The Current - Israel faces more allegations of genocide.

Episode Date: September 19, 2025

Another claim of genocide has been lodged against Israel. This time by the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Human Rights lawyer Chris Sidoti explains how the commission came to their conclusions.

Did you know that it was once illegal to shop on Sundays? That's true for when I was born. I remember this, and I'm not that old. I'm not, okay? Leave me alone. Anyway, I'm Phelan Johnson, and I host See You in Court, a new podcast about the cases that changed Canada and the ordinary people who drove that change. From the drugstore owner who defied the Lord's Day, to the migma man who defended his treaty right to fish, to the gay teacher who got fired and fought back. Find and follow, see you in court, wherever you get your. Your podcasts. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast.

Today, we published our report analyzing Israel's conduct in the Gaza, strip pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Commission concluded that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza and that it is continuing with that genocide. That's Navi Pillay, the chair of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel. This week, that UN commission investigating the war in Gaza concluded that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians as defined by the 1948 genocide convention.

It is the strongest language yet from the international body and comes before the UN General Assembly's high-level week. where several countries, including Canada, are set to recognize a Palestinian state. The release of the report also comes as Israel launches a ground offensive into Gaza City, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to flee as the bombing intensifies. Chris Sidoti is an Australian human rights lawyer and one of the three members of that UN commission. He is in Geneva. Chris Sidoti, hello. Hello, how are you?

I'm well. I want to get to your findings, but first, legally, how does the genocide Convention of 1948 define a genocide? The Genocide Convention defines genocide first by means of five categories of act. Our report found that four of those categories are acts that have been committed in Gaza by the Israeli forces since October 2023. The categories that we found are killing of members of the particular group, in this case Palestinians. Secondly, causing serious harm to members of the group, both physical harm and psychological harm. Third, destroying the capacity for ordinary life in Gaza

so that the group, the Palestinians there, are able to live decent lives. Fourth, destroying or reducing the reproductive capacity of the group. So those four genocidal acts we found in Gaza. The fifth category of act, the act of transferring children from one group to another, we did not find. The acts have to be committed with the explicit purpose of destroying the group in whole or in part. We then had to turn to the issue of genocidal purpose. And in this case, we found that there was genocidal purpose.

And so it came to the conclusion that this was genocide. Israel has refused to cooperate with this commission and did not grant it or you entry into Israel or access into areas of the West Bank or Gaza. So how did you go about gathering the evidence that? would lead you to this conclusion? All commissions of inquiry of the United Nations like ours, no matter what country they deal with, face the same obstacle that the country that they're investigating refuses any form of cooperation whatsoever. So this is the standard response from acts that are responsible for atrocities. In our case, and in all the cases, there are well-developed methodologies. Just because we're not permitted access to the territory of Israel and also

the territory of Palestine. Because Israel controls the external borders of Palestine, it is able to stop us going to Palestine as well. That makes it more difficult for us to conduct our investigations, but it doesn't make the investigations impossible. We continue to be able to interview people who are witnesses or victims of international crimes in the places where they live and where they're working. We also speak to other eyewitnesses. In this situation, we're have particularly emphasized the need to collect evidence from foreign doctors and nurses and humanitarian workers. What they see while they are there is firsthand eyewitness evidence and is especially important evidence. Normally we would seek to speak to foreign journalists

as well, but that's not been possible in terms of foreign journalists as far as this conflict is concerned. The only exceptions have been a handful of journalists who, have been allowed to accompany Israeli forces and have been very tightly supervised in where they go, what they see, and who they talk to. But we certainly have been able to speak to Palestinian journalists who are still there in Gaza, still reporting on what's going on. We have an enormous quantity of digital evidence, videos, photographs, satellite imagery, and we are able to verify or to invalidate that. And once we've verified digital imagery, we are able to rely upon that as evidence as well. We talk to UN officials. We deal with UN reports. And of course, we speak with

non-government organisations. Where the difficulty is greatest relates to our investigations inside Israel itself. We have produced a very early report on what happened in southern Israel on the 7th of October 2023. And we made findings in that report that the Hamas fighters had committed war crimes. Our report is still the most comprehensive on the events of 7-8 October 2023 in southern Israel. Our investigations were limited because the Israeli authorities would not allow us in, would not provide us with access to the victims and the witnesses to the events. We were forced to rely very much on digital imagery and the small number of witnesses that we were able to contact directly. I want to ask you about the issue of intent, which is crucial in a

