This included the targeting of children with shots to the chest and forehead, the bombing of fertility clinics, the sexual violence against Palestinian women, and the destruction of hospitals and schools.
Drawing on thousands of testimonies, satellite images, and medical reports, along with the two other members of the committee, the human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti and the expert on housing and land rights Miloon Kothari, Pillay uncovered a methodical, orchestrated campaign of destruction, patterns leaving no doubt that this is deliberate genocide.
She says the commission identified four of the five genocidal acts defined under the UN Genocide Convention as being carried out by Israel, and the mass killings of Palestinians cannot be called accidental, nor, based on the evidence, can they be justified as military objectives.
Ahram Online: Can you walk us through the work of your commission? Specifically, when did you begin, and how did you conduct your investigation that led to this conclusion about an Israeli genocide in Gaza?
Navi Pillay: The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory was established in 2021 by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate all alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. We have been investigating and gathering evidence since the beginning of the war in Gaza two years ago. And each time we investigated a killing or an episode of sexual violence, we included that in an official report to the UN, and we recorded it.
Just before writing this, we gathered all the facts that we have established. We have not included anything that we didn't personally investigate and verify. We collaborated with numerous agencies within the UN, utilising satellite footage and expert advice from the military, including one of our team members.
We didn't look at anybody else's report. However, some very well-known NGOs have come out declaring a genocide, and the Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian territories, Fransceca Albanessa, also concluded. Yet, this commission is different. It's independent. We had a much bigger scope, and we have the obligation to share this information with judicial institutions that are prosecuting or holding hearings. That is why we observed the well-established methodology developed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
We heard from NGOs inside Israel, some of which were banned or shut down because of Israel and the United States’ desire to shield Netanyahu from ICC prosecution. We called witnesses ranging from ordinary Israelis, both Jews and Arabs, to Palestinians, to doctors, most of them foreign volunteers who came into Gaza to serve and had no motive to lie or exaggerate. We cross‑checked all their information. That's an extensive process.
AO: Your commission has issued previous reports, but this is the only one concluding that Israel has committed four of the five genocidal acts under the Genocide Convention and continues to commit them. Can you explain the evidence that led you to reach this conclusion now?
NP: We did not start by applying the label “genocide”. We reached that conclusion only after examining all the evidence and connecting the statements indicating intent from leaders at the top. From my own experience, I knew that the overarching test of genocidal intent had to be proved.
Even under the Genocide Convention, you have the crime of killing, which means prosecutors must prove intent to kill. To prove genocide, prosecutors must also show intent to kill members of a political, ethnic, religious or racial group as such. That was our test. The evidence is extensive, comprising a 70-page report, with every item verified.
Of the five underlying acts, we found four present. The first is killing members of the group, in this case Palestinians, on racial and religious grounds, and we connected it to the pattern of acts committed by the Israeli forces. The second is causing serious bodily or mental harm. We tracked all the statistics, with 60,199 individuals identified as of 31 July. We focused on children and found evidence that they were directly targeted. We got a lot of that evidence from doctors who told us children had wounds to the forehead and chest, not the limbs.
The third act is deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part. The fourth is imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. For example, Israel destroyed 4,000 embryos in the Gaza Fertility Clinic, the only one in the Strip. When the Israelis smashed that clinic, nitrogen tanks preserving embryos were targeted. That has to give you an idea of the pattern of conduct.
Mass killings of Palestinians cannot be called accidental, nor, from the evidence, can they be justified as military objectives. We examined leaders’ statements and the actual targets. For example, we could not find any military objective in destroying those embryos. We concluded it was the destruction of Palestinian life, of Palestinian future, of their dignity.
AO: And you excluded the fifth genocidal act, the forcible transfer of children from one group to another?
NP: Yes, we found no evidence of that. If we do find any, we will verify it, examine it, and so on. But so far, we have not been able to find any proof.
AO: What patterns of conduct confirm this intent on genocide?
NP: We always start with the facts, which is what any prosecutor in any country does. Let's get the evidence of what happened. Then you name the crime. So in that case, the pattern of conduct of Israeli authorities and Israeli forces to show that genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference. That is the standard of the International Court of Justice.
AO: What do you mean by the only reasonable inference?
