Genocide Made Official: What Changed In My Position on Israel
Genocide, The Western Progressive, and What To Do Now?
On September 16, 2025, the UN Human Rights Council released a 72-page official report documenting the evidence of Israel’s war in Gaza that finally claims an official genocide in the region. This essay aims to clarify my stance on the conflict, the claims made of genocide prior the report, and my perspective on democratic societies’ responses to genocide. Needless to say, I have a history of supporting, defending, and justifying Israel’s war on Hamas. However, this new report demands clarifications and new condemnations from me.
Genocide Officially
I have found it very difficult to articulate my positions on many things on this subject: on Israel’s conflict with Hamas, the meaning of words in relation to their actions, and the importance of precise language in serious circumstances. In March of 2024, I wrote a piece titled Genocide: The Hollow Word, on Aaron Bushnell’s ‘martyrdom’ and how he died for a lie. With the information available at the time, the state of the conflict, and Israel’s actions up to that point, I maintain my position was justified. What needs to be understood with this UN Human Rights report is that global conflicts are dynamic, abuses of power are not static, and conflict evolves. Before Oct. 7th, 2023, I maintained that Netanyahu was overstepping his role as Prime Minister. I argued that he was consolidating power in an authoritarian manner similar to Putin and Donald Trump.1 I have also always maintained that no religion deserves a nuclear-armed ethno-state. However, as I have written previously, Israel has proven itself to be a pluralistic, democratic (despite Netanyahu’s acts), open society similar to the one Karl Popper outlined in his book Open Society and Its Enemies. However, over time and in a dynamic manner, Netanyahu and his cronies have managed to abuse the justified war against Hamas to carry out alternative wishes, which now entail the genocide of the Palestinian people. Ironically, in the week leading up to the UN report, I had two arguments with dear friends of mine regarding the language of genocide and Israel’s war in Gaza.
What bothered me was that after the report was released, the general state of mind of some people was along the lines of ‘Oh, we were right the whole time’; this is simply not the case. A careful reading of the first 7 pages of the report explains why. For instance, Section II: Legal Framework, of the document details the special and nearly sacred qualifying criteria of genocide and special intent, or Dolus Specialis. This special intent is what many Western progressives failed to calculate in their lackadaisical use of the word ‘genocide’. Although I encourage you to go read the first 7 pages of the document, I will outline the valuable points 14 and 15 from the Legal Framework.
14. Pursuant to the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute, genocide is committed when one or more of the following five categories of underlying acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
15. In relation to the required mental element, it should be noted that each of the underlying acts above needs to be committed intentionally (that is, not negligently); and, for each act to constitute genocide, it must additionally be committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. In relation to the third category, ‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’, it is required to establish that the act was not only deliberate (as opposed to accidental or collateral) but that such act was inflicted “as a way to contribute to the over-arching purpose of destroying the group, in whole or in part.” In relation to the fourth category, ‘imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group’, it is required to establish that the measures were intentionally imposed not only as a punishment to the group but also to prevent births within the group “so as to contribute to the ultimate destruction of that group”.2
This writing details that even a deliberate act to bring about these qualifications does not necessarily bring about a charge of genocide; rather, it must be a part of a larger framework of genocidal intentions to exterminate members of the qualified group. The reason these legal, and I will admit, boring, standards matter is that charges of genocide entail a demand for severe punishment by members of the UN. Lazily calling conflicts ‘genocide’ because TikTok, Al Jazeera, and terrorist sympathizers like Hasan Piker broadcast horrific videos of dead children and houses being blown up does damage to the word ‘genocide’ and invalidates other legitimate genocides, such as those of Rwanda, Darfur, and Cambodia. In an attempt to remain consistent with my criteria, I am recognizing genocides recognized by the UN.
Israeli Leadership and Israel Proper
Some things change, some things remain the same. First, let us note what has changed. Israel, specifically Netanyahu and his bloodthirsty administration containing Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, has now officially been documented as prolonging a war to stay in a position of power. Despite the sensitive sentiments of Western progressives, this war was assumed to be waged efficiently and to be as quick as possible, with as few civilian casualties as possible regarding engagements that might harm an IDF soldier. Allow me to clarify: waging war in the modern day with the ICJ, UN, and the United States breathing down your neck entails an effort to avoid civilian casualties, but not at all costs. Collateral is assumed in all conflicts, and it is always a tragedy, but certainly not always intentional. Before this UN report, if I were asked, “Would Israel take back all civilian casualties if it could maintain the same effectiveness against Hamas?” I would almost certainly have answered yes. On this, I have changed my mind. It is now clear that Israel is in fact intentionally targeting civilians for the sake of genocide and extermination. What has changed is the method that Israel is waging this war, which now entails waging a genocide. However, if the Western progressive now intends for me to take the side of the Palestinian Authority, which is still Hamas, they are going to be disappointed.
