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 mapHow evidence is weightedSource 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 groupsDebunkedDisputedPartly supportedUnder investigation
Main dossiersInclude evidence tracksEvidence tracks only
GenocideFamine / aidLawfareSettlements / landOctober 7HostagesHospitals / healthDetainees / prisonsMedia / journalistsUN / NGO chainsCampus / BDSApartheid / racismWeapons claimsCasualty dataSource laundering
Showing 3 of 272 component evidence track(s)Clear filters

Status rule

Verdicts apply to the public accusation; component tracks stay attached below parent dossiers.
bundled claim
DebunkedMisleadingLegally inaccuratePartly supported / context needed
Partly supported / context neededAssessment 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.

Debunked: misleadingAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)6 high-authorityEvidence track
Genocide / ICJ critiqueICJ / state legal record
LawfareOctober 7Media / journalistsUN / NGO chains

Israel’s Article 51 notice to the UN?

The claim asserts that immediately after the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks, Israel both invoked the UN Charter’s self‑defense clause (Article 51) and formally notified the UN Security Council. It circulates in commentary, explainers, and social posts as a shorthand for Israel’s legal basis for the Gaza operations.

Debunked: legally inaccurateAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)14 high-authorityEvidence track
ICJ / state legal recordGenocide / ICJ critiqueStrategic / technical reference
GenocideLawfareUN / NGO chainsCampus / BDS

Does ARSIWA Art. 41 require total embargoes?

Advocates and some legal memos argue that ARSIWA Article 41 creates a legal duty on all states to adopt comprehensive sanctions/embargoes against Israel, often citing the ICJ’s Wall (2004) and 2024 advisory opinions and the ILC Articles. The claim circulates in NGO/legal‑advocacy briefs and BDS materials and is sometimes conflated with UN Charter Article 41 (Security Council sanctions), implying a universal, across‑the‑board embargo obligation.