After two years of relentless violence in Gaza, the United Nations has delivered a stark judgment: Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the besieged enclave. On September 20, 2025, following a lengthy investigation that began in the aftermath of the October 2023 Hamas attacks, the UN Commission of Inquiry released a report asserting that Israel’s actions meet four out of five criteria outlined in the Genocide Convention. The commission, attached to the UN Human Rights Council, pointed to statements by Israeli authorities as “direct evidence of genocidal intent.”
This declaration, while seismic in its implications, was not entirely unexpected. For months, international experts, world leaders, and human rights organizations have sounded the alarm over the mounting civilian toll and the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. According to The Guardian, former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern joined this growing chorus during the ongoing UN General Assembly meeting, labeling the war in Gaza a “genocide.” In her widely discussed opinion piece, Ardern urged, “There is a path to stopping the genocide still happening daily before us: more countries must recognise Palestinian statehood; any cooperation that facilitates military action must end.”
The UN’s report did not emerge in a vacuum. The commission’s work began shortly after the October 2023 escalation and has involved a painstaking review of evidence, testimony, and public statements over two years. Their findings are unequivocal: there is intent to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, and Israel has committed acts defined as genocide under international law. The report’s release, just one day after an independent international commission attached to the UN Human Rights Council published similar findings, has only intensified the global debate.
Predictably, Israel has rejected the report’s conclusions. A government spokesperson dismissed the findings as “fake and based on Hamas lies,” and called for the abolition of the UN Commission of Inquiry, accusing it of antisemitism—a familiar refrain in previous confrontations with international legal bodies. When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year, Israel and its allies responded with outrage. Then-US President Joe Biden called the warrant “outrageous,” and his successor, Donald Trump, went so far as to introduce sanctions against ICC personnel while inviting Netanyahu to the White House. Given this history, few observers expect a shift in Israel’s or the US’s position in response to the latest UN report.
Yet the international conversation is evolving. Ardern’s intervention at the UN General Assembly is notable not just for her condemnation of Israel’s conduct, but for her focus on the war’s impact on women and children. Drawing on her work with the International Rescue Committee’s “Safer Births in Crises” program, which recently received $4 million from the Matariki Fund for Women, Ardern highlighted the grim statistics: globally, 70,000 women die each year from postpartum hemorrhaging, a toll that rises sharply in war zones and humanitarian crises. “Women give birth during war, and they die. But they shouldn’t. Not in the midst of birth, nor in the crossfire of conflict. Sometimes politics and leadership should be as simple as that,” she wrote.
This human dimension, often lost in the avalanche of casualty figures, is central to Ardern’s plea. She urged world leaders to “resist the dehumanisation of numbers” and to respond to the suffering in Gaza with urgency and compassion. Her call comes as UN member states have voted to allow the leader of the Palestinian Authority to address the General Assembly, signaling a modest but significant shift in diplomatic engagement with the Palestinian cause.
The UN report’s legal foundation rests on the Genocide Convention, adopted in the wake of the Holocaust to prevent the “intentional mass destruction of a group of people based on religion, ethnicity or another identity or characteristic.” According to CFR Education, the term “genocide” has been fiercely debated ever since—its application fraught with political, legal, and moral complexity. The commission’s assertion that Israeli authorities’ statements constitute “direct evidence of genocidal intent” is a grave charge, one that carries potential ramifications for international law and accountability.
Not everyone agrees with the commission’s findings. The report has sparked sharp debate among legal experts. On PBS NewsHour, Craig Mokhabir and Dr. Eran Shamir-Borer offered contrasting interpretations. Mokhabir, a human rights lawyer, argued that the evidence presented by the commission—including official statements and documented actions—meets the legal threshold for genocide. Shamir-Borer, on the other hand, disputed this conclusion, questioning both the interpretation of intent and the reliability of the evidence. This debate underscores the enduring challenge of defining and prosecuting genocide in the international arena.
The broader context cannot be ignored. For decades, Israel has accused the United Nations of bias, citing a long history of critical resolutions and investigations. The current report, based on two years of evidence-gathering, is the latest flashpoint in this contentious relationship. According to BBC, Israel’s government maintains that it is acting in self-defense against Hamas and other militant groups, and that civilian casualties are a tragic but unavoidable consequence of urban warfare. Critics, however, point to the scale and intensity of the destruction in Gaza as evidence of disproportionate force and deliberate targeting of civilians.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. Aid agencies warn of collapsing health infrastructure, widespread food insecurity, and a generation of children traumatized by war. Ardern’s focus on maternal health is a stark reminder that the consequences of conflict extend far beyond the battlefield. In her words, “In high-income countries, deaths from PPH have nearly been eliminated. But globally, 70,000 women are still dying every year. That’s one PPH death every 7.5 minutes.”
As the world absorbs the UN’s findings, the question remains: what happens next? The report’s release has reignited calls for international recognition of Palestinian statehood and an immediate end to military operations in Gaza. Some leaders argue that diplomatic isolation and legal accountability are necessary to halt the bloodshed; others warn that such measures could further entrench divisions and undermine prospects for peace.
One thing is certain—the debate over Israel’s conduct in Gaza, and the meaning of genocide in the modern era, is far from settled. As the UN General Assembly convenes and world leaders weigh their responses, the fate of millions hangs in the balance. For the people of Gaza, and for those advocating on their behalf, the hope is that this latest reckoning will finally prompt meaningful action—and not just more words.