To this, we now turn to what has not changed. What has not changed is that Israel is still a democratic nation-state with major influence in the region over theocratic societies. Israel truly is a beacon of secular pluralism and an open society that nations like Saudi Arabia might look to for inspiration and modernization. Israel remains a secular beacon that is friendly towards LGBTQ folks and apostates. It defends freedom of speech, advanced education, economic fortitude, freedom of the press, and freedom of self-determination. Needless to say, Netanyahu’s regime is slowly degrading these aspects. For that reason, I maintain a strange position of two points that seem to conflict with each other, but I defend that they can coexist.
Israel should win the war against terrorists and has the right, I would argue duty to protect its people and eliminate any and all terrorist organizations that seek its destruction.
Israel must be held accountable and punished for the genocide they are committing, and the Israeli regime must be removed.
The Western progressive cannot distinguish between the war and the genocide. It remains that these are in fact two different objects of investigation. One justified and remaining with my support, the other punishable and remaining with my condemnation.
Responsibility of the United States and the United Nations
At risk of sounding like a hyper-shill for Israel, charges of genocide must now be brought by the UN to the ICJ (International Court of Justice). There is still a possibility that the ICJ will find the investigation to be inaccurate, misleading, or factually off base. This possibility will not be entertained other than to say there are rumors that those responsible for the investigation have had long-standing predispositions against Israel since before 10/7. NGO-Monitor.org gives an interesting report of the biographies of the individuals assigned to the task and their history of anti-Israel bias. However, this thread of inquiry ends. If the UN report is to be trusted, which I believe it is, then a legal future awaits the conflict. The report states:
Unlike in the Bosnia v. Serbia case, there is no international criminal tribunal that has yet made findings on the individual criminal responsibility for the crime of genocide in this situation. However, the Commission notes that State responsibility under the Genocide Convention is not dependent on a finding of guilt of an individual under international criminal law.
With this new UN report, there is a responsibility being laid down on all members of the UN, including the United States. The ICJ has declared the ILC Draft Articles of Responsibility to be binding on all states. This means that there is not just a responsibility to respond to the claims, but to punish the act. Section 241 of the report states, “A State may also incur responsibility [of genocide'] for failing to prevent or punish genocide.” There are various ways democratic nation-states interact with perpetrators of genocide; the UN report makes some recommendations for Israel but also third-party member states like the United States. Recommendations for Israel entail a permanent cease-fire, the end of a policy of starvation in the region, allowing access for various medical, emergency, and aid organizations to enter the region, and to punish those responsible. For third-party states, the report recommends points such as reasonable efforts to stop the genocide, ceasing the transfer of military equipment to Israel, and prosecution of those responsible.
My Problem? Israel’s Problem
I am convinced by this report that there is a genocide in the region, but I keep the act of Israel’s genocide separate from its war against all terrorist actors. I have maintained the position that Israel is surrounded by theocratic death cults that also want genocide, of the Jews in particular. I attempt to maintain a healthy geopolitical code of ethics for these situations, and my first inclination after reading the report was to argue for the continuation of the war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, the Houthis, and others. However, has Israel dug its own grave by platforming its own genocidal theocratic lunatics like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich? I think so. I have not yet made up my mind on whether Israel should do a permanent ceasefire in the region. Might they, under new leadership, be able to continue their war of protection without committing genocide? I do not have a solid answer for this and my mind continues to buckle and cave under what to do with such a valuable political entity in such an unstable region.
Trump…
One final comment should be made on the responsibility of third-party member states of the UN and that is the probable response of the United States. Donald Trump has led the country in an epistemically nihilistic mode of being, where all of reality is thrown in the air. Donald Trump has proven to be an anti-reality megalomaniac and I do not trust him to comply with the recommendations to come out of the UN (not the ones in the report). This will fuel the hatred for the United States from the progressive wing. Progressives, especially in the 21st century, cling to the aesthetic of ‘America bad’ and relish in the joys of disparaging what is the greatest country of all time. As I do not trust Trump to live in reality, I equally do not trust progressives to see the difference between Donald Trump not complying with the responsibilities of response to genocide and what the United States would do under more democratic leadership. As the beacon to the world, the United States will need to lead the way in responding to this genocide; failure to do so will damage the moral reputation of the United States and delegitimize us further than we already are.
Closing
Though I still believe the Russian/Ukrainian war deserves the majority of our attention, this new UN report highlights severe levels of evil within Israel being perpetuated on rather peaceful civilians. I have always supported the movements for regime change within Israel’s walls and hope they come to fruition. I hope the Western progressive archetype will be able to separate Israel’s genocidal regime from Israel proper. I also hope that we can all realize that the question of terrorist organizations in the Middle East is still a question with many question marks, demanding an answer. The United States might be too fatigued with the fascistic tendencies of Donald Trump’s anti-reality doomsday cult to really care what happens in Palestine. Needless to say, I will be watching with anticipation for how the world responds to this new evil.
Authoritarianism is also a word that should not be used lazily; consolidating power, however, is a key aspect of authoritarian regimes and is reflected in the characters mentioned.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf
“The Western progressive cannot distinguish between the war and the genocide.“ is not really a true statement and is just one you’re making because you refuse to admit you were wrong. This was a genocide before it was declared one by the UN and it was clear what Israel was doing to anyone with eyes to see! I do admire your ability to change your mind in the face of new evidence though. It’s a surprisingly rare quality.