A new study by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies challenges the claims of genocide against Israel in Gaza, asserting that these allegations are based on flawed data, Hamas-linked sources, and a system vulnerable to manipulation. The report argues that the narrative of genocide is driven by faulty data, uncritical sourcing, and a humanitarian system that is susceptible to exploitation, with key elements like claims of starvation and civilian targeting being deemed unfounded.
One of the central elements of the genocide accusations is the claim that Israel deliberately starved Gaza’s population. The study scrutinizes these claims, noting that ‘claims of starvation prior to March 2, 2025, were based on erroneous data, circular citations, and a failure to critically review sources.’ It also highlights the discrepancy between U.N. officials and rights groups, who maintained that 500 trucks a day were needed to prevent famine, and historical U.N. figures showing Gaza averaged 292 daily deliveries in 2022, with only 73 of those carrying food.
Report co-author Danny Orbach, a military historian from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explained that the idea of famine being a deliberate act is ‘absurd,’ emphasizing that Israel regularly surpassed the necessary food supply during the war. During a ceasefire-for-hostage deal, the number of daily food deliveries increased significantly to over 600 trucks. Orbach also pointed out the critical role of Hamas in appropriating aid, stating that ‘in every conflict, armed groups take the bulk of humanitarian supplies’ and that there is documented evidence of Hamas seizing aid.
The study argues that the proliferation of genocide allegations is facilitated by an ‘inverted funnel of information,’ where journalists and aid workers in Gaza often rely on Hamas-linked sources. Orbach noted that the average Westerner is exposed to numerous reports about Israeli crimes and assumes their truth, despite many tracing back to a limited number of Hamas-affiliated sources. This creates a cycle where the narrative of genocide is reinforced by what he describes as a ‘humanitarian bias,’ where organizations exaggerate conditions to prompt action, and questioning these claims is seen as an immoral act.
The study also refutes claims that Israel intentionally targeted civilians, asserting that while civilian deaths occurred, there is no evidence of a systematic policy of massacre. Orbach cited BBC data showing that between May 2024 and January 2025, 550 people were killed in designated safe zones—just 2.1% to 3.5% of total casualties, even though half of Gaza’s population was concentrated there during the war. He argued that this indicates the zones were relatively safe, despite Hamas using them to launch rockets.
Orbach emphasized the importance of context, stating that Hamas deliberately positioned itself in civilian areas, used human shields, and blocked evacuations to increase civilian casualties and international condemnation of Israel. He noted that Hamas intentionally exposes its people to danger so that Israel will be blamed, thereby creating a narrative that supports the genocide accusation.
While critics have accused the Israeli air force of indiscriminate bombing, the study finds that strikes generally targeted military objectives, though civilian casualties were inevitable. Orbach highlighted that the IDF was the first army to issue focused warnings, deliver large-scale aid into enemy territory, and sacrifice surprise to protect civilians, despite the challenges of fighting an enemy embedded in 500 kilometers of tunnels, dressed as civilians.
The report also examines casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, noting that these were manipulated to create misleading impressions of the demographics of the dead. Alternative statistical models suggest that combatant fatalities may have been underreported, distorting the civilian-to-combatant ratio.
Ultimately, the study concludes that allegations of genocide against Israel rely on politicized narratives, selective data, and the exploitation of humanitarian discourse. Orbach stated that ‘analyzing devastation or civilian deaths without understanding Hamas’ tactics is absurd,’ emphasizing the need for a more nuanced approach to these complex and contentious issues.