case like this. The UN ambassador for Israel in Geneva, Daniel Meroon, said that the report falsely accuses Israel of genocidal intent and allegation it cannot substantiate. Why do you say that you were able to prove intent here? Our investigations looked at the issue of intent through two particular legal approaches. First is the issue of direct evidence. And it's unusual in genocide investigations to actually find strong direct evidence. In this case, though, we have very clear, unequivocal, repeated statements by people in the most senior leadership positions within the Israeli government and the Israeli military. Statements that began on the 7th of October 23, and are still continuing. And they make it perfectly clear what the

intentions, the purposes of the Israeli government is and the Israeli military is when they are operating in Gaza. So in many respects, they are damned out of their own mouths. What is particularly significant for us is that those statements are still being made, but they can't just be rejected or trivialized on the basis that they were spur-of-the-moment things that occurred on 7-8 October, the Hamas attacks on that day were deadly, they were war crimes, they were traumatic for the people of Israel, highly emotional responses then were predictable, expected, and understandable. But the statements that we're referring to started on that day and are continuing now to two years later. They have reached a point where we can't just say, can't just dismiss them

as being heat of the moment kind of reactions. They are clear statements of the Israeli policy, the Israeli military strategy in relation to Gaza. So you believe the comments made by people like the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the chief of the defense staff, or the Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who said after October the 7th, it's not true, this rhetoric about civilians, not aware, not involved, you believe those comments could lead to incitement of genocide? We certainly believe that they could lead to incitement of genocide, but I would also go one step further and say that they are statements indicating where persons in command responsibility, those who were able to give orders and have their orders implemented, were giving orders,

indicating to their troops exactly what they wanted to happen, and that the troops acted upon that. But we go further than that and say that those in positions of command, both political and military, clearly indicated what they wanted, what they ordered their soldiers to do, and that these instructions were understood right down the chain of command to soldiers on the ground in Gaza. The second strand is what in Canadian law and in my law in Australia is called circumstantial evidence. and that is evidence that is not like a smoking gun but that enables a conclusion to be drawn on the basis of all of the circumstances

the fact that there is massive bombardment that began on the 7th of October that has led to and is continuing to totally destroy the infrastructure of Gaza hospitals, clinics, schools, universities churches and mosques, archaeological sites, museums and libraries, agricultural land that has been used to grow food,

fisheries, and even roads, basic for transport and communication. Our conclusion was that all of this evidence of the pattern of conduct leads to the only reasonable conclusion that this was carried out for genocidal purposes. What kind of person takes on the law? Can they ever really know what they're getting into?

A really tough-looking guy came up to us and said, are you part of this gay case? My family started getting death threats. I wasn't able to go outside alone anymore. I'm Phelan Johnson, host of See You in Court, a new podcast about the cases that changed Canada and the ordinary people who made history. This is David and Goliath we have here. Find and follow See You in Court wherever you get your podcasts. Israel would say, and again, over the course, course of this war has said that they have, that country has not broken the laws of war or international humanitarian law, that these are actions of self-defense and protection of its

citizens in the wake of being attacked, but also given the fact that some of its citizens are being held hostage. Israel hasn't responsibility to protect its own citizens and its residents. And for that reason, a response to the Hamas attacks of the 7th of October was legitimate, reasonable and necessary, but it had to be proportionate. The commission of war crimes, as we found by Hamas fighters on the 7th of October, does not justify the commission of war crimes by the Israeli forces. It justifies military action, but the military action must be proportionate and reasonable and necessary. We're now two years down the track. We now have 65,000 identified Palestinian bodies, and God knows how many thousands or tens of thousands

who are buried under the rubble or who have died as a result of disease or treatable illnesses that were unable to be treated or now starvation. This has been going on for two years. The number of hostages released as a result of the military action is about a handful. The great majority, almost all of the hostages who have been freed, have been freed. as a result of negotiations between Israel and Hamas through intermediaries. And it remains the case that the best prospect for getting their remaining living hostages out alive is through negotiation. Any justification for this military action on the basis that it is protecting Israeli citizens or residents across the border from Gaza that is directed towards releasing

