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
DebunkedAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)2 high-authorityEvidence track
Antisemitism / Holocaust reference
LawfareMedia / journalistsUN / NGO chainsCampus / BDS

You are not allowed to criticize Israel

False. Israel is one of the most criticized countries in the world, not a country shielded from criticism. UN political bodies condemn Israel with extraordinary frequency; academic work has documented a measurable UN preoccupation with Israel; Pew surveys show widespread negative views of Israel in many countries; Gaza/Israel receives intense media and social-media attention; and major antisemitism frameworks such as IHRA explicitly distinguish ordinary criticism of Israel from antisemitism. The more accurate claim is narrower: some Israel-related speech disputes, campus conflicts, employment controversies, protest restrictions, and antisemitism complaints raise real free-speech questions. But that is not the same as saying criticism of Israel is forbidden.

Partly supported / context neededAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)22 high-authorityEvidence track
Military / LOAC expertsGenocide / ICJ critiqueCasualty methodology
Famine / aidLawfareHospitals / healthMedia / journalists

Deconfliction failures and strikes on marked media/medical sites

Multiple incidents in Gaza (and along the Lebanon front) show marked or pre-notified humanitarian, medical, and press people/places were struck despite sharing coordinates or visible markings. UN OCHA and WHO officials publicly criticized Gaza deconfliction/notification as inaccurate or not fit for purpose. The World Central Kitchen (WCK) case (April 1, 2024) is a key example: the convoy coordinated its route with the IDF yet was hit; the IDF’s own fast‑tracked inquiry found misidentification and SOP violations and disciplined officers. NGOs (MSF, ICRC, UNRWA) documented additional strikes on notified or clearly marked sites. Some investigations (e.g., RSF on the October 13, 2023 Lebanon incident) allege intentional targeting of journalists; others (like WCK) indicate severe coordination and procedural failures rather than proven intent. Notification and markings reduce risk but are not legal guarantees of immunity, nor do failures alone establish intent.

Debunked: legally inaccurateAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)21 high-authorityEvidence track
Casualty methodologyMilitary / LOAC expertsICJ / state legal record
LawfareUN / NGO chains

Are Gaza flotilla interceptions ‘piracy’ or unlawful attacks?

Activist flotillas in 2025–2026 were intercepted by the Israeli Navy in international waters. Organizers and several governments called the boardings ‘piracy’ and ‘kidnapping.’ Israel replied it was enforcing a ‘lawful naval blockade.’ Earlier inquiries (2010) split: a UN Secretary‑General panel (Palmer) found the blockade and high‑seas enforcement lawful (but criticized force used), while a UN Human Rights Council mission found the blockade unlawful. Whether the 2026 boardings are legal depends on the blockade’s lawfulness and compliance with naval LOAC; but ‘piracy’ and ‘kidnapping’ labels misstate black‑letter law.