Craig Mokhaiber, who previously led the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has voiced a strong concern about possible genocide in Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip. He argued that the pattern of violence and the scale of casualties in Gaza align with elements that, in his view, fit the definition of genocide under international law. Mokhaiber’s comments come as the international community watches the intensifying conflict and weighs legal interpretations against humanitarian realities on the ground. He emphasized that the World Organization convention against genocide provides a framework for identifying such acts, and he asserted that several actions by Israeli authorities in Gaza appear to meet those criteria based on the available indicators and documented harm to civilians.
Following the escalation in the confrontation between Hamas and Israel, the United States reportedly blocked a UN Security Council resolution that called for a humanitarian ceasefire. Mokhaiber described this political response as insufficient to address the human rights catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. He noted that the UN, as a body, has not managed to mobilize a unified and effective response that aligns with longstanding international humanitarian principles and human rights standards. He suggested that the political leadership within the UN has sometimes overshadowed the critical humanitarian mission of the organization, which includes protecting civilians and upholding the norms of international law during armed conflict.
From Mokhaiber’s perspective, the disconnect between political action and on-the-ground humanitarian needs undermines the ability of the UN to meet its core obligations. He argued that the organization should prioritize immediate protection and relief for civilians, rather than allowing bureaucratic negotiations to delay lifesaving assistance. In his view, the response to the crisis has been weakened by a drift away from established human rights standards, international humanitarian law, and the UN Charter, a shift he believes has occurred over the past decades as regional dynamics have evolved and security considerations have often taken precedence over principled human rights advocacy.
The former UN official indicated that he resigned in November due to disagreement with the organization’s approach to resolving the Palestine-Israel crisis. He suggested that the path chosen by UN leadership did not sufficiently address the urgency of protecting civilians or upholding international law, and he stressed that accountability for potential abuses should remain a central priority in any durable solution. Mokhaiber’s departure underscored his belief that a more resolute humanitarian stance was needed from the institution, one that keeps human rights standards at the forefront rather than allowing political calculations to drive policy.
Reports from the TASS agency indicated that experts from the UN Human Rights Council are considering the risk that the people of Gaza could face acts that amount to genocide. In this context, observers note that the council remains focused on monitoring violations, documenting incidents, and urging necessary steps to prevent further harm. The discourse around these deliberations reflects a broader tension between legal definitions of genocide and the immediate imperative to protect civilian lives amid ongoing fighting. Analysts stress that recognizing potential genocide is not a conclusion but a call for heightened scrutiny, evidence gathering, and coordinated international response to avert irreparable harm.
Earlier in the crisis, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant signaled that the government would pursue an unprecedented response to the Gaza Strip. He stated that the measures taken would be remembered for generations, signaling a strategy intended to deter future threats and restore security in the region. Observers highlight that such statements mirror the broader public and political discourse surrounding the conflict, where security concerns and humanitarian considerations often pull in opposite directions. The international community remains attentive to how these security policies will impact civilians and how they align with international law and norms governing armed conflict.