphasizes the separation of jus ad bellum (right to use force) from jus in bello (how force is used) and says compliance must be judged by conduct rules—distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions—rather than by effects alone or by the cause of the war.