Bar-Ilan study challenges genocide accusations in Gaza, cites flawed data and sourcing

A study published by researchers at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University has challenged widespread allegations that Israel committed genocide in Gaza following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack and the subsequent military campaign. The report, titled "Debunking the Genocide Allegations: A Reexamination of the Israel-Hamas War" (2023–2025), concludes that charges of deliberate starvation, indiscriminate bombing and intentional mass killing of civilians lack verifiable evidence and rest on flawed data and uncritical sourcing.

The authors argue that much of the genocide narrative has been driven by what they describe as faulty data, circular citations and a humanitarian system vulnerable to manipulation. The study specifically states 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 disputes prominent public assertions about the daily volume of aid needed and delivered into Gaza.

The report contrasts two widely cited figures. Some U.N. officials and human rights organizations have asserted that 500 aid trucks per day were necessary to prevent famine in Gaza. The Bar-Ilan researchers point to prewar U.N. data showing that Gaza averaged 292 trucks per day in 2022, and that only 73 of those trucks were carrying food. The authors say that such discrepancies underline the need for closer scrutiny of data sources and methodologies used in wartime humanitarian assessments.

Methodologically, the study examines how information propagated through media, advocacy organizations and international institutions, asserting that some high-profile claims were amplified without adequate verification. It identifies instances of repeated citation chains in which later reports relied on earlier, unverified figures rather than on primary data. The researchers contend that such practices can create a self-reinforcing narrative that is difficult to dislodge even when core premises are flawed.

The publication comes amid a protracted international debate over civilian harm in Gaza, which has involved competing legal and moral claims. Human rights groups, some U.N. officials and legal scholars have accused Israel of policies and actions that they say amount to disproportionate or indiscriminate force and, in some statements, genocide. Israeli officials and proponents of the study say military operations have targeted combatants and infrastructure tied to Hamas and stress the challenges of operating in densely populated urban areas where militants are embedded among civilians.

The Begin-Sadat Center report does not deny that civilians in Gaza have suffered extensively; rather, it challenges the legal characterization of those harms as genocide based on the available evidence and the ways in which some figures have been reported and repeated. The researchers call for greater rigor in humanitarian reporting and for independent verification of claims that carry grave legal implications.

Responses to the study were mixed. Supporters said the analysis highlights the importance of careful assessment before levying criminal accusations at the state level. Critics, including several humanitarian organizations and some U.N. officials, have maintained that documented patterns of civilian deaths, displacement and shortages of food, water and medical supplies warrant urgent investigation and international scrutiny. Those critics argue that even if some statistics are disputed, the scale of civilian suffering and infrastructure destruction indicates severe violations of international humanitarian law.

Legal experts caution that determinations of genocide hinge on proving specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group — a high legal threshold that depends on evidence of state policy and intent as much as on outcomes. The Bar-Ilan study frames its findings around evidentiary standards and source criticism, urging that allegations with such grave legal consequences be built on thoroughly vetted, primary-source documentation.

The debate over Gaza remains active in international forums, where calls for independent inquiries, humanitarian access and accountability measures continue. The Begin-Sadat Center report adds a contested interpretation to that debate, pressing for renewed attention to how wartime data are collected, cited and communicated in shaping both public perceptions and legal assessments.