NP: I mean, if it were clearly a military objective, would the soldiers only be shooting Hamas, for example, then the killing of Palestinians in general in such large numbers would not be the only reasonable inference. If you can reasonably infer it was self‑defence or to destroy Hamas, as Israel and the United States claim, then we would have ruled out genocide.
However, we didn't see the military objective in destroying those structures. What we saw were killings, serious bodily and mental harm, and the destruction of cultural, religious and educational facilities. As we worked on that, I was deeply moved by the destruction of antique structures that people have treasured for centuries. Schools and universities have all been destroyed. And once you destroy infrastructure, you erode the lives and values of Palestinians. Thirdly, the use of siege. As we all know, the Palestinians were virtually held like prisoners in the closed Gaza Strip or sealed off.
This came with starvation, deprivation of food, water, medical aid and destruction of the healthcare system. It is unlawful under international law to go and destroy hospitals, block humanitarian aid, and stop people from getting decent healthcare and medicines, and then deny exits for Palestinians who urgently needed treatment. That would fall in that category that we examined, and we couldn't see how killing children and gravely ill patients in hospitals advances any military objective.
AO: So you were investigating cases that are not military objectives or cannot be justified as such, and you excluded all those?
NP: We did not exclude them; we looked for them. We found only one case in which Hamas had allegedly used a hospital to hold prisoners or maintain a presence. Just one. Yet Israel used that as justification for damaging all hospitals. The International Court of Justice requires a stringent test: if there is a reasonable inference of self‑defence, you cannot call it genocide. Only when the only inference left is the destruction of Palestinians can you call it genocide.
AO: One of the most shocking parts to confirm your findings in the report was the sexual and gender-based violence...
NP: It was extremely serious. We documented sexual and gender‑based violence not only from Palestinian women’s testimonies but also from pictures and videos Israeli soldiers themselves posted as trophies to humiliate and destroy Palestinian women’s self‑respect. As Muslim women worldwide, Palestinian women are particularly protected against public exposure. In the Rwanda tribunal, I said sexual violence destroys life itself for the woman. That applies here.
AO: So you are talking about systemic targeting of schools, of healthcare systems, hospitals, children, violence against girls, women, and starvation. These are the patterns you are talking about?
NP: That's right—also, the destruction of ancient monuments and the destruction of homes. We have a lot of that. It's all connected to genocide.
AO: And then we have a pattern of statements of Israeli officials that goes in parallel with those practices, and you name specific Israeli leaders in this respect?
NP: Look at how early leaders made these statements. At a press conference on the afternoon of 7 October 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to inflict “mighty vengeance on all of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in that wicked city. We will turn them into rubble. I say to residents of Gaza, leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.” Although he directed the call for vengeance at Hamas locations, his use of “wicked city” implied the whole of Gaza was a target for revenge. He told Palestinians “leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere,” making no distinction between combatants and civilians, and knowing that they had nowhere to go. That is the cruellest part.
On 9 October 2023, Israel's Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced a complete siege on Gaza, claiming that Israel was fighting “human animals” and that Israel must “act accordingly”.
On 10 October 2023, in a speech to Israeli forces, Galan 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”. Again, equating the entire Palestinian population with Hamas.
On 14 October 2023, President Isaac Herzog stated it was “absolutely not true” that civilians were uninvolved. This is one reason we identified three individuals as responsible.
We also have many military quotes. “We shall go out to it, meaning the enemy in war, we shall pulverize. Every accursed plot of land from which it came, we shall destroy it, and the memory of it, and we shall not return until it is annihilated. And God doth render vengeance to his adversaries, and doth make expiation for the land of his people. The Lord will give strength to his people, and he shall guard thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth and forever. This is our war. Today is our turn”, said Brigadier General David Bar Khalifa, commander of the 36th Armoured Division.
And of course, Netanyahu’s invocation of Amalek, “this is the war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness”. “God tells the Israelites, 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, oxen, sheep, camel and donkey.”
This is what we gathered on the actual statements made by leaders, which shows that the instructions given to soldiers to kill anyone who doesn't look like an Israeli Jew, or go after any Palestinian.
AO: You served on the UN tribunal for Rwanda, and it’s not about comparing or creating a hierarchy between war crimes and genocide, but is there any precedent in modern history for what is happening in Gaza since October 2023?
NP: The only situation is what happened at the end of World War II, the bombing of two huge cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the United States. They would like to put that out as they saved the world. But that was the most horrific crime. That would be the example.
