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.

DebunkedMisleadingLegally inaccurateNarrow track partly supported

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)18 high-authorityEvidence track

Military / LOAC expertsGenocide / ICJ critiqueCasualty methodology

Lawfare

Area‑effects weapons in cities ≠ automatic indiscriminate intent

This claim pushes back on categorical assertions that the IDF’s (or any military’s) use of heavy or wide‑area‑effects munitions in Gaza proves “indiscriminate bombing.” It reflects mainstream LOAC doctrine: explosive weapons in populated areas present high civilian‑harm risks and are the focus of UN/ICRC avoidance policy, yet they are not per se unlawful; unlawfulness depends on target‑specific information, expected collateral harm, feasible alternatives/mitigation, and the attacker’s choices at the time. Critics argue that in Gaza’s density such weapons are effectively indiscriminate in practice, pointing to UN/OHCHR incident analyses and patterns of harm.

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)8 high-authorityEvidence track

Strategic / technical referenceCasualty methodology

Media / journalistsUN / NGO chainsCasualty data

UN use of Gaza MoH figures (with attribution limits)

Since October 2023, UN situation reports and briefings frequently present Gaza death and injury totals as reported by the Gaza MoH (and at times the Government Media Office), while adding prominent disclaimers that the UN has not independently verified all figures. Separately, some UN entities (notably OHCHR) run their own slower, multi‑source verification for a smaller, confirmed subset. Public debate often collapses these two practices, wrongly implying either full UN verification of MoH totals or, conversely, that the UN disowns MoH data entirely.