Israel’s Military Credibility Gap: A Pattern of Disputed Claims and Contradictions

A systematic examination of Israel’s military communications over recent years reveals a concerning pattern of statements that were later contradicted by evidence from human rights organizations, media investigations, and forensic analyses.

The Israeli military’s use of white phosphorus has become a recurring point of contention. In October 2023, when Israel deployed white phosphorus shells in Lebanon and Gaza, military spokespeople categorically denied the accusation as “unequivocally false.” However, Human Rights Watch subsequently verified multiple videos showing “artillery-fired white phosphorus” launched by Israeli forces over Gaza City port and along the Israel-Lebanon border, describing it as a violation of international humanitarian law. Amnesty International independently documented white phosphorus shells at an Israeli army base near Gaza.

This echoed a similar sequence from 2009, when Israel initially denied using white phosphorus during Operation Cast Lead, before Human Rights Watch documented its widespread use, including in densely populated areas, a UN compound, and a UN school. Their investigation determined Israel had fired over 200 white phosphorus shells during that offensive.

In the aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack, several inflammatory claims emerged that proved difficult to substantiate. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, claimed Hamas fighters had beheaded up to 40 children in Kfar Aza. This allegation spread rapidly through global media and was repeated by President Biden, who later retracted his claim of having seen photographic evidence. Israeli journalists who visited the scene reported seeing no evidence of beheadings, and military officials accompanying them made no mention of such atrocities. The Israeli army subsequently declined to confirm these allegations.

Similarly, claims of systematic sexual violence during the October 7 attack were widely circulated before evidence was presented. While some incidents of sexual violence have been documented in subsequent investigations, many initial reports in major media outlets have been questioned, and Israel has not provided evidence supporting the claim that such violence was systematic or orchestrated as policy. Meanwhile, human rights organizations have documented widespread sexual violence against Palestinian detainees in Israeli custody, including against medical workers and children.

The killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in May 2022 highlights another case where initial Israeli claims were contradicted by subsequent evidence. After the Palestinian-American Al Jazeera reporter was shot while covering an Israeli military operation in the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli officials initially blamed Palestinian gunfire. However, independent investigations by The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Associated Press, CNN, Amnesty International, and UN investigators all concluded an Israeli soldier was responsible. The Israeli military later acknowledged this possibility.

In May 2021, Israel bombed a Gaza high-rise housing international media offices, including The Associated Press and Al Jazeera, claiming the building contained Hamas intelligence assets. Human Rights Watch concluded Israel “provided no evidence to support those allegations” and that the attack “apparently violated the laws of war and may amount to war crimes.”

Other documented cases include the June 2020 killing of Ahmad Erekat at a West Bank checkpoint, which Israel described as an attack attempt but which researchers from Forensic Architecture and Al Haq concluded was a traffic accident followed by an extrajudicial execution. In 2018, after an international outcry over the killing of medic Razan al-Najjar during Gaza protests, Israeli officials circulated a video that was later revealed to have been edited to misrepresent her statements.

These incidents highlight a troubling pattern where initial military claims have repeatedly been contradicted by subsequent investigations, raising questions about accountability and transparency in conflict reporting.