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 456 public file(s): 184 main dossier(s) and 272 component evidence track(s)Clear filters

DebunkedMisleadingLegally inaccurateNarrow track partly supported

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high0 pack(s)

GenocideFamine / aidLawfare

MSF called for respect for ICJ decisions and humanitarian assistance

This record verifies MSF’s institutional policy call published in its FAQ dated 18 June 2026. It is MSF’s wording, not a quotation from an ICJ order or a judicial finding about every government’s obligations. The surrounding answer distinguishes MSF’s Palestinian Authority registration from its disputed Israeli registration and describes a court petition, not a judgment. MSF is a participant in that dispute. This record does not determine registration legality, compliance with ICJ measures, responsibility for aid restrictions, or any allegation about staff or armed groups. Those issues require their own official records and responses. The FAQ also says MSF sought dialogue and declined to provide staff lists without safety assurances. Its broader allegations are not adopted as findings here.

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high1 pack(s)16 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.

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: medium1 pack(s)21 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.