LEGAL, HISTORY, HOLOCAUST, AND GENOCIDE SCHOLARS, FORMER PROSECUTORS, AND OTHER AUTHORITIES EXPRESS CONCERN AT ONGOING ATTEMPTS TO REDEFINE AND MISALIGN GENOCIDE

We as scholars, experts, and authorities on the Holocaust and genocide demand entities stop misrepresenting genocide to stoke their bias against Israel. 

In this letter we address two of the claims often used against Israel, demonstrate their bias and lack of adhering to the strict legal framework that defines the jurisprudence of the crime of genocide. The claims made by Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission of Inquiry have had profound negative impact on the discourse of the Genocide Convention and risk severely undermining the protections the Convention creates. They are the two most widely distributed accusations and must be addressed.

This is a long letter, but it is important that the analysis be done correctly and sufficiently. We, as experts, lay out the legal framework and demonstrate the lack of adherence to that framework by Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission of Inquiry. These two fatally flawed reports aim to weaponize and degrade the Genocide Convention as a tool in an utmost inappropriate framework. As scholars and lawyers on this subject it is imperative that this framework not be loosened.

If we permit the degradation of the Genocide Convention in the manner that Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission of Inquiry seek to implement, the world guarantees that genocide will be a meaningless word devoid of the protections that are imperative to exist.

It is imperative that while the below discussion analyzes the accusations of genocide by various “expert” entities that at the same time we recognize the enormous toll the war in Gaza has had on the Palestinian people there. Millions of innocent lives have been upended by the actions of Hamas before, during, and after the atrocities they committed on 7 October 2023. The Palestinian civilians of Gaza did not ask for this war. Nor did they ask to be caught in the middle of the horrors it has brought to them. We should keep them, and the memory of the innocent people killed, in our thoughts and prayers. While they are not victims of genocide, they do suffer under the totalitarian dictatorship of Hamas that has also forced the Palestinians to be pawns by Hamas and a tool to inherently inflict greater harm upon them.

Genocide, as invented by Raphael Lemkin, is among the most serious crimes humanity can consider. It requires that a party act with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such, through one of the five defined acts per Article II of the Genocide Convention.

The intent here, known as dolus specialis, or specific intent, requires that a party act to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part, because of their membership in that group. The five acts of genocide require that each act be committed with that intent. This analysis is extremely difficult and an incredibly high bar to meet. If intent cannot be explicitly proven, it can be proven through an inference standard of “only reasonable inference.”

Further, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”)’s Tolimir (2012) decision it was stated: “Indications of such intent are rarely overt, however, and thus it is permissible to infer the existence of genocidal intent on ‘all of the evidence, taken together,’ as long as this inference is ‘the only reasonable [one] available] on the evidence.” Moreover, in the ICJ’s Bosnia v. Serbia (2004) decision, the Court stated: “The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly demonstrated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be that it could only point to the existence of such intent.”

This requires that a responsible party to assess all of the facts pertaining to the allegation of genocide, and if there is a possible explanation that does not lead to genocide, then it cannot be genocidal intent. In the case of Gaza, it is incumbent to assess the conduct not just of Israel, but that of the other belligerent party: Hamas.

Hamas’s systematic abuse and weaponization of civilian and humanitarian infrastructure must be part of the conversation. Extensive evidence exists demonstrating Hamas’s strategy of human shielding, diversion, firing from civilian and humanitarian areas, and vast tunnel network under and within civilian and humanitarian areas. Further, the existence of hostages in Gaza throughout the war started by Hamas on 7 October 2023 when Hamas invaded Israel and methodically killed Israeli civilians in non-military communities and took hundreds of innocent people hostage, giving Israel a continued and valid casus belli to war in Gaza.

Of course, this requires that Israel also adhere to international law and its obligations to do what it can to protect the civilian population in Gaza.

However, when a party weaponizes such infrastructure, and places where civilians are present, it may cause those locations to lose their protections. See: GCIV 19 & 28, and API 51(7). The culpable party for the harm in this scenario is the one violating the protections of these areas. Namely, Hamas.

