UN Commission Declares Israel’s Actions in Gaza Genocide: Implications under International Law

In a landmark development with far-reaching consequences, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, has for the first time concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The Commission’s findings, published on 16 September 2025, mark the most authoritative determination by a UN body to date that Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide under international law.

The Legal Definition of Genocide

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) defines genocide as any of five prohibited acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. These acts include:

1. Killing members of the group.

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm.

3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s destruction.

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births.

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group.

The Commission concluded that Israel had committed at least four of these acts in Gaza: widespread killing, serious physical and mental harm, deliberate imposition of life-threatening conditions (including starvation and blockade), and measures targeting reproduction. Crucially, it also found that these acts were committed with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, either in whole or in part—the threshold that elevates crimes against humanity and war crimes into genocide.

The Evidence of Intent

International law requires not only proof of genocidal acts (actus reus) but also proof of intent. Drawing on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Bosnia v. Serbia (2007), the Commission applied the “only reasonable inference” test. It examined statements by Israeli civilian and military leaders alongside the pattern of operations in Gaza. According to the report, explicit calls by Israeli officials, combined with practices such as systematic starvation, attacks on healthcare, and destruction of cultural and religious institutions, left no plausible explanation other than genocidal intent.

Attribution of Responsibility

The Commission found that responsibility for genocide rests with Israel as a state, given that political and military leaders acted in their official capacities. It specifically named President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant as having incited genocide. Under international law, such conduct engages both state responsibility and individual criminal liability:

• State Responsibility: Israel, as a party to the Genocide Convention, has violated its obligation to prevent, punish, and refrain from genocide. The acts and omissions of its leaders are attributable to the state.

• Individual Responsibility: Leaders may be prosecuted before international tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), which already has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Obligations of Other States

The Commission emphasized that all states, not only Israel, bear binding obligations under international law:

• To Prevent Genocide: States must take all measures reasonably available to halt ongoing genocidal acts. Failure to act, once a risk of genocide is known, may amount to complicity.

• To Punish Genocide: States must prosecute individuals in their jurisdiction who aid, abet, or incite genocide, including private actors such as corporations supplying arms or logistical support.

• To Cooperate with International Justice: This includes ceasing arms transfers, supporting accountability mechanisms, and implementing ICJ provisional measures.

These duties are not optional. As the ICJ held in Bosnia v. Serbia, the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted.

Significance and Precedent

This development is critical in three respects:

1. Authoritative UN Recognition: While human rights groups and legal scholars have previously described Israel’s actions as genocidal, this is the first formal determination by a UN investigative body. It carries significant weight in shaping international responses, legal proceedings, and state policies.

2. Strengthening ICJ Proceedings: South Africa’s ongoing case against Israel at the ICJ alleging genocide in Gaza now receives unprecedented evidentiary support from a UN fact-finding mechanism. This could influence future ICJ judgments and enforcement of provisional measures.

3. Triggering State Obligations: The finding eliminates ambiguity for third states. Continued military assistance to Israel may now expose donor governments to legal liability for complicity. The Commission’s call to halt arms transfers echoes existing international law but now comes with heightened urgency.

The Road Ahead

The report is both a legal and moral indictment. It leaves little room for states or international institutions to claim uncertainty about whether genocide is occurring in Gaza. The international community must now decide whether to enforce the law it created in 1948 to ensure that “never again” would not remain an empty promise.

As Commission Chair Navi Pillay warned, silence in the face of such findings is not neutrality but complicity. Under the Genocide Convention and customary international law, every day of inaction is not only a political choice but a potential violation of legal duty.