FIRST ON FOX: A recent study challenges assertions of genocide in Gaza after the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, contending that claims of widespread starvation, unselective bombing, and intentional civilian deaths are not supported by verifiable evidence.
Conducted by researchers from the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, the study, titled “Debunking the Genocide Allegations: A Reexamination of the Israel-Hamas War” (2023-2025), asserts that the narrative of genocide has stemmed from flawed data, uncritical information gathering, and a humanitarian aid system susceptible to manipulation.
A central component of the genocide accusations involves the assertion that Israel intentionally starved Gaza’s residents. The research suggests that “claims of starvation before March 2, 2025, relied on inaccurate data, repetitive citations, and an inadequate critical review of sources.” Despite U.N. officials and human rights organizations stating that 500 trucks daily were necessary to avert famine, pre-conflict U.N. statistics indicate Gaza received an average of 292 trucks per day in 2022, with only 73 of those transporting food.
“That was entirely sufficient to satisfy the demand,” Danny Orbach, a military historian from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and co-author of the report, informed Digital.
The study indicates that Israel consistently exceeded the required food supply throughout the conflict, averaging over 100 trucks daily up to March 2025. During a ceasefire-for-hostage agreement, this daily figure rose to approximately 600.
“The notion that there is an intentional famine is preposterous,” Orbach stated. “In all conflicts, armed factions seize the majority of humanitarian aid. We possess documentation and witness accounts confirming Hamas’s actions in this regard.”
The report posits that accusations of genocide disseminated via what Orbach termed an “inverted funnel of information.” Journalists and aid personnel in Gaza frequently relied on translators and facilitators connected to Hamas, whose narratives subsequently appeared in U.N. reports, mainstream news outlets, and digital platforms.
“The typical Western individual encounters numerous reports concerning Israeli alleged crimes and presumes their veracity. However, these reports ultimately originate from a small number of Hamas-linked sources,” Orbach explained.
The second contributing factor is “humanitarian bias”—a propensity to overstate conditions to stimulate intervention. “Organizations issue famine warnings preemptively, using questionable facts to influence perception. To challenge this becomes an unethical act,” Orbach remarked.
The allegation of genocide also stems from claims that Israel purposely targeted civilians; however, while the study recognizes civilian fatalities, it finds no proof of a deliberate policy of mass killing.
Orbach referenced BBC statistics indicating that from May 2024 to January 2025, 550 individuals died in designated safe zones—representing only 2.1% to 3.5% of overall casualties, despite these areas housing half of Gaza’s population for a significant portion of that time.
“This suggests that these zones were comparatively secure, even though Hamas utilized them for launching rockets,” Orbach affirmed.
The report emphasizes the importance of context, asserting that Hamas intentionally embedded itself within civilian areas, employed human shields, and sought to inflate civilian casualties and garner international censure against Israel.
“Hamas deliberately exposes its own population to risk with the intent that Israel will be held responsible,” Orbach commented.
Although critics have leveled accusations of indiscriminate bombing against the Israeli Air Force, the study concludes that strikes predominantly aimed at military targets, even though civilian fatalities were unavoidable.
“The IDF represents the first army in history to issue warnings, provide substantial aid into adversary territory, and forgo tactical surprise to safeguard civilians,” he stated. “It is impossible to combat an enemy entrenched within 500 kilometers of tunnels and disguised as civilians without causing extensive damage.”
The study specifically scrutinizes casualty statistics released by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, alleging manipulation to foster deceptive perceptions regarding the deceased’s demographics. It offers alternative statistical models implying that combatant deaths might have been underreported, thereby skewing the civilian-to-combatant ratio.
The report asserts that genocide necessitates a systematic intent to annihilate a people—a characteristic it determines is not present in Gaza. “The indicators of genocidal warfare are not apparent here,” Orbach observed. “There are no campaigns of rape, direct massacres, or point-blank executions. In other conflicts, dozens of such atrocities transpired within mere hours of combat.”
Orbach and his co-authors conclude that accusations of genocide leveled against Israel are predicated on politicized narratives, carefully chosen data, and the manipulation of humanitarian rhetoric.
“To analyze destruction or civilian fatalities without comprehending Hamas’s strategies is illogical,” he declared.