Decoding genocide accusation

Israel’s decision last month to withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) now seems not only prudent, but prophetic.

A newly released United Nations (UN) report accuses Israel of committing “genocidal acts” in Gaza, including the systematic destruction of women’s healthcare facilities and the use of sexual violence as a war strategy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a fiery rebuke, branded the report “an anti-Israel circus” that exposed the UNHRC as “an antisemitic, corrupt, and pro-terror body that has no legitimacy”.

The prime minister’s office went further, calling the UNHRC a “council of blood libels”, a term that evokes the dark history of antisemitic falsehoods weaponised against Jews for centuries.

The genocide accusation hinges on the legal definition from the 1948 Genocide Convention: acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group”.

The UN report points to Israel’s military operations in Gaza, which have caused significant civilian casualties and infrastructure damage since the escalation following Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack. Palestinian health authorities, run by Hamas, have reported more than 40 000 deaths in Gaza, though these figures don’t distinguish between combatants and civilians or account for deaths caused by Hamas’s own actions, like misfired rockets.

Israel, meanwhile, asserts that it targets Hamas militants, not civilians, and provides warnings to reduce harm, an approach inconsistent with genocidal intent.

The population growth in Gaza – 22 771 in the past year per the World Population Review – further complicates the narrative. Historically, genocides like the Holocaust or the genocide perpetuated in Rwanda resulted in massive population declines not increases. While Gaza’s humanitarian crisis is severe, with malnutrition and displacement rampant, this alone doesn’t meet the threshold of intent to destroy a group, suggesting the genocide label may be exaggerated or misapplied.

The claim about women’s healthcare facilities being systematically destroyed probably stems from reports of damaged hospitals and clinics amid the fighting. Israel has acknowledged striking medical facilities, like Al-Shifa Hospital, when intelligence indicates that Hamas operates from them. Hamas denies this practice, but it aligns with past evidence of militants using civilian infrastructure. Independent investigations, such as those by Human Rights Watch, have documented damage to Gaza’s healthcare system, but none conclusively prove a deliberate strategy to target women’s care specifically.

Without public access to the UN report’s full evidence, it’s hard to verify if this accusation rests on solid data or assumes intent from collateral damage in a dense war zone.

The sexual violence allegation, that Israel uses it as a “strategy” against Gazans, is the most inflammatory and least substantiated based on available information. Israel’s military operations are heavily scrutinised, yet no credible, widespread evidence from independent sources like Amnesty International or the International Criminal Court has emerged to support this as a systematic policy.

Contrast this with the 7 October Hamas attack, where first-hand accounts, forensic evidence, and survivor testimonies confirm sexual violence against Israelis. The UN’s own delay in addressing those atrocities, only issuing a report now, after pressure, raises questions about its consistency. If the Gaza claim relies on anecdotal or unverified reports, as Israeli officials suggest, it risks being a rhetorical escalation rather than a grounded accusation.

Cochav Elkayam-Levy, who leads the Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes by Hamas against Women and Children, has criticised the report as an attempt to draw a false moral equivalence between Israel and its terrorist adversaries. Her independent body meticulously documented the sexual violence inflicted on Israeli women and children during Hamas’s attack, an assault in which more than 1 200 people were murdered and 251 taken hostage. Elkayam-Levy’s statement cuts to the core, saying, “This moral comparison is painful and wrong because its purpose is to establish false historical narratives and inflicts irreparable harm both on the victims and on justice.”

Hagit Peer, the president of Na’amat, Israel’s leading women’s rights group, echoes this sentiment with equal force. She labels the report “outrageous”, accusing it of turning “the victim into the aggressor”. She notes the silence of international groups that claim to champion women’s rights yet turn a blind eye to the “sexual massacre” carried out by Hamas against Israeli women and men. She argues that this selective outrage isn’t just hypocrisy, it’s complicity in a campaign to delegitimise Israel while shielding its attackers.

Critics, including Netanyahu, argue that the UNHRC’s track record undermines its credibility. The council has passed more resolutions against Israel than any other country since its inception, often ignoring abuses by states like Syria or Iran. Its members include nations with poor human rights records, fuelling perceptions of bias.

The UN’s double standards are highlighted when one asks where its report is that condemns Hamas for its explicit genocidal intent, as stated in its 1987 charter, that calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Where is its outrage over the tunnels, rockets, and human shields that prolong this conflict and endanger Gazan lives?

So, are the accusations baseless? Not entirely. There’s a kernel of reality in the war’s toll on Gaza, which the UN leverages. Some underlying issues, like civilian deaths or healthcare access, stem from verifiable conditions in Gaza, even if the UN’s framing amplifies them into legally questionable territory.

But the leap to “genocide” and “systematic sexual violence” appears to lack the robust, public evidence needed to hold up under scrutiny, especially given counterpoints like population growth and Israel’s stated military aims. The UN’s history and the report’s timing suggest that political motives may outweigh facts, aligning with Israel’s charge of a “blood libel”. Without the report’s full dataset, the strongest conclusion is that the accusations seem overstated and poorly evidenced, more a weapon of narrative than a pillar of truth.