A Masterpiece of Bureaucratic Fiction The UN’s Accusation Against Israel

By the UN’s logic, fighting back against an enemy sworn to your total annihilation is the real crime. The aggressor gets a sympathy card; the survivor gets a war crimes indictment.

Accusing a country of genocide used to require solid evidence and proof of intent. These days, apparently, a UN letterhead and a few hundred pages of legal jargon can get you there. Today, apparently, it requires nothing more than a United Nations letterhead, an army of self-righteous bureaucrats, an inexhaustible supply of legalistic window-dressing, and the comfortable certainty that the global press will enthusiastically mistake institutional prejudice for judicial gospel.

On September 16, 2025, the United Nations gifted the world a masterwork of bureaucratic fiction: a press release and report declaring that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Not war crimes, not excessive force, not the brutal arithmetic of urban combat—genocide. While Israelis were still mourning the victims of October 7, the UN was busy putting Israel in the dock. Apparently, even a massacre of Jews comes with a deadline for turning the victims into the accused.

An accusation this serious should require solid evidence and careful judgment. Instead, it looks like someone let the activists write the report and handed the lawyers the stapler. The deeper scandal is not merely that these commissioners reached a preposterous conclusion. It is that an international apparatus can become so thoroughly marinated in its own self-righteous delusions that it completely loses the capacity to recognize its own corruption.

Three Wise Commissioners and One Very Convenient Verdict

Let us inspect the three “independent, impartial experts” handpicked by the UN Human Rights Council to deliver justice: Navi Pillay, Miloon Kothari, and Chris Sidoti.

At the UN, independence appears to mean that you can have your mind made up before the investigation begins, provided you call yourself impartial. Take Navi Pillay, the commission’s chair. A veteran anti-Israel crusader and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Pillay had spent years publicly cheerleading the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and loudly accusing Israel of “apartheid.” Appointing Pillay to investigate Israel was roughly as objective as appointing Vlad the Impaler to chair a committee on animal husbandry.

Then we have Miloon Kothari, who offered the world a masterclass in unintentional honesty during a 2022 interview when he casually complained that social media was controlled by “the Jewish lobby.” Even the UN’s own spin-doctors choked on that one, triggering an avalanche of international condemnation that forced a groveling apology. Yet, remarkably, neither Kothari’s blatant bigotry nor his open contempt for the Jewish state disqualified him from sitting in judgment of it. Add in Chris Sidoti—a left-wing Australian lawyer tied to activist networks that routinely brand Israel a “settler-colonial apartheid regime”—and you had a panel that was balanced precisely like a seesaw with an elephant on one end and a feather on the other.

When these three luminaries finally resigned in July 2025—scrambling like pickpockets to outrun the long arm of U.S. sanctions—the UN officialdom wept tears of pure bureaucratic grief. Their departure was not reform; it was damage control by professional grifters fleeing the scene of their crime.

Guilty by Interpretation, Convicted by Footnote

The commission’s 72-page report is a monument to sophistry. Its authors understood the legal hurdle of the 1948 Genocide Convention: that genocide requires dolus specialis—the specific, deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such.

Since no such orders ever existed—and since the Israeli government spent the war actively facilitating humanitarian aid and begging civilians to evacuate combat zones—the commissioners had to invent their evidence out of thin air. Enter the dark arts of malicious mind-reading and selective decontextualization.

When former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant referred to the rampaging perpetrators of October 7 as “human animals” in the immediate aftermath of the slaughter, the commission experienced a collective fainting spell. They deliberately pretended he was talking about every man, woman, and child in Gaza, rather than the jihadist monsters who had just spent their Saturday morning butchering babies, raping women, and dragging hostages through the streets. When Prime Minister Netanyahu invoked the biblical memory of Amalek—a traditional Jewish metaphor for an implacable, genocidal enemy—the commission’s legal scholars performed a breathtaking linguistic gymnastics routine, transforming a call for military survival into an order for total extermination.