But when the Nuremberg military tribunals happened and when the Americans put a tribunal that was set up for crimes committed by the Japanese, nobody mentioned those two massive attacks, the atomic bombs. So when these trials were being worked out by the victorious nations, the US, UK, France, and Russia, the genocide was not yet made a crime. The very first time was in 1948, after the United Nations was established, and the Genocide Convention was adopted to say never again, never again should a whole civilian population pay with their lives.
The first time there was a trial for genocide was the Security Council resolution setting up the tribunal for Rwanda. And that's why, when I sat there as a judge and the president of the court later, all three judges in the very first case found that genocide had taken place. And because it's a court case, we heard direct evidence and saw footage, including video footage... Remember, that's the highest standard, which is beyond any doubt.
So in our commission, we followed the same approach. We examined the facts and the political statements. In the Rwandan case, we saw how the Hutus encouraged perpetrators to rape Tutsi women. The mayor would say, “Go ahead, take those girls, the Tutsi girls, and don’t come back tomorrow telling me you don’t know what a Tutsi woman tastes like.”
I wouldn’t compare the two genocides in every aspect. In 1994, the instruments were handheld, not remotely controlled, armed drones like those used today. You can’t defend yourself against modern aerial bombardments; you can’t escape. The weaponry and airstrikes are now extremely efficient, supplied and manufactured by some Western countries such as the United States and Germany. So I don’t draw a technical equivalence.
What we compare, however, is the method of assessing genocidal intent. Here too, we had a prosecution team and a defence team, with witnesses testifying and the defence cross-examining them. In my view, these are the most rigorous tests. It was the first global precedent, and I sat as one of the judges. My experience in judging genocide proved very helpful in this case.
AO: With this conclusion, what concrete steps should be taken immediately?
NP: I want to make it clear that a commission of inquiry is not a court of law. We do not have the means to implement our recommendations, but we are mandated to share information with courts, national or international. We have already provided 16,000 pieces of evidence to the ICC prosecutor at their request. We also received a request from South Africa’s legal team before the International Court of Justice, ICJ.
This is the first UN report whose mandate covers Palestine, Israel, and East Jerusalem. We were mandated to identify crimes and individuals. We have done so as the UN’s voice, and we have identified what's going on now and from 7 October 2023 as genocide. It addresses states directly by saying, "You know the Genocide Convention, it places an obligation on you, it is not a choice, to prevent genocide and to punish genocide."
When I became chair of this commission, I asked how you can prevent genocide if you do not record early warning signs of human rights violations that end up in genocide? With my fellow commissioners, we recommend that all member states, especially those with influence over Israel, immediately halt the killing and harming of civilians in Gaza, guarantee humanitarian access, prevent further destruction of life, and suspend arms transfers or financial assistance that could contribute to further genocidal acts.
There is no need to wait for the International Court of Justice to declare genocide. Member states must act now, not only in Gaza but across the entire occupied Palestinian territory.
AO: What are the legal consequences for states that, despite clear evidence of the genocide, fail to act or to stop it?
NP: We have got two additional mandates halfway through our work. One was that we investigate the transfer of military equipment from other states to Israel, and the second was that we must investigate the violence perpetrated by the settlers and identify those settlers. Do you know we didn't get funding for those two while we are already so short-staffed? By comparison, the Ukraine mechanism and the Syria mechanism have dozens of staff members, with some 80.
We requested 24 and were reduced to 14. If we get the funds, we will investigate the transfer of military equipment and the responsibilities of states. It could be viewed in a worse light than not acting to prevent. Still, if you're actually promoting genocide by supplying arms and equipment, I anticipate that that would be a factor that would worsen the state's responsibilities.
The provisional orders are very serious orders made to every state. Genocide is a very serious crime, the most serious crime.
AO: What struck you most during these two years of investigation?
NP: That it is happening in real time, that it is taking place while we speak. That shocked me most. We are facing a genocide in progress. All previous rulings on genocide have concerned past, concluded episodes. Here, every day, we must constantly adapt our framework to address urgent situations as they arise. That is why we speak of a life-or-death emergency for the Palestinian people. We witness in real time.
The whole world is watching it on TV screens. I can't walk on the street here in my own city, Durban, without people saying, 'We saw it ourselves.' We saw the killing. We are all witnesses.
Short link: