The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University just released a study that contradicts the most significant lies about the war in Gaza. Unfortunately, in spite of the Center being a highly regarded institution, the report is being soundly ignored by most of the mainstream media. The Center addresses the misinformation about genocide, humanitarian aid, war casualties, famine and safe zones, not by spreading rumors, but by using quantitative analysis and forensic documentation. The results are stunning.
First, regarding genocide:
The study argues that ‘claims of starvation prior to March 2, 2025, were based on erroneous data, circular citations, and a failure to critically review sources.’ While U.N. officials and rights groups maintained that 500 trucks a day were needed to prevent famine, prewar U.N. figures show Gaza averaged 292 daily in 2022 — only 73 of them carrying food.
Unfortunately, the data distributed to journalists was compromised and untrue:
Journalists and aid workers in Gaza often depended on Hamas-linked translators and fixers, whose accounts filtered into U.N. reports, mainstream media and online platforms.
‘The average Westerner sees dozens of reports about Israeli crimes and assumes they must be true. But they all trace back to a handful of Hamas-affiliated sources,’ [Prof. Danny] Orbach said.
Regarding casualties of the war, Hamas reported that all casualties were civilian, and didn’t distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. The discrepancies were especially notable, given the following data:
As of March 2025, the GMoH [Gaza Health Ministry] had reported 50,021 combat-related casualties. The study noted that the number of reported widows, at 13,900, almost matched the official excess male mortality figure of 13,964 for ages 18-59, which it found to be ‘striking.’
The Ministry was instructed by Hamas to misreport this data; it also included people who died natural deaths.
In terms of the protection of designated safe zones, in spite of claims otherwise, the Gazans were “significantly safer” than in other parts of Gaza. (Contrary reports suggested that Gazans were targeted in the safe zones.)
A new theory explains how so much information could be so incorrect in this war: it’s called “humanitarian bias,” defined as, “a tendency among aid organizations to accept alarming claims from stakeholders in order to mobilize urgent action.’
Commensurate with the researchers, this is a bias that creates a feedback loop where ‘factual corrections are often met with hostility or ignored altogether, undermining accuracy in humanitarian reporting.’
They added that even when myths are definitively disproven, ‘corrections are rarely incorporated into public or academic understandings.’
So, let’s summarize: the worse they make a situation sound, the more likely an urgent response will be mobilized. And if they’ve received incorrect information and find out afterward, it’s disregarded.
Given the international pressures, it’s no surprise that journalists and observers will go out of their way to present Hamas in the best possible light, and to blame Israel when the opportunity arises. The world has tried to depict Gazans as being victimized and treated unfairly by the Israelis, and the media is complicit.
The United Nations and its agency, UNRWA, are also complicit in distorting information, aiding and abetting Hamas.
Why is the mainstream media ignoring this report? For one, the Center is located in Israel. It’s likely that in spite of its reputation as a credible organization, many people would question its veracity due to its location. (One has to ask why Hamas’s data is accepted so readily.) Another reason might be related not only to an anti-Israel bias, but an antisemitic bias, too. These are possible reasons, in spite of the mission of this report:
The researchers set out with two goals: to verify or disprove factual claims related to Israel’s conduct during the war, and to examine how information is gathered and disseminated in conflict zones—particularly in environments controlled by hostile or authoritarian regimes.
In spite of their noble cause, there will be many people who will find reasons to disregard them.
The Center recommends a new way forward:
In light of their findings, the team proposes a new methodology for conflict analysis—rooted in transparency, cross-verification, and rigorous skepticism of politically motivated data. They underscore that allegations of war crimes must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. However, facts—not slogans—must guide justice.
Since the mainstream media would have a difficult time trying to refute the results of the Center’s report, you can assume that the Center’s report will be tossed in the media trash bins.
Image from Grok.