If this standard were applied globally, every Allied leader in World War II would be rotting in The Hague. Did Winston Churchill intend to destroy the German people when he ordered the firebombing of Dresden? Did Franklin Roosevelt harbor a genocidal animus toward the citizens of Tokyo? By the UN’s logic, fighting back against an enemy sworn to your total annihilation is the real crime. The aggressor gets a sympathy card; the survivor gets a war crimes indictment.

A Little History Is Apparently Too Much to Ask

On October 7, Hamas—an explicitly genocidal death cult whose founding charter demands the worldwide slaughter of Jews—launched an industrial-scale pogrom into sovereign Israeli territory; it did not only target military bases; it targeted families eating breakfast, teenagers dancing at a music festival, and infants in their cribs.

Israel’s response was not an unprovoked rampage; it was an existential military campaign to dismantle an entrenched terror machine and rescue hostages held in subterranean dungeons. And how did Hamas fight? By turning every hospital, school, mosque, and apartment building into a military fortress, packing civilians into the line of fire precisely so their deaths could populate evening news broadcasts.

The IDF fought inside one of the densest, most hostile urban environments in human history against an enemy that views civilian casualties as a strategic asset. To mitigate this nightmare, the Israeli military instituted unprecedented humanitarian measures—dropping millions of flyers, making countless phone calls, sending text messages, and opening humanitarian corridors while Hamas gunmen shot at their own fleeing people to keep them trapped as human shields.

Yet the UN report wipes this away with the flick of a pen. To the commissioners, Hamas’s human shield strategy is invisible, but every fallen wall in Gaza is direct proof of Israeli malice. It is a world turned completely upside down.

A Little Hamas Hospitality for the World’s Moral Experts

Perhaps it’s time to offer the UN a little taste of its own medicine. Since the organization is so deeply concerned with the welfare of populations trapped by aggressive Islamist zealots, perhaps it could relocate its grand glass palace in New York directly to the Gaza border, or better yet, into downtown Tehran. If the UN thinks Israel’s response to Hamas is genocide, it should move the headquarters to Gaza’s border and let the officials demonstrate their own approach to self-defence.

Let the General Assembly vote on whether Hamas’s charter is merely a passionate plea for social justice. Let Navi Pillay draft a strongly worded resolution while a rocket whistles through her bedroom window. One suspects that the glittering cocktail parties of Geneva and Manhattan foster a very specific brand of moral idiocy—one that can only be cured by actual exposure to the violent realities the UN routinely sanitizes, rationalizes, and rewards.

The Eternal Return of the Blood Libel

You couldn’t make this stuff up: a convention created in the shadow of the Holocaust is now being invoked to brand the Jewish state genocidal. The 1948 Genocide Convention was forged in the smoking ruins of European Jewry, designed precisely to prevent another Holocaust. Now, the descendants of the murderers—and their institutional enablers—have weaponized the very legal instrument created for Jewish survival to brand the Jewish state as the world’s chief exterminator.

Anti-Semitism never actually retires; it merely changes its wardrobe to match the cultural fashion of the decade. In the Middle Ages, it wore the clerical robes of blood libels, accusing Jews of poisoning wells and baking matzo with Christian blood. In the 20th century, it wore the jackboots of racial pseudoscience. Today, it wears the pressed suit of the international human rights lawyer, brandishing sanitized UN reports and hiding behind the neutral-sounding vocabulary of “international humanitarian law.”

The accusation of genocide against Israel is not a legal finding; it is a modern blood libel, refined in the committee rooms of Turtle Bay and distributed to an eager global audience that has been itching for an excuse to hate the Jews without sounding gauche.

Let the UN issue its reports and congratulate itself on its moral superiority. Israel’s first duty is not to win the world’s approval; it is to survive, defend its people, and remain standing when the latest wave of international outrage has passed. 

If Israel’s allies in the West knew what was good for them, they would withdraw completely from the UN and stop wasting Western tax payers hard earned money on the likes of bureaucratic grifters such as Pillay, Kothari and Sidoti.