When citing to statements as evidence of genocidal intent it is also required that you place those statements into the context of what was being said, and in relation to the entire statement. Often Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement referencing “Amalek” from Deuteronomy (“Remember what Amalek did to you”) is cited as evidence of genocidal intent. Yet, that statement itself is found on the Holocaust monument in The Hague, of all places, and is a common reference for Jews post-catastrophe. Thus, that statement itself is not, and cannot be, evidence of genocidal intent.

Furthermore, “in part” requires that the intent to be to eliminate at least a substantial portion of the protected group so to either effect the ability of the group to exist, or to be demonstrative of the group as a whole. This can be found in Lemkin’s testimony to the United States Senate in 1950 where he argued for ratification of the Convention: “The destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety.”

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) in their Krstić (2004) decision stated: “The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry.” Essentially, the targeted portion of the protected group’s numeric size must be so substantial to threaten the existence of the whole.

It is important to also understand the standard of proof in the ICJ is “fully conclusive,” which is the highest standard possible. Akin to that of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of a criminal court. 

With the accusation of genocide against Israel in Gaza at the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) and by “human rights experts” worldwide, it’s incumbent to push back and reinforce the legal and historical parameters of what genocide is, and not what people want it to be.

Below is a demonstration of two samples of the degradation, manipulation, and weaponization of the Genocide Convention against Israel. It is not comprehensive to all accusations but assesses two egregious examples of such conduct.

The United Nations Commission of Inquiry

The Commission of Inquiry (“COI”) was established by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2021 specifically to investigate in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories abuses alleged to be perpetrated by the State of Israel.” The establishment of the COI was passed via resolution with the support of noted human rights abusers such as Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, and Venezuela – states that have adverse or non-existence relations with the State of Israel because of its status as a Jewish state. The establishment of such a COI effectively passed with the mandate to find that Israel had committed human rights abuses, and not to objectively analyze the situation or law.

The COI was led at the time by Navi Pillay, an ad hoc judge appointed by The Gambia in the ongoing genocide case of The Gambia v. Myanmar, accused Israel of genocide in its reported published on 16 September 2025. The COI comprised of Pillay, Chris Sidoti, and Miloon Kothari, each of which have been noted to have an anti-Israel and antisemitic bias.

Before delving into the legal analysis of the report, it is imperative for an objective person to ask the question: “Why would such a commission be comprised of individuals who have demonstrated significant bias against the Jewish people, and the State of Israel, in assessing the conduct of the Jewish state?”

There is only one reasonable answer, and that is that the COI was never meant to be an objective body. Rather, as demonstrated by Pillay’s appointment by The Gambia in their case, to find that Israel had committed the most egregious human rights abuses possible, and to legitimize them absent an objective analysis of law. Essentially, the COI was created as a tool by states who are among the most egregious human rights abusers to find that Israel was abusing human rights. A clear breach of the duty of the United Nations and its appendant bodies obligation to objectivity and neutrality.

Now, to discuss the legal analysis of the COI’s biased report. The COI correctly states in their report:

“In relation to the required mental element, it should be noted that each of the underlying acts above needs to be committed intentionally (that is, not negligently); and, for each act to constitute genocide, it must additionally be committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.”[1]

This important sentence lays out the accurate framework for understanding genocide requiring dolus specialis (specific intent) for the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the COI states: 

“The Commission considers that, while there may be other reasonable for a discrete act (for example, to achieve a military advantage by forcibly transferring the group, or to destroy the existence of an armed group), this does not preclude the existence of a genocidal intent, as long as the genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference to be drawn, having ruled out other inferences that are not reasonable, based on the totality of the evidence at hand.”[2]

This, on the other hand, is not an accurate statement of law. Notably, this would require an actual assessment of other possible explanations. This report does not do that. In fact, the mention of tunnel infrastructure appears one time in the entire report and that is done as a means to discredit the tunnel that led under the European Hospital. The one where Hamas leader, Mohammed Sinwar, was directing Hamas from. Nor does the COI in this report apply the test whatsoever. 

