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 Partly supported Under investigation

Main dossiers Include evidence tracks Evidence tracks only

Showing 3 of 359 public file(s): 87 main dossier(s) and 272 component evidence track(s)Clear filters

DebunkedMisleadingLegally inaccuratePartly supported / context needed

Partly supported / context neededAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)13 high-authorityEvidence track

Casualty methodologyStrategic / technical referenceICJ / state legal record

GenocideLawfare

Arms transfers: risk tests vs. automatic genocide complicity

After the ICJ’s 26 January 2024 order finding a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza, some officials and advocates argued that any state transferring arms to Israel is thereby complicit in genocide and acting unlawfully. But most applicable legal regimes (ATT art. 6–7, EU/UK export criteria, U.S. CAT Policy/NSM‑20, Leahy/FAA/AECA) center decisions on ex‑ante risk assessments, mitigation, end‑use controls, and compliance assurances; they bar or pause transfers when knowledge or an overriding/clear risk exists, rather than deeming every transfer per se genocidal complicity. Recent practice (Dutch F‑35 case, Canada’s pause, U.S. NSM‑20 report) illustrates these risk‑based approaches and safeguards, alongside sharp disagreement about their sufficiency.

Partly supported / context neededAssessment confidence: medium1 pack(s)29 high-authorityEvidence track

Casualty methodologyGenocide / ICJ critiqueICC court record

GenocideFamine / aidLawfareUN / NGO chains

Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in Gaza

Advocacy groups, UN experts, and prosecutors have alleged that Israeli authorities intentionally deprived Gaza’s civilian population of objects indispensable to survival (food, water, fuel, electricity, medicines) as part of wartime policy, amounting to the war crime of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The claim cites October 2023 siege statements, restrictions on land crossings, and persistent impediments to relief. Israel denies a starvation policy, says it facilitates large aid volumes, and blames UN distribution capacity, insecurity, theft, and ongoing combat for aid shortfalls. The ICC Prosecutor sought arrest warrants (May 20, 2024) and ICC judges later issued warrants (Nov 21, 2024) including the starvation war-crime charge; the cases are ongoing.

Partly supported / context neededAssessment confidence: medium1 pack(s)20 high-authorityEvidence track

ICJ / state legal recordCasualty methodologyGenocide / ICJ critique

GenocideFamine / aidLawfareUN / NGO chains

Is Israel violating ICJ orders in South Africa v. Israel?

NGOs, UN officials, and states assert Israel has failed to implement ICJ orders of Jan 26, 2024 (initial measures), Mar 28, 2024 (additional measures focusing on unhindered aid), and May 24, 2024 (Rafah‑focused halt and access). Israel counters that it acts consistently with IHL, increased aid corridors, and interprets the May 24 order as conditioned, not a blanket ceasefire.