The UN’s Genocide Libel: Why the Commission of Inquiry Cannot Be Taken Seriously

26 September, 2025

117

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has again delivered a political spectacle rather than a pursuit of justice. Its Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into Israel recently went so far as to accuse the Jewish state of committing genocide in Gaza. Such a charge carries the heaviest weight in international law and in moral discourse. Yet when it comes from this Commission, the accusation tells us far more about the UN’s own dysfunction than it does about Israel’s conduct.

A Mandate Designed to Convict

From its inception in 2021, the CoI was unlike any other UN investigation. It was granted a permanent, open-ended mandate — a standing inquisition that uniquely singles out Israel for ongoing scrutiny, without time limits and without comparable mechanisms for any other conflict on earth. Syria, Sudan, China, Iran — none of their atrocities warrant such permanent attention. Only Israel is placed under this microscope. This mandate was not designed to find truth; it was designed to convict.

Commissioners with a Record of Bias

The credibility of any inquiry depends on the impartiality of its members. Here the CoI fails decisively. All three commissioners have faced public condemnation for antisemitic or anti-Israel remarks:

Miloon Kothari claimed that “the Jewish lobby” controls social media — an echo of the oldest antisemitic trope of Jewish manipulation.
Chris Sidoti dismissed Jewish concerns about antisemitism as “thrown like rice at weddings.”
Navi Pillay, the chair, has a long record of dismissing Jewish complaints as “diversions” and defending colleagues caught making antisemitic remarks.

When those tasked with investigating Israel already betray prejudice against Jews, their conclusions cannot be taken as impartial.

Flawed Methodology, Predictable Results

Because Israel rightly refuses to legitimise this biased process, the CoI relies heavily on reports from NGOs with political agendas and casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. In practice, this means the Commission functions as an amplifier of Hamas propaganda, while treating Israeli evidence and security concerns as secondary or irrelevant.

Most damning is the way the CoI treats civilian casualties (tragic though they are) as proof of genocidal intent. International law requires something far more exacting: dolus specialis, a demonstrable intent to destroy a people. Hamas openly declares such intent against Jews. Israel, by contrast, undertakes daily efforts to limit civilian harm — issuing warnings, opening humanitarian corridors, and risking its soldiers to reduce civilian casualties. To twist these efforts into “genocide” is not law; it is slander.

A Dangerous Double Standard

The UN’s credibility is undermined by its selective outrage. No CoI has accused Bashar al-Assad of genocide for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Syrians. No permanent inquiry has been created for China’s persecution of Uyghurs. But Israel (defending itself after the October 7 massacre) is uniquely tarred with the gravest of crimes. This double standard is not accidental. It reflects a decades-long pattern in the UN system where Israel is demonised and delegitimised through special treatment that no other state endures.

Weaponising “Genocide”

By branding Israel with genocide, the CoI not only libels the Jewish state — it also cheapens the term itself. The Genocide Convention was created after the Holocaust to ensure the world would never again ignore real extermination campaigns. To misuse the word as a political weapon erodes its meaning, making it harder to mobilise the world against genuine genocides in the future.

New Zealand’s Role

New Zealand cannot turn a blind eye. Our government contributes millions of dollars to UN agencies entangled with Hamas and endorses UN processes that single out Israel while excusing its enemies. When a UN body accuses Israel of genocide on such flimsy, biased grounds, Wellington must ask itself whether it is enabling international justice—or abetting an international injustice.

Conclusion

The UN CoI’s genocide accusation does not emerge from impartial evidence or sound law. It is the inevitable product of a structurally biased mandate, compromised commissioners, and flawed methodology. Far from defending human rights, the Commission emboldens Hamas, deepens distrust in the UN, and trivialises the very concept of genocide.

New Zealand, and all nations committed to fairness, should reject this libel and call the CoI what it is: not an inquiry, but an inquisition.