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 groupsDebunkedDisputedNarrow evidence tracksUnder investigation
Main dossiersInclude evidence tracksEvidence tracks only
GenocideFamine / aidLawfareSettlements / landOctober 7HostagesHospitals / healthDetainees / prisonsMedia / journalistsUN / NGO chainsCampus / BDSApartheid / racismWeapons claimsCasualty dataSource laundering
Showing 2 of 184 main dossier(s)Clear filters

Status rule

Verdicts apply to the public accusation; component tracks stay attached below parent dossiers.
bundled claim
DebunkedMisleadingLegally inaccurateNarrow track partly supported
Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high0 pack(s)
LawfareHostagesHospitals / healthMedia / journalists

Wallace and Reeves discuss foreseeable above-ground harm from tunnel attacks

Editorial paraphrase of David A. Wallace and Shane Reeves's written discussion dated 14 November 2023, hosted by the Lieber Institute; not a verbatim quotation of the DoD manual or institutional endorsement. The authors tentatively extend foreseeable civilian-harm analysis to effects above ground. Their surrounding analysis requires distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions, treats exclusively humanitarian tunnels as protected civilian objects, and includes civilian hostages in the analysis. The same article discusses defender obligations; these do not remove attacker obligations. Additional Protocol I Article 51(5)(b) and (8) supplies limiting context (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51). The linked July 2023 DoD manual returned HTTP 403 during this review: its exact text and the authors' interpretation are not independently certified. This record verifies the authors' published discussion only. It does not establish any tunnel's use, foreseeability in a particular attack, casualties, proportionality, wrongdoing or legal liability. The publisher expressly disclaims endorsement and official US military policy.

Narrow track partly supportedAssessment confidence: high0 pack(s)
LawfareHostagesHospitals / healthMedia / journalists

MSF published an explicit condemnation of Hamas attacks

This verifies MSF's own published condemnation, dated 18 June 2026. The casualty figure is MSF's wording, not a new casualty audit. The same answer expresses concern for both populations and retains MSF's criticism and legal characterization of Gaza; this record neither endorses nor refutes that characterization. Adjacent answers discuss hostage suffering, medical impartiality and hospital neutrality. The statement does not establish MSF's operational neutrality, settle allegations against its staff, or adjudicate any party's conduct.