The COI also cites to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (“IPC”) stating authoritatively that famine had been established throughout most areas of the Gaza Strip. While there undoubtedly was food insecurity throughout Gaza during the summer of 2025, the metrics used by the IPC shifted to make the finding of famine and did not utilize the objective standards that the IPC had employed elsewhere. Moreover, for a famine declaration to occur it would require about two to four deaths per 10,000 people per day. In Gaza City, where the IPC “confirmed” famine it would have required seeing about 200 – 400 deaths per day. As of the writing of this letter the total reported malnutrition deaths for the entirety of the war in Gaza stand at about 450. Further, the reports relied on hearsay evidence while the IPC never had firsthand accounting of their metrics. Thus, demonstrating an unobjective and biased assessment that the IPC made, with no rebuttal or explanation for that in the COI report. 

It is critical to point out that now that the armed conflict itself has ended in the October 2025 ceasefire, the situation on the ground in Gaza has substantively improved with reports of food need being met for all Gazan civilians. This coupled with the Board of Peace’s statement in April 2026 noting that the diversion and stealing of aid has been reduced by Hamas. An important caveat that would err against, and negate, the genocidal intent argument often levied against Israel related to humanitarian aid. Further substantiating this issue relates to the fact that diversion of aid in armed conflict by a combatant party with the purpose of materially benefiting from the aid causes a situation to arise that permits the ending of aid until such diversion and material benefit ceases. See: GCIV 23.

Critically, the COI states that Israeli leaders expressed genocidal statements and intent but never establish that in the report. Again, this report relies, much like the others, on the reference to “Amalek” by Netanyahu. As stated previously and repeatedly, that utterance is not genocidal when placed in context of culture and the entirety of his words. The COI states: 

“On 3 November 2023, Prime Minister Netanyahu published a letter to the Israeli soldiers and commanders in the war, in which he wrote, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you… This is a war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness… We constantly remember the sights of the horrific massacre on that Simchat Torah Shabbat, October 7, 2023.’  The descendants of Amalek, the Amalekites, were enemies of the Israelites in the Hebrew bible. In the Book of Samuel, God tells the Israelis, ‘Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ The Commission notes that, in invoking Amalek in his speech, Netanyahu strengthened the idea that Israel’s war in Gaza is akin to the holy war of total annihilation commanded against the Amalekites. This would be familiar to and compelling for the many thousands of Israeli military personnel who are religious Zionists, especially for those in military units whose personally are wholly or predominantly ultra-orthodox. Indeed, such sentiment was referred to by many following the statement of Netanyahu, including the Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich and Israeli soldiers who yelled and chanted direct reference to Amalek as they launched attacks in Gaza.”[3]

The COI purposefully leaves out critical context of the reference to “Amalek” in this statement. The term, coming from Deuteronomy, as stated above, cannot be found to be genocidal whatsoever if placed into the context and culture of the Jewish people. It is hardly believable that the designers of the Holocaust monument in The Hague would name their monument “The Amalek Monument” and place the same exact words upon the monument as a way to honor the memory of those killed in the Holocaust from The Hague. As, again, demonstrated above, this has been a common reference, as repeatedly stated, when catastrophe befalls the Jewish people.

The COI also cites to former-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s statement saying: 

“On 9 October 2023, Israel’s then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant announced a complete siege on Gaza, claiming that Israel was fighting ‘human animals’ and must ‘act accordingly.’ On 10 October 2023, in a speech to Israeli security forces personnel, Gallant further stated, ‘Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week. It will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”[4]

Here, the COI intentionally misleads readers as to the totality of what Gallant’s statement was, which includes:

“I have seen many soldiers and I understand what you have gone through. Every fighter who sees comrades fall in battle, I understand the pain, the anger. There will not be a situation where Israeli children are killed in fields and Hamas continues to exist. I have lifted all restrictions – we kill everyone who fights us, we use all means.”[5]

As this demonstrates, if you were to place Gallant’s statement into context you will find that his reference is specifically to attacking those who fight against Israel, meaning Hamas. This is not a reference to Palestinians as a people, either national, ethnical, racial, or religious. In no way is Hamas given any protections as a terrorist entity under the Genocide Convention. 

In reference to what the then-Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, stated. It is important to understand first that sieges are legal. It is also important to understand the nuance in what he was referring to, which was a siege of Gaza City – which had been ordered evacuated and was given a month before ground operations started on the city for civilians to leave. 

