What this is, and how it works
Trust on a subject this contested is earned, not asserted. So here, in plain terms, is what this site is, who stands behind it, how it handles evidence, and how to tell us we got something wrong.
What this site is
On the Record is openly an advocacy resource: it makes the case for Israel. It is not neutral journalism and does not pretend to be. What it tries to do is argue the honest way — state the opposing claim in its strongest form, set the evidence next to it with sources and dates, and say so plainly wherever a question is genuinely contested rather than settled.
That is a deliberate standard. A claim does not fall because you call it a lie or shout it down; it falls to a source, a date, a definition, or a fact the other version left out. Where the record is mixed, this site says it is mixed.
Who publishes it
On the Record is published independently. It is not affiliated with, funded by, or directed by any government, political party, campaign, lobby, or organization. It is the work of private individuals who think the evidence is poorly represented online and wanted a calm, sourced reference for it.
Maintainer & contact: [add your name or pen name, and a contact email or form here]. Naming who stands behind a resource is itself a trust signal — anonymity invites suspicion on a topic like this.
How claims are handled
Every claim the site takes on is presented first in the strongest, fairest version its advocates would recognise — not a strawman. The response is built from checkable evidence, and each card or section carries an honest caveat wherever the matter is a real and reasonable dispute. The goal is to be accurate, not merely loud.
Sources & the numbers
Wherever possible the site points to primary or authoritative sources — court dockets, treaty texts, UN resolutions, named historians — rather than asking you to take its word. Two kinds of figures deserve extra care, and the site flags both: casualty totals come from interested parties and are disputed, so they are cited as what a given source reports, not as settled fact; and the legal cases keep moving, so check the ICJ and ICC dockets directly before describing where they stand.
Read the other side, in its own words
Taking the opposing case seriously means linking it directly, not just describing it. These are among the most substantial sources that argue against the framing on this site. Read them.
- Apartheid · NGO reportHuman Rights Watch — “A Threshold Crossed”
- Apartheid · NGO reportAmnesty International — Israel's system of apartheid
- Apartheid · Israeli NGOB'Tselem — “A regime of Jewish supremacy”
- Law · World CourtICJ — South Africa v. Israel (Case 192)
- Law · World CourtICJ — 2024 Advisory Opinion on the Occupation (Case 186)
- Founding · UNUN General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan)
Corrections
If something here is wrong — a number, a date, a source, a framing — we want to fix it, and we will. Good-faith corrections are welcome and will be made on the record.
Report an error: [add a corrections email or form here].