What Responsibility Does The Us Have For The War In Gaza? 

To many Israelis, the war in Gaza is a just cause aimed at destroying a terrorist group and safeguarding their country’s existence. But to a growing number of scholars, analysts and activists, Israel’s actions in the war amount to something else: a genocide against Palestinians. 

Perhaps the most important body so far to level that allegation is a United Nations panel known as the “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.” The commission, which was established in 2021, has investigated Israel’s actions in Gaza and last month issued a report officially declaring Palestinians were enduring a genocide.  

Israel hotly denies the assertion that it is responsible for such an atrocity, a particularly painful claim against a state established in the wake of the Holocaust. But the commission’s report making its case is a sober read packed with statistics, anecdotes — and Israeli leaders’ own heated words. 

To understand the panel’s thinking and its ramifications, POLITICO Magazine spoke with its outgoing chair, Navi Pillay. Pillay is a prominent international lawyer from South Africa whose decades-long career has included participating in the struggle against apartheid and promoting gender equality. She has served as the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, among other influential roles. Pro-Israel activists have at times alleged she’s antisemitic, a claim she dismisses as unfounded. 

In the interview, Pillay stressed that other nations, including the United States, have an obligation to stop the fighting in Gaza. (A peace proposal unveiled this week by President Donald Trump is raising hopes of an end to the war.) 

“This conflict is very different from other conflicts that I have lived through,” Pillay said. “Typically, people are able to flee to neighboring countries, and they get refuge. Here we have a very cruel system, where it's called the prison of Gaza, where they cannot leave.” 

Pillay and the commission’s two other panelists all recently announced their resignations. Pillay cited personal reasons including her age (she just turned 84) and medical issues, though she intends to continue to work as an international jurist.

The following has been edited for length and clarity. 

The commission has concluded that Israel has committed genocide. Does the United States bear any responsibility for this alleged atrocity? 

We have not investigated that specifically yet. I say yet, because we have been mandated, under two additional mandates, to investigate the transfer of arms from states to Israel, and there's also an advisory opinion that's expected from the International Court of Justice on the responsibilities of states. But we say enough here in order to show that helping Israel in this genocide amounts to complicity. And obviously it's very open that the United States is the biggest supplier of military equipment and military advice to the Israelis. 

Now that this declaration has been made by your commission, how do you want the world to respond? 

The international community need not wait for the report from a UN body like the commission. Third states have a duty under international law to not just punish genocide, but also to prevent genocide, and this obligation has been triggered at least since January 2024, through the first provisional measures order by the International Court of Justice. The commission's report should be referred to by the international community — all states — as a strong indicator that they must act now to stop the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip. We have provided some concrete recommendations to states, and these recommendations should be taken seriously and implemented as soon as possible. The Genocide Convention imposes obligations on each state. Whether the genocide is happening in their state or not, there's an obligation. 

What are some examples of what states could do? 

We're not calling for anything in particular. We're sticking to the Genocide Convention, which says you have to prevent genocide, you have to protect people from genocide — prevent and punish is the obligation. That is what we are stressing here. 

So states are left to determine what that action against another state means? 

Where they've taken action, some of them are very good measures — such as sanctions against apartheid South Africa that collectively, with the collective action of civil society and these UN sanctions, apartheid ended. I never thought it would end in my lifetime. We were giving up hope. But it happens when there is collective action by governments together with their citizens. Today, we call these street protests. They can't be ignored. That's the voice of civil society. 

Does the accusation of genocide mean anything anymore? Do the accused really stand to be punished in any meaningful way? The U.S. accused China of committing genocide against the Uyghurs, but I don't see Beijing really caring. 

Well, that's what states do. They have their own interests. They have their regional interests, and they are in favor of their friends and don't apply the same rules to their friends as they do to their foes. So that's one fault — the failure of states to end human rights violations, for instance, lies with the states. The biggest violators of human rights standards are states, and that's why I call for adherence to international law and hear the voices on the streets of your own people.  

Otherwise, I agree with you. It doesn't work. Orders of the International Court of Justice to Israel, for instance, to end the unlawful occupation immediately has not been heeded. In fact, international law is being violated by this one state to the extent that they are defiant. These are what we are sitting with, and that's why this report is important. We're not as important as a court of law, but nevertheless it's a UN report, and it should raise the alarm that states must act now. Some of them recently have decided to recognize the state of Palestine, so that would be a political solution. 