The COI goes on and cites to President Isaac Herzog’s statement saying:

“On 13 October 2023, President Isaac Herzog stated, ‘it’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians who were not aware and not involved. It is absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.”[6]

When it comes to President Herzog’s statement, it is important to understand that President Herzog does not have the ability to command the Israel Defense Forces (“IDF”). He is not in the chain of command and has no control capability. Moreover, it is quite fascinating that the COI did not include his full remarks, which included in the very same statement: 

“We are very cautious in the way we operate. The IDF uses all the means at its disposal in order to reduce harm to the population. Fer example, many resources are invested in gathering intelligence to locate the enemy separately from civilian population, in evacuating the civilian population from the center of the battle, warning civilians, and monitoring the humanitarian situation.”[7]

Here, it is demonstrated that President Herzog expressly states that Israel is not aiming to harm the civilian population in Gaza. Therefore, this is not, and cannot be, evidence of genocidal intent as the COI would lead readers to believe.

Another important note of the COI report is:

“The attacks in southern Israel on 7 October 2023 were brutal war crimes, but they did not pose an existential threat to the State of Israel. Israel was and is responsible for the protection of its population but the means of doing that must take account of the fact that it has taken by force and is unlawfully occupying and settling Palestinian territory by continuing violence, denying the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”[8]

This is a notable paragraph as it does not accurately depict the reality that Israel was faced with after Hamas’s door-to-door slaughter of innocent Israeli people because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity, and the taking of hundreds of Israelis hostage. Within this report there are six mentions of the word “hostage,” one of which accuses Israel of taking the Palestinian population hostage in Gaza. This is another inaccurate description of law. “Hostage” has the meaning prescribed to it in the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (1979), article 1. This requires that the taking of a person for the purpose of compelling a third party into a specific action will have thus taken people hostage. This is why the innocent people Hamas took are considered hostages and why prescribing that word to the population in Gaza is antithetical to the law.

There is further no mention of Hamas’s conduct in the war that Hamas started by its commission of the crime of genocide and the taking of hostages. This omission by the COI is not one that negatively impacts the Israeli side, but rather the Palestinian civilian population who is victim to the brutal tactics of Hamas. As previously established through years if not decades of evidence, Hamas has systematically weaponized civilian and humanitarian infrastructure throughout the Gaza Strip. It has embedded its tunnel network, larger in size than the London Underground, in a much smaller geographic footprint, under homes, hospitals, schools, mosques, even UN facilities. Without mentioning the vast network of underground infrastructure, the COI fails to accurately analyze the law.

As stated previously, without assessing the counter and understanding what the other party is doing and how that informs the conduct and legal obligations of the accused party, the COI plainly does not assess intent correctly. There exists plenty of other reasonable explanations for Israeli conduct in the war. Without doing an analysis of those explanations, the report falls short of an accurate application of law. While this provides alternative explanations, it is imperative to note that the COI did not attempt to assess this whatsoever. Instead, the report relies on language that suggests that there is genocidal intent present without providing evidence sufficient to establish it as the only reasonable inference to exist.

The COI report concludes by saying:

“On the basis of fully conclusive evidence, the Commission finds that statements made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent. Additionally, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Commission finds that genocidal intent as the only reasonable inference that could be drawn based in the pattern of conduct of the Israeli authorities. Thus, the Commission concludes that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”[9]

Yet, as stated previously, the COI never assesses intent as required. Nor does the COI raise any possible explanation that the Israelis could argue. Without doing so the COI does not meet the fully conclusive standard, nor does it meet the inference test required to establish the dolus specialis standard for intent. 

Furthermore, in the COI’s analysis assuming direct intent based on the statements of Israeli leaders, it would have been expected that they would have assessed the entirety of the statement of those they include. Instead, the COI cuts pieces of statements out-of-context where they can attempt to demonstrate genocidal intent. If the COI was a prudent and objective actor, it would have provided the full context – including the direct calls for fighting Hamas, not Palestinians, and the calls to protect Palestinian civilians in Gaza, not to destroy them.

