DEBUNKING THE GENOCIDE CRAP

New study debunks Gaza genocide claims with facts and figures

Military historian Prof. Danny Orbach speaks with Israel Today about facts, propaganda, and the battle for public opinion.

 

Israel Today

Jul 7, 2025 

Gaza residents enjoy the seashore on a hot day in Gaza City, July 4, 2025.

 

 

Prof. Danny Orbach, lead author of the study and a military historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, spoke openly with Israel Today Editor-in-Chief Aviel Schneider about his findings and the seemingly futile struggle against a global propaganda machine. In an in-depth conversation, it became clear what many have long suspected: international reporting on Israel is deeply shaped by entrenched biases. Facts, figures, and analyses often fail to penetrate a morally-charged narrative. 

 

Yet Orbach is convinced that the fight for Israel’s truth must be waged not only on the battlefield but also – perhaps primarily – in the media. Losing public perception ultimately means losing the political legitimacy of one’s actions.

The study’s starting point includes a widely noted document by Israeli historian Dr. Lee Mordechai that includes a comprehensive collection of reports, videos, and allegations of supposed war crimes by the IDF in the Gaza Strip. The researchers combined quantitative analyses with forensic material, primary sources, and historical comparisons.

Their conclusion: There is no evidence whatsoever of a deliberate starvation strategy or systematic attacks on civilians by Israel. On the contrary, the Israeli military took unprecedented protective measures, such as issuing early evacuation orders for entire neighborhoods.

More aid than before the war

“Not only was humanitarian aid to Gaza not halted, it was actually increased,” emphasizes Prof. Orbach. Contrary to the often-cited figure of “500 trucks daily,” an average of only 73 food trucks per day entered the Gaza Strip before the war. During the war, particularly in 2024, the average rose to 109 per day – an increase Orbach sees as a “factual refutation of the starvation narrative.” Local food production was also factored in. There can be no talk of deliberate starvation of the civilian population.

In other words: During the war, Palestinians were supplied with more food per day than before the war. This is a fact – meaning people in the Gaza Strip suffered more hunger under their own Hamas regime than during the war.

Orbach acknowledges: “Israel took measures to minimize civilian casualties – and these cost us significant military disadvantages.” Safe zones were designated, large-scale evacuations were carried out, and surprise effects in military operations were sacrificed – at the risk of allowing Hamas to move fighters and weapons from place to place. A BBC Verify review found that only 1.2 percent of documented deaths by January 2025 occurred in areas designated as safe – evidence of Israel’s caution.

The study highlights Israel’s evacuation strategy: “As far as we know, no other army worldwide has informed civilians in advance about attack routes and timeframes – a measure that sacrifices the military element of surprise but serves to protect non-combatants.”

A key focus of the study is the examination of circulating death toll figures. While international reports cite up to 100,000 victims, Orbach points to the official figures from the Gaza Health Ministry: approximately 55,000 deaths. However, these numbers are not independently verifiable and contain “obvious manipulations” – particularly in the categorization of women and children.

The study identifies two systemic issues in humanitarian reporting that distort the picture. First, a “humanitarian bias” – the tendency of NGOs not only to report but to shape political narratives, often leading to exaggerated, alarmist portrayals. Second, the inability of such organizations to operate independently in authoritarian regimes. Prof. Orbach recalls post-Gulf War Iraq, where death tolls were deliberately manipulated – a scenario he does not rule out for Gaza.

Orbach is particularly critical of a study by renowned statistician Michael Spagat, which, through interviews with 2,000 families in southern Gaza, estimated around 75,000 direct war deaths and 8,000 indirect deaths. Orbach highlights significant methodological flaws. The interviewed Palestinian families were not always representative of the broader population, often being families of fallen “martyrs” (terrorists, referred to as shahidim). Additionally, no names or ID data were collected, and there was no verification of reported deaths.

These figures were further amplified by Israeli journalists like Nir Hasson of Haaretz, who extrapolated globally, stating: “If there were 75,000 Palestinian deaths and 8,000 indirect deaths by January 2025, it will soon reach 100,000.” As a result, the 100,000 Palestinian death toll went viral – but is factually incorrect.

Even if Spagat’s data were taken seriously, Orbach notes they show no signs of famine. “In a real famine, young children die first – that wasn’t the case here,” he explains. Thus, dire predictions by UN organizations like the IPC, which forecasted a “catastrophic famine” for 2024, did not materialize. “These predictions simply did not come true.”

Do you think Michael Spagat will engage with your study? – “Maybe. We sent him a series of questions. He knows us, as he even allowed us to use one of his Iraq graphs. But he hasn’t responded yet,” says Prof. Orbach.

A recurring issue is the low visibility of corrections. For example, UNRWA corrected its claim that aid deliveries had dropped by 70% – but the media barely reported this, while the original misinformation continued to circulate globally, even reaching the International Criminal Court.

The study’s authors do not shy away from Israel’s mistakes. They admit that between March and May 2025, aid stoppages were deliberately used as leverage – a “serious mistake,” as Orbach emphasizes, but not part of a long-term strategy.

The incident at the GHF distribution centers, where numerous civilians died, is also addressed in the English version: Orbach speaks of “criminal negligence by individual IDF commanders.” He criticizes the insufficient use of non-lethal means in such a complex war zone but acknowledges Israel’s security dilemma: “You can’t expect aid deliveries to get through while remaining unprotected.”

What was Israel’s biggest mistake? – Orbach responds with surprising self-criticism: “Israel failed to communicate its humanitarian efforts in an internationally understandable way – for example, that more food was delivered to Gaza during the war than before.” He adds: “The term ‘military administration’ triggers panic in Israel – but without Arabic-speaking liaison officers, misunderstandings arise. Soldiers interpret every encounter as a confrontation.”

But how can this be conveyed to the public? The Palestinian media strategy relies not on facts but on emotions – and it works. Orbach knows this but has no answer. Crying children, empty plates, desperate mothers – these strike straight at the heart. Yet, this manipulates the reality in Gaza into a narrative of famine and even genocide. His own research, by contrast, is sober, fact-based, and scientific. “We’re not PR people. Our goal is to enable an informed discussion – nothing more.” He describes the struggle with public perception as a game of “Whac-a-Mole,” a repetitive and often fruitless task: “No sooner do you debunk one accusation than the next one pops up. It’s an endless battle against a vast propaganda network.”

The study addresses one of the most explosive accusations of our time: the international claim that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. The authors – Prof. Danny Orbach, Dr. Yagil Henkin, Dr. Yonatan Buxman, and lawyer Yonatan Braverman – combine expertise in military history, war law, and quantitative conflict research. Their investigation is considered the most comprehensive and methodologically rigorous attempt to date to subject the genocide allegations against Israel to scientific scrutiny. Israel has often explained itself poorly – while its adversaries excel at manipulating images and terms. What remains is a sober, forensic perspective on a deeply emotionally charged issue. The latest study lays facts and figures before the international community – whether they will be heard remains to be seen.