Genocide? – When the UN Abandons Fairness
The United Nations has now released a report accusing Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. It is a grave and incendiary charge, the most serious under international law. Yet the report, produced by the UN Commission of Inquiry, is not a sober legal assessment but a profoundly flawed and one-sided document. It selectively presents evidence, relies on questionable data, and misapplies the definition of genocide in ways that threaten to delegitimize real human rights work.
To be clear, any civilian loss of life is tragic and must be investigated. But there is a difference between investigating alleged violations of the laws of armed conflict and declaring that a nation is deliberately attempting to destroy an entire people. That distinction matters profoundly. Genocide is not simply a description for high civilian casualties or destructive military campaigns. It is a legal term of the art of killing, requiring proof not just that civilians died, but that their killing was the intentional goal of the campaign – the “dolus specialis,” or special intent, to destroy a group in whole or parts of it. The UN report fails to demonstrate this, and in doing so it discredits the very cause of international accountability it claims to uphold. Unless, of course, one considers Hamas itself to be a “protected group,” but in such a case, we have other discussions to hold…
The UN commission states that its findings are based on Israeli attacks in Gaza and on statements by Israeli authorities between October 7, 2023 and July 31, 2025. But this framing is suspect from the outset. October 7 was the day Hamas launched a brutal assault on Israel, murdering over 1,200 people, abducting more than 250, and declaring openly genocidal aims against Jews. The dolus specialis was indeed there on October 7, but from Hamas. That date should be remembered as the moment the genocidal intent in this war was made explicit, and it was not Israel that expressed it. By starting its inquiry on the very day of the Hamas massacre, without a proper presentation of the terrorist attack, the UN implicitly frames all Israeli actions as part of a continuous campaign of destruction, rather than as a military response to an unprecedented terrorist onslaught.
Equally troubling is the report’s selective use of evidence. It appears to treat casualty figures from Hamas-controlled or Hamas-affiliated sources as authoritative while discounting Israeli data and independent assessments. It cites civilian harm but often omits the context that Hamas embeds its fighters, tunnels, and command centers in civilian areas, hospitals, schools, and mosques, a strategy designed to both maximize civilian suffering and weaponize it for propaganda. Israel has consistently argued that its military objectives are Hamas operatives and infrastructure, not Gazan civilians. Even critics who question Israel’s proportionality have rarely alleged a plan to exterminate Palestinians as a people. Yet the UN report makes precisely that leap without providing the necessary evidentiary bridge of intent. Of course, if Israel did want to do a genocide, with an intent, why did it not launch a similar campaign in the Judea and Samaria region? Parts of the Palestinians are there, why not there as well?
The commission also downplays or ignores key operational realities. It scarcely mentions that dozens of Israeli hostages remain in Gaza, held by Hamas in violation of international law. It does not adequately weigh how that factor, and Hamas’s use of them as human shields, shapes Israel’s risk calculations, operational tempo, and targeting. Nor does it engage seriously with Israel’s extensive, if imperfect, efforts to minimize civilian harm, such as issuing evacuation warnings, creating humanitarian corridors, and pausing operations to allow aid deliveries. These measures are not consistent with an intent to destroy a population. They are consistent with the hard reality of urban warfare against a group that hides among civilians.
Legally, this matters. The crime of genocide is not triggered by tragedy or even by massive civilian death. It requires proof that the destruction of a protected group is the purpose, not the byproduct, of the military campaign. Without that proof of intent, accusing a state of genocide risks diluting the term to the point of meaninglessness. It also risks fueling disinformation and further antisemitic conspiracies about Jews. When the UN elevates allegations of disproportionate harm into claims of genocide without clear evidence of a plan to destroy, it feeds extremist narratives and makes future accountability harder, not easier.
There is also a broader danger. Overusing the term “genocide” undermines public trust in international law itself. If everything becomes genocide, then nothing does. It polarizes debate, pushes people into ideological corners, and makes genuine investigations into real war crimes harder to conduct. Those who want to see human rights law taken seriously should be alarmed that the UN is eroding its own credibility by publishing reports that appear driven more by politics than by rigorous legal analysis.
What is needed instead is sober, balanced accountability. And it means acknowledging that Hamas, not Israel, began this war with openly genocidal aims, and that the best path to ending the suffering is for Hamas to release the remaining hostages and cease its campaign of terror. Justice demands better.