For an entity empowered by the UN it would be expected that they exercise some modicum of understanding of the culture they are assigned to assess. Yet that is clearly missing. However, that is understandable with the years of condemnation by the free states of the world of the authors of this report for rampant bias and antisemitism. A logical question must be asked of the COI: How could the UNHRC appoint a panel of three people who have been repeatedly condemned for bias against the State of Israel, and how could this report be given any credibility when a panel of imputed individuals is given the opportunity.

It is also critical to understand that the place of the lead author of this report in the context of being ad hoc Judge, Navi Pillay, and her role in The Gambia v. Myanmar case and The Gambia’s arguments relying on UNHRC appointed bodies to make its case. Outside of the bias that has been demonstrated that Pillay has against the State of Israel, she is also an interested party in an ongoing genocide case where the party who appointed her relies on similar reports. It is expected that an ad hoc judge empaneled at the ICJ on a genocide case would also understand the necessity of including the full analysis of the statements in their entirety of those they accuse of genocide, and not out-of-context piecemeal of statements, contrary to the jurisprudence of the ICJ.

The report by the COI is not legally binding, does not apply the required legal analysis, and should not be taken seriously by the media or the ICJ. Doing so is a highly questionable maneuver that questions the credibility of any institution.

Amnesty International

In late 2024, Amnesty International (“Amnesty”) came to a finding that Israel had committed genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. There are many substantive issues with their report. The first is that their definition of substantiality fails the test as it assumes without justification that the goal of Israel is to annihilate the entirety of the Palestinians in Gaza as a “substantial part” of the Palestinians as a whole. Genocide, as a crime, may be geographically centered as seen in Srebrenica. As demonstrated above the “in part” requirement does analyze the numbers and requires that it be so substantial to threaten the very existence of the group as a whole. Amnesty simply fails to do this.

It is uncontested that Israel has the means and capability to enact the destruction of the Palestinian people with the far superior military force that it has. Amnesty fails to establish intent to destroy the Palestinian people “in part” because the substantiality requirement under the analysis does not demonstrate that the very existence of the Palestinian people is threatened.

Further, Amnesty states: 

“Equally important, finding or inferring specific intent does not require finding a single or sole intent. A state’s action can serve the dual goal of achieving a military result and destroy a group as such. Genocide can also be the means for achieving a military results… Amnesty International does not consider international jurisprudence, including that of the ICJ, to preclude either instrumental or dual intent, as long as genocidal intent is clearly assessed to be the state’s intent based on the totality of the evidence. Allowing for dual or instrumental intent is the only way to ensure that genocide remains prohibited during times of war.”

If a state has genocidal intent, then their conduct in war is impermissible and there is no justification for valid military conduct. Amnesty is effectively advocating for a change of the jurisprudence, not a continuation of the jurisprudence that exists today. To infer intent, it requires that there be no other plausible explanation other than that of genocide for the conduct, if there exists another reasonable alternative explanation, then the intent cannot be met under the applicable law.

Amnesty’s report does not accurately assess the applicable law surrounding a combatant party’s use of human shielding, a well-known and documented strategy of Hamas. More important, Amnesty relies on Hamas’s response to them about the use of civilian buildings for combat purposes, stating: 

“In its October 2024 letters to the Hamas authorities, Amnesty International asked Hamas about Israel’s claims that it was using mosques, cultural sites and critical infrastructure for military purposes. In a November 2024 response, Hamas’s Political and International Relations Department denied that Hamas was using or conducting miliary operations in or near health, educational, cultural or religious sites and said that the Israeli military had failed to substantiate its claims with evidence. Noting the extent of attacks on cultural and religious sites, they wrote: ‘It is not possible for all of these sites to have had tunnels beneath or military sites nearby.

…

The use of cultural and religious sites by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups for military purposes could have turned them into legitimate military objectives, as would the presence of tunnels underneath them. In some instances, such activity may also have violated the prohibition of the use of property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage, unless imperatively required by military necessity.”[10]

In their report, Amnesty makes a finding that there did not exist the necessity for Israeli attacks on certain sites stating:

“While Israel claimed that the destruction was necessary, and accused Hamas of placing rocket launchers and tunnel shafts in agricultural areas, the extensive destruction of property and agricultural land was carried out after Israeli forces had acquired operational control over the areas, meaning that it was not caused as part of the hostilities between the Israeli military and Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, and that it was apparently not justified by imperative military necessity.”

