Editorial method

Show the reader the trail.

FightBack argues from an Israeli perspective. Our job is to make that perspective inspectable: define the claim, link the record, acknowledge serious counterevidence, and say what remains uncertain.

Specific claims first

“Apartheid,” “genocide,” and “colonialism” are broad labels. We separate a label from checkable statements about a place, a time, a legal test, or a particular finding.

Sources are not interchangeable

A treaty defines obligations. A court order can be interim or final. A UN commission investigates under its mandate. An NGO publishes its own assessment. A government statement records that government's position.

Strong contrary evidence stays visible

Pages include serious findings against Israel, documented Palestinian harm, Israeli explanations, judicial dissents, and institutional criticism. A security explanation is relevant evidence; it does not settle whether a measure is lawful or proportionate.

Every page has a date

Changing casualty, access, governance, and court-status claims need a clear “as of” date. We recheck them before publication and after material developments.

How we examine claims of institutional bias

Concerns about anti-Israel bias deserve specific evidence. The Human Rights Council has a standing agenda item on Palestine and a continuing Commission of Inquiry; Israel objects to the Commission's mandate and composition. Vice-President Sebutinde's ICJ dissent criticized the framing and record of the 2024 advisory request. Those facts support scrutiny of selection, framing, and method.

They do not prove that every UN conclusion is false or that ICJ judges act as delegates of the Council. The ICJ is a court with independent judges. The Commission is a separate investigative body. Its report on 7 October also found war crimes by Hamas and other armed groups. We show the majority decision, relevant dissent, government objection, and source record together.

For example: the genocide proceedings

The ICJ's provisional orders are not a final finding of genocide. The UN Commission and Amnesty made their own genocide conclusions. Israel disputes genocidal intent. A reader should be able to inspect each of those records separately.

Read the genocide explainer →

Institutional source notes

  1. B1

    International Court of Justice · Institutional description

    The International Court of Justice ↗

    Explains the Court's judicial role and structure. The ICJ is distinct from the Human Rights Council and its Commission of Inquiry.

  2. B2

    UN Human Rights Council · Resolution and mandate

    Human Rights Council resolution S-30/1 and Commission mandate ↗

    Records the creation and mandate of the continuing Commission of Inquiry. The Council is an intergovernmental body; the Commission is investigative.

  3. B3

    UN Human Rights Council · Institutional report

    Human Rights Council agenda item 7 report (2024) ↗

    Documents the standing agenda item on Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. This structural fact alone does not prove that an individual finding is false.

  4. B4

    Government of Israel, Geneva mission · Party position

    Israel's objection to the Commission of Inquiry mandate (2025) ↗

    Israel argues that the continuing mandate singles it out and is too broad. This is Israel's objection, not an independent finding of bias.

  5. B5

    Government of Israel · Party position

    Israel's statement on the ICJ annual report (2025) ↗

    Criticizes political use of ICJ proceedings and interim measures. It presents Israel's argument, not an independent conclusion about the Court.

  6. B6

    International Court of Justice · Court opinion and response to objections

    ICJ advisory opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2024) ↗

    Records objections about the request's framing and the Court's reasoning for proceeding. Read alongside the separate dissent and Israel's position.

  7. B7

    International Court of Justice, dissenting opinion · Judicial dissent

    Vice-President Sebutinde's dissent (2024) ↗

    Argues that the request and record were one-sided and insufficiently addressed competing claims. A dissent, not the Court's majority holding.

  8. B9

    UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry · Investigative report

    A/HRC/56/CRP.3: 7 October attacks investigation ↗

    The Commission also investigated Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups and found war crimes on 7 October. That does not validate every separate finding about Israel.

  9. B11

    Government of Israel · Party position and critique

    Israeli government review of UN reporting (2026) ↗

    Presents specific Israeli allegations about UN reporting. Each example should be checked against the original report and underlying evidence.