Debunking Genocide Allegations: Israel-Hamas War - Fact Analysis Report

Key Chapter Title List

1. Allegations Regarding the Intentional Starvation of Gaza's Civilian Population
2. Understanding the Context of Israeli Military Operations: Urban Warfare Challenges and Hamas Tactics
3. Allegations Regarding the Intentional Killing of Civilians
4. Allegations Regarding Systematic Violations of the Principles of Distinction and Proportionality
5. Critical Examination of Gaza Health Ministry Data and Its Manipulation
6. The Capacity of UN Agencies and Humanitarian Organizations to Assess Crises in Closed Societies
7. Assessment Capabilities Regarding Combatant and Civilian Casualties in Closed/Controlled Societal Contexts
8. Analytical Methodological Deficiencies of UN Agencies, Human Rights Organizations, and Their Partners

Document Introduction

This study aims to conduct a thorough historical examination and quantitative statistical analysis of the allegations that the State of Israel committed genocide against the population of Gaza following the October 7, 2023 massacre. The report focuses on three core allegations: that Israel intentionally starved the population of Gaza; that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) ground troops intentionally massacred civilians; and that the Israeli Air Force conducted indiscriminate bombing, failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and carried out disproportionate strikes. The fundamental objective of this research is to arrive at independent conclusions regarding the factual dimensions of the conflict through careful evaluation of primary and secondary sources, thereby establishing a solid empirical foundation for any discussion concerning the laws and ethics of war.

The report is divided into eight chapters, each corresponding to a key area of controversy. The research team examined a variety of materials, including testimonies and original documents, and critically analyzed the data collection methodologies employed by organizations and researchers supporting the genocide allegations. The report conducted independent statistical analyses, striving to distinguish between narratives promoted by various parties and verifiable facts. The analytical approach prioritizes facts and explicitly excludes policy positions or recommendations not rooted in comprehensive factual analysis to ensure the objectivity of the study. The report acknowledges the severe humanitarian suffering in Gaza but maintains that any meaningful ethical or legal debate must be based on reliable factual evidence.

The core findings of this report challenge several key assumptions prevalent in the current mainstream narrative. Regarding the starvation allegations, the study indicates that the assertions are based on three empirical fallacies concerning the number of trucks entering Gaza before the war, the proportion of local food production, and the total food supply during the conflict. Data shows that, prior to the January 2025 ceasefire, the food supply provided by Israel was, on average, sufficient to meet the caloric needs of the entire population. The report also criticizes the Israeli government's decision to suspend aid in March 2025 but notes that subsequently established alternative distribution mechanisms (such as the Gaza Humanitarian Fund) were necessary attempts to prevent Hamas from looting aid.

Regarding military operations, the report emphasizes that any assessment must fully consider the tactics of Hamas as a belligerent, including the use of human shield strategies such as utilizing civilian infrastructure, operating in civilian clothing, and constructing extensive underground tunnel networks. The study finds no evidence of a systematic Israeli policy targeting or massacring civilians; nor is there evidence to support claims that the Israeli Air Force conducted carpet bombing aimed at causing mass civilian casualties or intentionally bombed civilians. On the contrary, the IDF implemented numerous unprecedented precautionary measures to reduce collateral damage. The so-called casualty ratios it reportedly set were actually calculated as maximum acceptable damage ceilings based on anticipated military gain, and any strike required multi-layered approval.

The report provides an in-depth analysis of data from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, revealing its systematic manipulation of classifying deceased combatants as innocent civilians. Statistical analysis indicates that, even based on the Gaza Health Ministry's own data, the widely circulated claim from the early stages of the war that 70% of casualties were women and children is inaccurate. The study also draws an analogy between the current conflict and humanitarian reporting failures during the 1990s sanctions against Iraq, pointing out inherent methodological flaws—specifically, a humanitarian bias—when UN agencies and human rights organizations rely on data provided by regimes in closed societies. This bias involves a tendency to credulously accept alarming reports without sufficient fact-checking, with subsequent corrections often made quietly.

Finally, the report summarizes recurring methodological issues in conflict zone investigations, such as the inverse information funnel, echo chamber syndrome, misplaced burden of proof, and the phenomena of catastrophic proclamations followed by low-profile corrections. The report does not categorically reject all claims by human rights organizations, nor does it unconditionally accept military reports. Instead, it advocates for a more cautious research methodology: all sources—whether Israeli, Palestinian, or international—must undergo rigorous cross-verification and credibility assessment. The report expresses deep concern about the misuse of the term "genocide" in the current context, arguing that such misuse dilutes the term's legal and moral weight and may, in the long run, undermine the protective objectives of international humanitarian law.