the hostages, any of those justifications have long since disappeared. The Israeli foreign ministry, again, has responded forcefully to this report, and this is a quotation, calling you and your colleagues Hamas proxies notorious for their openly anti-Semitic position. How do you respond? This is in part about how this is going to be received, how it's being received. Now, how do you respond to claims like that? That's not responding forcefully. That's responding with invective and slogans. I would welcome a forceful response that engaged with the evidence. We never get that from any part of the Israeli elite, the military or the political. It's just rhetorical crap. Full stop. Rhetorical crap. full stop, full stop. I would like them. I would love them. I beg them to engage with the evidence that we have produced. Israel and the United States have both boycotted the United Nations Human Rights Council because they believe that this council is biased. How much impact do you think if those two nations aren't engaging with this? How much impact can a report like this have, do you think? I have long since lost any hope of having any impact on Israel or the United States.

Our reports are written, first, for the public record. In any situation of gross human rights violation, the victims are entitled to have their experience recorded, analyzed, reported, so that history can actually report what has happened. Second, we seek to, through our reports, increase the prospects of accountability. The courts, both international and domestic, take our reports seriously.

The International Court of Justice, for example, when it delivered its advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation of Palestine last July, are quoted extensively from our reports. The International Criminal Court in issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Galant, in part, based their decision-making on our reports. And third, our reports are addressed not to Israel and the United States,

but to the other 191 countries in the world that have obligations under international law to do something in relation to what is happening in Gaza. We are reminding them of the obligations and we're urging them to act upon them. What do you want to see from the body that represents many of those states, the United Nations? When he was asked by journalists this week, if he would consider using the word genocide. The UN human rights chief Volker-Turk said it's for the court to decide whether it's genocide or not. The Secretary General has also not used that word. What do you want to see from the UN? Well, what I want to see from the Secretary General and the High Commissioner and others is acknowledgement that our report has found genocide and both

have done so. So they have done what I would like them to do. The international Court of Justice will decide whether there is genocide or not. That's going to take another two to three years. This is the most authoritative analysis of the situation in Gaza. And we expect to be treated like that. I was going to say, what do you see, you talked about the obligations on nations. What do you see, there are a list of recommendations at the end of this report, things like an arms embargo, but also sanctions against the state of Israel. Are those the sorts of obligations that you believe the nations of the world need to follow through on? the wake of a little point like this?

Well, certainly an arms embargo. An arms embargo is a no-brainer. States should not be providing Israel with the means by which you can continue to carry out genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Court of Justice itself gave the lead on that. In July last year, it issued its advisory opinion on the occupation and the settlements, and it said the occupation is unlawful, and the settlements are unlawful. And it devoted a significant part of its decision.

to the obligations of third states, that is states other than Israel and Palestine. And it said that third states must not undertake any action that aids or assists the continuation of the unlawful actions of Israel. And it listed action in the areas of politics, diplomacy, arms trade, trade, cultural relationships. Now, individual states should respond that decision by the International Court of Justice by examining every aspect of their relationship with Israel, identifying what aspects could in any way aid and assist the continuation of

Israel's unlawful acts, and then stopping those aspects, ending them, finishing it. And it means looking across the board. Some countries continue to have military attaches and trade officers. This is a diplomatic aspect of the relationship, and we should not be continuing defence relationships and promoting trade until we are more certain about how trade is going to be used. Countries need to look at whether they are trading with Israel in a way that provides financial support for settlements or in any way sponsors or enables the development of Israel's military capacity. When people talk about the arms trade, they generally talk about the provision of armaments to Israel and the Israeli military. But this is a two-way issue. And the area

that concerns me most relates to surveillance technology and other forms of information technology. Are you confident that that will follow? Many of the nations of the world will gather next week in New York for the UN General Assembly. I think that this will be one of the issues that has to be discussed. Many states already have taken comprehensive action in relation to their relationship with Israel. Many have, but most of not. And I hope that the meetings in New York next week focus very closely on relationships with Israel, aspects of those relationships. I'm not suggesting that Israel should be totally isolated. But what I am saying is that there needs to be very rigorous examination of these relationships so that we can determine what is supporting

the military's operations in Gaza, what is supporting genocide, war crimes, crime, against humanity and what is enabling or assisting the continuation of the occupation and the settlements policy. Chris Sidoti, we'll leave it there. It's good to speak with you. Thank you very much. Thanks very much. Chris Sidoti is an Australian human rights lawyer, member of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel. You've been listening to the current podcast. My name's Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.com. slash podcasts.