ECAJ statement on the UN Human Rights Council report on war in Gaza.
The ECAJ has strongly condemned the report of the so-called “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel”, dismissing it as lacking any semblance of legal rigour or moral authority.
“The report is a collection of allegations, reports and opinions that have never been tested in any court of law”, said ECAJ President Daniel Aghion. “No witnesses have been sworn, examined and cross-examined, and no contrary or exculpatory evidence has been considered in any kind of judicial process.”
“Accordingly, contrary to the assertions made in the report, the evidence of alleged genocidal intent is anything but ‘conclusive’, and is far from the ‘only reasonable inference that could be drawn’.”
“Civilian deaths in war, even on a large scale, especially in Gaza where Hamas deliberately uses civilians a human shields, is not “genocide” unless certain other criteria are met. The report refers only to ‘reasonable grounds’ for concluding that those criteria have been satisfied. This is far below the evidentiary standard for a finding of genocide or any other crime, which requires an impartial court to decide that each of the elements of the crime have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
“There is abundant evidence that, even when it is militarily disadvantageous for it to do so, Israel in conducting a war of self-defence (a fact omitted from the report), has moved Palestinians out of harm’s way before an attack, given advance warnings of strikes at specific locations, set up humanitarian corridors, and facilitated the flow of aid in a way that prevents Hamas from stealing it, all of which points in the opposite direction of a genocidal intent”, Mr Aghion said.
“The presumption of innocence used to be a bedrock principle of fairness, but the concept that one is innocent until a court has found one guilty has been abrogated as far as Israel is concerned.”
“A legal opinion even from an eminent expert or untested “findings” by human rights organisations are not the same thing as a conclusively established finding by a court after a fair trial.”
“Legal opinions often vary greatly and frequently reflect the political or ideological views of those giving them. This particular Commission of Inquiry consists of three individuals who have a long prior record of antipathy and prejudice towards Israel, and have not even pretended to be impartial.”
“In the case of the current conflict in Gaza, the only genocidal intent that has been openly confessed to has been the genocide of Israelis by Hamas on October 7, 2023: YouTube video; MEMRI video. And see a peer-reviewed analysis here. Yet the UN seems incapable of using the word “genocide” in association with Hamas.”
“The allegation that Israel has committed genocide is currently before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the South Africa v. Israel case. The ICJ has not expressed any conclusion, or even any preliminary or provisional conclusion about this question, let alone a finding beyond reasonable doubt, because it has not begun hearing evidence. It has heard submissions from lawyers, but submissions from lawyers are not evidence.”
“There continue to be reports in the media uncritically repeating the false claim that in its Provisional Measures interim ruling on 26 January 2024, the ICJ found that Israel had committed ‘plausible genocide’. This falsehood has been firmly debunked by Judge Joan Donoghue who, as ICJ President at the time, delivered the Provisional Measures ruling in this case. Judge Donoghue said in a BBC interview “I’m correcting what’s often said in the media – it [the ICJ] didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible”. Instead, she explained, the ICJ held that it was plausible to claim that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, like all national, ethnic, racial or religious groups, have the right to be protected from acts of genocide.”
(Source: Former head of ICJ explains ruling on genocide case against Israel brought by S Africa (bbc.com), dated 26 April 2024.)
“Judge Donoghue confirmed that the ICJ had made it clear that it was not prejudging, even on an interim basis, whether any acts have in fact been committed with genocidal intent, and will only consider this question in the trial phase. Until the full trial takes place and a determination is reached, any allegation that the ICJ has made even a preliminary finding that genocide has occurred is completely false.”
(Source: “The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention”, see paragraph 62, page 19, International Court of Justice Provisional Measures Order, available at: Order of 26 January 2024 (icj-cij.org), dated 26 January 2024; and Brian Doctor KC, Unherd, The flaws in the genocide case against Israel – UnHerd, dated 1 March 2024.)
Mr Aghion also referred to a 311 page study into the war in Gaza released on 2 September 2025 by the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies (BESA), an independent nonpartisan think-tank in Israel. The study based its findings not on opinions but on statistical facts via a forensic examination of IDF tactics, casualty figures, food truck deliveries and UN reports. The study concluded definitively that there is no evidence of a systematic Israeli policy of targeting or massacring civilians and no evidence that aerial bombing was a part of a genocidal policy of killing innocent Palestinians.
“Although this study is also not a court decision, it should give any fair-minded person pause, and demonstrate why questions of criminal guilt should be decided by impartial courts rather than so-called Commissions of Inquiry with a barely-disguised political agenda.”
“This flawed report must not be used as a springboard for introducing the long list of sanctions against Israel and other actions which it calls for, in an attempt to isolate Israel and effectively reward Hamas with victory.”