Challenging UN’s Gaza Genocide Allegations
By Khaled Salih
Let’s challenge the United Nations report, Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (A/HRC/60/CRP.3), which concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. While the report applies the legal framework of the Genocide Convention, its findings rely heavily on contested data sources, selective interpretations, and broad inferences of intent. Drawing on the critical assessment of Orbach et al., it can be argued that the UN report’s conclusions are undermined by systematic methodological flaws, omission of crucial contextual factors, particularly Hamas’s military strategies, and alternative explanations for Israel’s actions that do not amount to genocidal intent under international law. The aim is not to minimise the scale of suffering in Gaza, but to question whether the UN report meets the high evidentiary standard required for a finding of genocide.
The UN report, Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (A/HRC/60/CRP.3), concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. It applies a dual evidentiary framework: “reasonable grounds to conclude” for factual findings, and “fully conclusive evidence” for state responsibility. The report interprets the underlying acts of genocide and dolus specialis (specific genocidal intent) primarily through Israeli officials’ statements and observed patterns of conduct, covering the period from October 7, 2023, to July 31, 2025.
A critical assessment drawing on Orbach et al. contests the UN report’s methodology, reliability of sources, and interpretation of intent. This counter-analysis emphasises recurring methodological flaws, selective omissions, and alternative explanations that complicate the UN’s conclusion of genocide.
Methodology and Source Reliability
The UN report relies on its own investigations, earlier reports, and an upcoming General Assembly report. However, Orbach et al. argue that UN bodies and human rights organisations frequently display systemic weaknesses:
“Certainty Mirage” and “Inverse Information Funnel.” According to Orbach et al., the UN and affiliated organisations often accept the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry (GMOH) as the sole available source, creating an illusion of certainty. A small pool of Hamas-influenced data is then disseminated and fragmented across many reports, presenting a misleading appearance of objectivity.
“Burden of Proof Fallacy.” Orbach et al. note a double standard: Israeli military sources are dismissed unless independently verified—an often impossible condition—while claims from Gazan civilians or institutions are frequently accepted uncritically. In their view, this “humanitarian bias” results in the amplification of alarmist or unreliable information.
Historical Precedents. Orbach et al. cite past cases, such as inflated claims about Iraqi child mortality under sanctions in the 1990s and casualty misreporting in Jenin (2002) and Lebanon (2006). These precedents, they argue, reveal a pattern of systemic misjudgment that may have been replicated in the UN report.
Acts of Genocide: Killing Members of the Group (Article II(a))
The UN report cites 58,380 verified deaths by July 15, 2025, claiming 83% of those killed were civilians. It highlights strikes on residential buildings, the killing of paramedics in Tal as-Sultan, and deaths of Palestinians seeking food.
Casualty Data Reliability. Orbach et al. argue that GMOH data is “unreliable” and subject to manipulation. They cite sudden statistical shifts, omission of names, and directives to classify combatants as civilians. Analyses of UNRWA staff deaths also suggest male casualties were disproportionately higher, contradicting GMOH claims of equal male/female ratios.
Evidence of Deliberate Killings. Orbach et al. accept that some war crimes may have occurred and should be investigated, but find “no evidence of a systematic Israeli policy” to massacre civilians. By March 2025, only 61 fatalities out of 50,021 reported deaths had specific claims of deliberate killing.
Human Shields Strategy. The UN report’s attribution of collective targeting to identity is contested by Orbach et al., who emphasise Hamas’s systematic use of civilians as shields, embedding military infrastructure within homes, schools, and hospitals.
Precautionary Measures. Orbach et al. highlight that the IDF used extensive precautions—warnings, aborted missions, and operational vetoes—often at the cost of military advantage. This undermines the UN’s claim of disregard for civilian life.
Acts of Genocide: Causing Serious Bodily or Mental Harm (Article II(b))
The UN cites widespread injuries, amputations, and psychological trauma, concluding Israel intentionally inflicted such harm.