How would you respond to people who argue that it's counterproductive to talk about genocide, that the debate itself so polarizes all sides that other goals such as protecting civilians and holding people accountable are actually less possible? 

This conflict is very different from other conflicts that I have lived through, that you have lived through. Typically, people are able to flee to neighboring countries, and they get refuge. Here we have a very cruel system, where it's called the prison of Gaza, where they cannot leave. They're not allowed to leave even for medical reasons.  

Many people on the streets have told me in my own country, South Africa, “What are you writing about? We can see it for ourselves on our screens.” People are witnessing on a daily basis the killings and burials and ambulances and statements by Israeli politicians and leaders, so they're judging for themselves. We cannot in any way ignore what is happening. We cannot sit back and see the Palestinians being starved to death and a whole group being blamed for the actions of Hamas.  

That's why we have to keep the lens on what's happening ... Action has to be taken by all of us, civil society organizations and international organizations and people generally who demand peace and justice and accountability. Not just the one, but all three. That's my experience. 

I read the commission's report, and I'm a bit struck by how relatively little attention is paid to Hamas, the way it operates, the way it has embedded itself in Gaza's civilian infrastructure, not to mention its extensive underground tunnels. Is there any merit to the Israeli argument that this was a difficult battlefield and that civilian casualties are in many ways Hamas' fault? 

This commission was the first U.N. body, on the 10th of October 2023, to condemn Hamas and call their actions crimes against humanity and war crimes. ... This question keeps coming up, even now, why don't we mention Hamas? Well, we do mention Hamas and remind people that we are still investigating, that we will cooperate with Israel or any other state that puts them on trial, because we do hold some of the evidence. No doubt, Israel has most of the evidence but has not shared that with us. But we have not addressed it in this report, because this is all about Palestine. The main point is there is no excuse, no justification, to avenge atrocities by inflicting genocide, and the court makes that clear as well. ...  

I hope that pretty soon we will have an opportunity to bring out all the further atrocities that were committed by Hamas and their protégés. 

Israel has long said that the United Nations is biased against it, and it does seem to get an unusual amount of attention from UN bodies, even before this war in Gaza. Do you think there’s any legitimacy to Israel's claim that it faces bias? 

I was High Commissioner for Human Rights for six years, so we did hear the complaints that there is this overwhelming attention only on Israel, which is not true. Each time the High Commission, including me, delivered reports, we covered like 50 countries. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is conducted by the Human Rights Council on each and every state in the world. Israel is just part of that human rights work.  

I don't think the member states just choose a country to pick on. They receive complaints from citizens of that country and others and say, “These huge violations are going on here. Please do something.” That's what they respond to. In my time, I was told by the [Israeli] ambassador that I had brought a certain balance to the reporting in that I always ask them to give me their documents and their responses and so I would add that to our report. But it's very difficult to always assume you have to address as a balance, because these are not two equal parties. These are not two equal — it's not even parties — countries facing each other. One is an occupier, and the other is occupied. 

How can Palestinians go on in Gaza? Your commission's report underscores that the territory has become unlivable. How can they continue to stay there? 

They're forced to stay there. Firstly, they're not allowed to leave. Secondly, where can they go to? None of the neighboring countries has offered to take them, and they have a principled reason for that, and that is the Palestinians don't want to leave their land. You can hear them say, “We'd rather die here than leave.”  

Our report is saying they must make [the area] livable, and immediately. There has to be lots of help. ... Those who smashed up these buildings and are destroying the infrastructure, even today as we talk, have to rebuild all that. 

There's an entire website devoted to attacking you, including calling you a promoter of antisemitism. Are you antisemitic? Are you a promoter of antisemitism? 

No one accused me of that during my six years as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The allegation against me — or abuse, shall I say — only came up after I accepted to serve as chair of this commission, and then I noticed they call almost everyone who does not speak in favor of Israel, of the Israeli government, they call everyone else who criticized Israel antisemitic.

I would prefer that the Israeli government and their supporters tell us what they dispute in our findings, in our facts, to tell us where we’re wrong or tell us where we are biased. I'm really disappointed that the U.S. government has instructed their diplomats to see our report as political propaganda and categorical lies. That is so irresponsible to label us as manipulating and acting out of political considerations. 

