The UN’s Politically Motivated Accusation of Genocide
On 16 September 2025, the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (COI) released a report alleging that Israel is committing a genocide in the Gaza Strip, citing four of the Genocide Convention’s five enumerated acts, leaning heavily on statements by fringe Israeli politicians and officials in order to prove ‘intent’. However, the report by the COI fails to accurately depict the war, solely blaming Israel while erasing Hamas culpability and agency. The timing also appears politically motivated; the 72-page report was published just days after Israel began their intensified Gaza City offensive, and only a few days before many countries were poised to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly.
Crucially, however, the COI is not a court. It has no legally binding functions. In the case of South Africa v. Israel, held at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), even it did not find that Israel has breached the Genocide Convention. The UK Government’s current position makes it explicitly clear, saying that the UK has not concluded that Israel is committing a genocide.
The definition of genocide:
Under the Genocide Convention (1948), genocide means any of the following five acts being committed:
1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Intent is the crux of the convention; mass harm is insufficient to convict. The case at the ICJ is ongoing, as is stands, the ICJ has provided provisional measures, requiring Israel to prevent the acts within Article II of the Genocide Convention, and allow aid into Gaza. Yet, these measures are precautionary and preventative.
Who are the COI?
The COI is an investigative body set up by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). As such, its reports can inform debate, but do not determine criminal liability. The report from the Commission asserts that Israel has committed four genocidal acts, though it is notable that the definition is so generalised that in effect would allow any conflict to be described as a genocide and allows the definition to be hijacked for political manipulation. Furthermore, the report infers intent from rhetoric of extremist, fringe Israeli coalition partners who do not have an operational role in the direction and conduct of the conflict in Gaza.
Who sits on the Commission of Inquiry:
The COI, established in 2021, has been led by Chair Navi Pillay, alongside members Miloon Kothari and Chris Sidoti. The panel has faced criticism of clear bias against Israel. Miloon Kothari was accused of antisemitism in 2022, when he used the phrase ‘Jewish lobby’ in an interview while he questioned Israel’s UN membership. Critics of Navi Pillay point to her public framing on Israel and Palestine, labelling the October 7 attacks as an “explosion of violence in Israel and Gaza”, as well as her defence of Kothari’s antisemitic rhetoric. As of August 2025, the three members of the commission resigned, but are continuing in their roles until new members are appointed by the UNHRC – allowing them the freedom to publish an overtly politicised report without the long-term accountability that should come with these accusations. While these issues with the members of the commission do not determine whether there is a genocide or not, they do justify increased scrutiny of the report and its motives.
Timing of the report:
The report has been published as Israel begins to escalate its offensive in Gaza City, and as many Western governments are preparing to recognise a Palestinian state. The UN has previous form of politicised intervention on the eve of new Israeli military action throughout the conflict. Furthermore, the US has furthered its ‘lawfare’ sanctions against the UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, with the US viewing parts of the UN as pursuing legal warfare against the US and Israel, raising further questions and doubts over the UN’s impartiality and credibility.
Rebuttal of the COI report:
The following points of rebuttal are from the UN Watch’s legal critique of the COI report. The rebuttal examines the key problems of the report, showing why the evidence that is presented “cannot sustain a finding of genocide under international law”:
Failure to prove dolus specialis (special intent)
The COI’s report uses selective rhetoric for evidence of a policy to destroy Palestinians. Yet, selective quotations from fringe politicians and officials does not evidence any form of an operational or destructive policy by the Israeli Defence Forces.
2. Erasure of Hamas as a belligerent
The COI’s report fails to acknowledge that the IDF is engaged in combat with a roughly 30,000 strong Hamas force in Gaza, alongside thousands of fighters from other militant groups in the territory. The audience of the report would be led to believe that the IDF is deployed only to fight against women and children, with Hamas having been wholly erased from the picture. Furthermore, the report makes no attempt to analyse the war, and why it started.
3. Silence on Hamas’s military infrastructure
There is no mention of Hamas’s 17-year military build-up in Gaza, which includes its vast 400-mile tunnel network, booby-trapped buildings, and arsenal build up, which was displayed in detail on, and following October 7. By ignoring this, the report removes the war of its military context, again attempting to show the IDF as a civilian targeting force.
4. Erasure of Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure
The report ignores Hamas’s human shield strategy, a tactic openly acknowledged by its leaders. This includes the use of hospitals, schools, mosques and residential buildings to conceal its vast tunnel network, as well as its arsenal. Damage to these military targets is portrayed as the deliberate targeting of civilians, by the Commission.
5. No recognition of the hostage crisis
The report fails to take into account the fact that Hamas took 251 people hostage, both Israeli and from other countries, and continues to hold, starve and rape them. By omitting this information, it is consistent with the report’s erasure of Hamas as a belligerent in Gaza, further removing essential context to the conflict.
6. Reliance on Hamas data
The report uses Hamas data as an ‘accurate’ source of data, ignoring IDF data on killed combatants. This is the case despite Hamas’s long record of exaggerating civilian deaths, as well as their data being open source, meaning anyone can file a death report and affect the accuracy of the data being collected and used by Hamas.
7. Civilian deaths distorted as evidence of genocide
The report shows civilian deaths as first hand proof of genocidal intent, rather than what it is; a tragic but inevitable consequence of urban warfare, which is only worsened by Hamas’s human shield strategy. The report also references various examples of civilian deaths as intentional and targeted killings by the IDF, without evidence of such.
8. Normal wartime consequences treated as crimes
Mental health impacts, something which is expected during a war, alongside medical care access and displacement are being depicted as further evidence of genocide, rather than what it is; an inevitable outcome of urban warfare.
9. Urban devastation portrayed as extermination
Large-scale damage of civilian infrastructure is used as proof of genocide, ignoring the difficulties that urban conflict produces, particularly when Hamas operate within civilian areas.
Further omissions from the COI report include the crimes perpetrated by Hamas on October 7; failing to mention the systematic killings, tortures, rapes, and hostage taking of over 1,200 people. Instead, the report begins with “on 7 October 2023, Israel launched its military offensive in Gaza”. The first use of the word ‘hostage’ is on page 27 of the report; they are only mentioned in order to accuse Israel of wrongdoing, and invert Hamas’ actions, accusing Israel of keeping the Gaza Strip ‘hostage’. The report does not mention that over two million tons of aid funnelled into Gaza by Israel since October, as well as the 14 million litres of water a day, and the delivery of over two million vaccinations to Gazan children.
Conclusion:
The word genocide carries a heavy weight, especially for the world’s only Jewish state. It is a unique legal and moral charge as it denotes a crime of intent. Based on today’s public record, there are no judicial findings that Israel has breached the Genocide Convention, with the ICJ only issuing provisional, precautionary measures. This has been further backed by the British government, with the Foreign Office stating they have ‘not concluded’ that Israel is committing a genocide, emphasising the importance of such decisions belonging solely to international courts. The Commission of Inquiry’s report fails to provide a fair, factual account of the last two years of conflict. Instead, the report creates a narrative which solely blames Israel for the war, removing Hamas as a fighting force, and does not portray Hamas as the terrorist group it is, with the associated urban warfare tactics of terrorists - which include the use of civilians as human shields. Ultimately the report chooses to exploit the careless rhetoric of extreme Israeli Government coalition partners, who do not have any operational control in regard to the conduct of the war; whilst this rhetoric is abhorrent, it is rhetoric and does not reflect the reality of Israel’s conduct.