archivegenocide.com

July 19, 2026

ArchiveGenocide.com is a large public archive that preserves graphic footage, source records, maps, and victim names from Gaza and the West Bank, but users should treat it as a research starting point rather than proof by itself.

What is ArchiveGenocide.com?

The website collects videos, photographs, social posts, and other records that its team describes as evidence of Israeli war crimes and genocide in Gaza and the West Bank (Archive Genocide).

Its stated goal is to save material that may vanish when accounts are removed, posts are deleted, or online services change their rules.

The unnamed team says it sends evidence to the International Criminal Court, the Hind Rajab Foundation, and South Africa’s legal team at the International Court of Justice, but those submission claims are not independently confirmed on the site (About page).

The word “genocide” reflects the project’s stated position, while the legal case brought by South Africa against Israel belongs to a formal court process with its own evidence and rulings (International Court of Justice).

What can visitors find on the website?

The public browser currently lists more than 25,000 clips with captions, dates, and sources across hundreds of pages (Browse archive).

Visitors can filter the main gallery by date, source, media type, caption status, archive, and whether an item has been marked as verified.

Individual entries may include a description, classification, original link, source channel, date, downloadable file, and a button for reporting a problem.

A separate memorial displays more than 60,000 identified names from Gaza Ministry of Health releases, while the older victims page credits Tech for Palestine for compiling the data (Memorial, victim-data description).

The site also offers geolocation work, although this section mainly points to research from an account called Abu Location and gives little detail about its methods (Geolocation page).

How large is the full collection?

The material visible in the browser is only part of the project’s claimed collection.

The download page offers two curated media volumes containing 82,386 and 64,250 files, plus about 2.4 terabytes of raw source collections spread across five larger volumes (Download archive).

The project also publishes its website code and metadata for 146,864 entries, so other people can build independent copies.

These totals should not be mixed together because they describe different sets, and some files may be raw, unreviewed, duplicated across source backups, or not yet available in the public gallery.

The difference between the large download totals and the smaller browsable set shows that the project is still processing its material rather than presenting one finished database.

Where does the material come from?

The archive names Telegram channels, social-media accounts, news pages, field journalists, photographers, and its own collections as sources.

Large contributors include Evidence Task, Quds News Network, Eye on Palestine, Anas Al-Sharif, Times of Gaza, Gaza Notification, and many Instagram accounts (source directory).

The team calls these sources “verified” and says its community has vetted them, but it does not publish a full source-rating system or show who completed each review.

That makes the source list useful for tracing origins, while leaving important questions about independence, conflicts of interest, corrections, and review quality unanswered.

Does the archive prove that every item is authentic?

No single archive can prove an event merely by storing a video and naming its source.

A strong investigation must check the earliest available upload, recording date, location, weather, visible landmarks, edits, translation, related footage, witness accounts, and whether the same media appeared during an older event.

The United Nations’ Berkeley Protocol says digital investigations need clear methods for collecting, preserving, checking, analyzing, and presenting online information (UN Human Rights Office).

ArchiveGenocide.com exposes useful source and date fields, but the public pages do not provide a full chain of custody or detailed verification report for every displayed item.

What do its digital signatures prove?

The site signs its torrents and checksum lists with one public cryptographic key, which lets a user detect whether downloaded files have changed since the archive released them (verification instructions).

This is a meaningful preservation feature because altered files will fail the checksum test.

However, a valid signature only proves that a file matches the project’s official copy, not that the scene, caption, location, date, or legal label is correct.

This difference between file integrity and factual truth is the most important point for researchers using the archive.

What are the project’s strongest features?

Its strongest design choice is decentralization because torrents, mirrors, open code, and downloadable metadata make the collection harder to erase.

The clear content warning, original-source fields, individual downloads, victim index, and visible correction flag also make the archive more useful than an unorganized social-media feed.

Independent coverage reports that the platform was built for journalists, researchers, and rights groups, although its figures come largely from the organizers rather than an outside audit (European Palestinian Council).

How should people use it responsibly?

Visitors should expect uncensored images of death, severe injury, and harm to children, so casual browsing and workplace viewing may be unsafe.

Researchers should save the item page, original link, metadata, checksum, access date, and notes about every independent check they perform.

They should also protect victim dignity, avoid sharing graphic media without a clear reason, and confirm major claims through separate witnesses, satellite images, medical records, official documents, or trusted investigations.

Used this way, ArchiveGenocide.com can preserve valuable leads and endangered records, but careful human verification remains essential before publication, legal use, or confident factual conclusions.