However, Amnesty fails to consider the alternative without evidence for their finding. Amnesty even admits that Hamas and other armed groups may have utilized such facilities for prohibited conduct, admission by Amnesty demonstrates that the conclusion they reach cannot be substantiated. Amnesty is not privy nor does it have access to the information required to make the determination that they did to the standard required by law. 

Amnesty further connects statements that clearly delineate requirements for hostages to be released as genocidal intent. A major issue with that is that if the intent is to return the hostages that were illegally taken by Hamas, to a certain action, then the intent is to return the people and not the destruction of a protected group. That is not a demonstration of genocidal intent under the law, as it is not the only reasonable inference that may be drawn.

Another critical flaw in the Amnesty report cites to Netanyahu’s “Amalek” statement that was referenced above. As explained previously, it is fatal to an inference to draw a conclusion that this specific “Amalek” statement as genocidal when the Holocaust monument down the street from both the ICC and ICJ in The Hague bears the same inscription and is a culturally appropriate remark after catastrophe for the Jewish people. Moreover, that Amnesty took multiple pages to attempt to explain why the Amalek reference was genocidal, it demonstrates that this could not possibly be the only reasonable explanation for the use of the term. Which is demonstrated by the correct application of the cultural context of it.

Finally, Amnesty specifically advocates against the jurisprudence to find genocide, where they desire a different approach to the conclusion of intent. Stating about the ICJ: “[i]ts rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations. As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.”[11]

It is thus true that when an accusation must explicitly argue for a different approach than that of the settled jurisprudence, then the accusation must fail on the merits, as does Amnesty’s report accusing Israel of genocide. 

This is true from their inaccurate application of the substantiality requirement and of the analysis for intent that fails to consider alternative reasonable explanations that may exist and takes Hamas at their word that they do not weaponize infrastructure that years of evidence exists demonstrating such weaponization.

Conclusion

There have been many accusations of genocide, starting almost immediately after 7 October 2023 when Hamas attacked innocent people in the State of Israel, murdering over 1,200 and taking another 200+ hostage. Each one of those accusations has failed to assess the legal requirements of genocide as the jurisprudence demands. It is critical to not loosely throw around such a serious accusation without demonstrating a modicum of honest analysis.

Sadly, that analysis has been lacking from each and every accuser.

While there are thousands of innocents who have been hurt and killed in this war. Both Israeli and Palestinian. One can, and should, demand protections for those people while also not jumping to the worst possible crime that has very strict requirements. It is incomprehensible to allow the weaponization and degradation of the protections of the Genocide Convention to be used against states in such a manner.

It is critical that Israeli authorities also investigate all alleged and credible wrongdoings by IDF soldiers. Every credible accusation of a war crime is serious and must fully be investigated and perpetrators held to account.

When genocide is minimized and maligned in such a manner it undermines the protections the Convention is meant to hold true for all people. War is in itself terrible, but it is not genocide. 

For all of these reasons, we call on those who have published faulty and incongruent accusations to immediately retract their reports.

[1] “Legal Analysis of the Conduct of Israel in Gaza Pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishemnt of the Crime of Genocide,” Conference Room Paper of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including Easy Jerusalem, and Israel (2025), page 6, para. 15. (Hereinafter, “COI”).

[2] Ibid., page 50, para. 160.

[3] Ibid., page 53, para. 172.

[4] Ibid., page 65, para. 226.

[5] https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1696961009-defense-minister-gallant-visits-kibbutz-be-eri-destruction

[6] COI, Ibid., page 65, para. 227.

[7] President Herzog Holds Briefing for International Media, State of Israel - President (Oct. 12, 2023), https://www.gov.il/en/pages/president-herzog-holds-briefing-for-international-media-12-oct-2023. (Remarks by Herzog on Oct. 12, 2023; where the “entire nation” comment was made).

[8] COI, see also ibid., page 52, para. 165.

[9] Ibid., page 64, para. 220.

[10] “You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’ Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,” Amnesty International (2024), page 222.

[11] Ibid., page 101.