Study Challenges Allegations of Genocide in Gaza
A new study raises questions regarding claims that Israel committed genocide in Gaza after the events on October 7, 2023, which involved attacks by Hamas. According to researchers at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University, the narrative of genocide is primarily based on misleading data and exaggerated claims, which they argue lack verifiable evidence regarding starvation, indiscriminate bombings, and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
The study’s authors specifically address the assertion that Israel intentionally starved the population of Gaza. They contend that earlier claims, made before March 2, 2025, did not adequately assess the quality of the data used, which often relied on circular citations. For instance, it was reported by UN officials that approximately 500 trucks of supplies were necessary daily to curb hunger, whereas pre-war statistics indicated an average delivery of 292 trucks per day in 2022.
Co-author Danny Obach mentioned that Israel consistently exceeded the food supply requirements throughout the conflict, cited as averaging more than 100 trucks daily until March 2025. He further stated that in ceasefire agreements, this number increased to around 600. “The assertion that Hamas failed to seize the aid is absurd,” he said. Obach emphasized that, in various conflicts, armed groups have historically taken significant portions of humanitarian supplies, and ample documentation exists proving Hamas’s involvement in such actions.
Obach critiqued the information dissemination process, which he described as a “reverse funnel of information.” He noted that journalists and aid workers in Gaza often depend on translators connected to Hamas, which can bias the resulting reports sent to UN groups and mainstream media. This leads to a perception—particularly among Western audiences—that numerous allegations of Israeli misconduct must be factual, despite many tracing back to a limited number of Hamas-linked sources.
The authors also discuss a tendency within humanitarian discourse to exaggerate conditions, which can prompt urgent calls for action based on questionable facts. They point out that claims of Israel deliberately targeting civilians are prevalent, yet the study did not uncover evidence of a systematic genocidal policy, even while recognizing that civilians have died.
Obach referred to data from the BBC, indicating that between May 2024 and January 2025, a small percentage of civilian casualties—2.1% to 3.5%—occurred in designated safe zones, despite half of Gaza’s population residing there. This data brings to light the context in which Hamas operates, often placing themselves within civilian areas and utilizing human shields, which complicates the situation further.
Critics have also condemned the Israeli Air Force for its actions, but the study contends that while civilian casualties are an inevitable outcome of conflict, military targets were consistently the focus of attacks. They noted, rather surprisingly, that the IDF employs extensive warnings and offers humanitarian assistance, even at the cost of operational surprise, to protect civilian life.
The report highlights the general mistrust of the casualty figures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, asserting that these statistics can create a misleading picture. The study proposes an alternative statistical approach, suggesting that it underestimates combatant deaths and misrepresents the civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio.
In conclusion, Obach stated that genocide requires intentional actions aimed at systematically destroying a group of people. He emphasized the absence of such intentions in the ongoing conflict, indicating, “This is not characteristic of genocide as we traditionally define it.” The study ultimately critiques the politicization and selective representation of data surrounding the allegations against Israel.