You're saying you're not antisemitic but people, especially in the Israeli government or pro-Israel supporters use that term loosely. Is it exhausting, frustrating, disappointing? Do you get upset? 

Actually, I don't. I don't, because I'm on the side of what is right. We have the moral high ground. We couldn't go into Israel, but we heard oral testimony from witnesses, from doctors in those hospitals, so we know that this is the truth. It took us two years. We did not rely on any information that we didn't personally investigate and verify. So I'm sure of what we are saying. And I have a long record in my own country as a judge and then became an international judge. Why would I resort to fabrication or political manipulation or lies? I come with my own reputation. I see myself on the right side of history. I check the facts and make this statement. I have no time or inclination to respond to these abusive behaviors. 

But when I asked, “Are you antisemitic?,” you didn't say yes or no. I know you meant no, but is it worth directly answering the question? 

It's not worth engaging in unfounded allegations such as labeling me and the commissioners as antisemitic. We've been addressing this from the time we began in 2021, and they objected to us, even at that point, as antisemitic. Do we now respond each time? We can't match the resources of the lobby groups that support Israel. They have massive resources, and they send out millions of these to people, believers, they use social media. We have our own mandate and work to do, and this is why we don't respond to that allegation until it's directly raised with us.  

How has your experience and background as a South African affected your views of Gaza? 

We're familiar with hunger and starvation and detentions. My husband was detained under the Terrorism Act for nothing. Then after five months, he was released, he was not charged or anything, and so I brought an application that the security police are using torture against him and all the persons I represent in court. We did something about this. I think our whole attitude was how to fight back and how not to succumb, and how to help people who are helpless and do not have some of the opportunities we have.  

There are conflicts all over, and there was in my country under apartheid. But this [situation in Gaza] is the worst. This is the worst — to use starvation as a means to destroy a whole group in part? This is happening in front of our eyes, where they don't have food, medical aid, they don't have any kind of humanitarian aid, no water. And what really upsets me is that too many children were killed and are injured, and their limbs have been amputated without anesthetic. 

You've had a long career in the human rights field. My sense of the movement is that it hasn't had a lot of victories lately. How do you view the future of human rights? 

I agree: What's going on now is about the worst that we've seen in terms of collective action and support for human rights. Many people feel desolated, without any hope, especially students in colleges and universities, where the young people are totally angry and don't know what action to take to persuade their governments and so on. It's about the worst I've seen.  

At the same time, I have never seen this level of civilian protests against what's happening. My faith is civil society will never allow [the end of] what has been built up over 80 years by the United Nations and other states — good laws protecting everybody's rights, equality for new constitutions, such as in our country, spelling out the rights of people. A lot has been done.

And let me tell you, the only reason I became a High Commissioner for Human Rights is because at the Vienna, United Nations conference on human rights, it was civil society who pushed the UN to establish a High Commission for Human Rights, for the protection and implementation of human rights protection. I have so much faith in the pressure that civil society can collect together. For instance, to end tobacco and cigarette smoking. It started in the United States and pretty soon spread to the rest of the world. That would be one example, a wonderful change because of civil society. 

What sort of advice do you have for the United States right now or President Donald Trump specifically? 

There is a great vacuum in not only the president of the United States, but his supporters in the two houses of Congress ...  there is a lack of information on international law and that it works all for the benefit of all states, not just one.  And it's there for all states to obey. There is a lack of information on the part of the president and a major part of the population of the United States. They should begin by learning about international law and why all the states gathered together to draw up these treaties, conventions and protocols. Because they said, “never again.” Never a World War III, for instance. 

You and your fellow commissioners are all stepping down soon. What is your guidance to those who will succeed you? 

I am sure whoever takes our place will be in support of human rights — they already have a record of adherence to the values and principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to these various treaties and conventions, so they're not going to find new laws or make new recommendations. They will follow through, I'm sure of that, and that would be my advice. Zeid [Ra'ad Al Hussein], after he was appointed High Commissioner for Human Rights, he quoted me. He said that I advised him to treat every state and surveillance of their human rights conduct equally, without fear or favor. And that's what I would say to the next set of commissioners who replace us.