Orbach et al. acknowledge the suffering but stress Hamas’s role: widespread booby-trapping of buildings and deliberate tactics designed to maximise civilian fatalities and international condemnation. Thus, while the harm is real, attributing it exclusively to Israeli genocidal intent is contested.
Acts of Genocide: Inflicting Conditions of Life to Destroy the Group (Article II(c))
The UN report describes a “total siege,” mass displacement, destruction of housing, denial of medical access, and restrictions on food, water, and fuel. It cites a 2008 Israeli document calculating caloric intake as evidence of intent to starve.
Starvation and Aid. Orbach et al. argue that more provisions entered Gaza post-October 7 than before, and that the UN’s “500 trucks a day” baseline was inflated sixfold. Predictions of famine were later corrected, and claims of a 70% aid drop were quietly revised by UNRWA.
Hamas Diversion. Orbach et al. present evidence that Hamas diverted 15–25% of aid for its fighters and governance structures, significantly skewing humanitarian outcomes.
“Red Line” Document. Orbach et al. acknowledge the 2008 policy paper but interpret it as part of lawful military strategy aimed at limiting supplies to enemy combatants, rather than intent to destroy a people.
Destruction and Displacement. While the UN sees devastation as proof of genocidal intent, Orbach et al. stress that Hamas’s embedding of military infrastructure within civilian areas was a decisive factor in the scale of destruction.
Acts of Genocide: Preventing Births (Article II(d))
The UN report cites the destruction of Gaza’s IVF clinic in December 2023, where embryos and sperm samples were lost, as evidence of intent to prevent births.
Orbach et al. do not address this case specifically but argue more broadly that tragic incidents should not automatically be interpreted as systemic genocidal intent without further evidence.
Dolus Specialis (Genocidal Intent)
The UN identifies intent through inflammatory statements by Israeli officials and the broader conduct of war.
Interpretation of Statements. Orbach et al. note that remarks such as Gallant’s “human beasts” comment targeted Hamas rather than all Gazans, and that siege measures were later modified. Netanyahu’s statements about aid were often attempts to reassure the Israeli public rather than reveal genocidal policy.
Pattern of Conduct. Orbach et al. argue that civilian casualties, while tragic, can also be explained by Hamas’s human shield strategy and Israel’s operational constraints. They stress that IDF’s repeated efforts to minimise harm undermine the inference of genocidal intent.
Conclusion
The UN report concludes that Israel committed genocide in Gaza, but the counter-analysis by Orbach et al. raises fundamental challenges:
Systematic methodological flaws, uncritical reliance on Hamas-controlled data and a history of inflated or false humanitarian claims. Omission of critical context, particularly Hamas’s military use of civilian infrastructure and human shields. Alternative interpretations of intent, Israeli actions, however destructive, may reflect military necessity rather than genocidal design.
In conclusion, while the UN report presents grave allegations of genocide against Israel, its methodology, evidentiary standards, and interpretations fall short of establishing genocide as the only reasonable inference. As highlighted by Orbach et al., the reliance on compromised sources, the omission of Hamas’s deliberate tactics that inflate civilian harm, and the selective use of official statements create a narrative that overreaches the available evidence. The devastation in Gaza is undeniable, yet tragedy alone does not equate to genocide under international law. A rigorous application of legal standards must distinguish between deliberate intent to destroy a people and the tragic consequences of asymmetric urban warfare. When examined against these standards, the UN report’s findings remain deeply contested and insufficiently substantiated.
Sources:
IIC, 20250916. “Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, Human Rights Council Sixtieth session, Document: A/HRC/60/CRP.3, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf
Danny Orbach, Jonathan Boxman, Yagil Henkin, Jonathan Braverman. 202509, Debunking the Genocide Allegations: A Reexamination of the Israel-Hamas War from October 7, 2023 to June 1, 2025. The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University. Ramat Gan, Israel.
