The latest report from the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry dropped right before the October 27, 2026 national election in Israel, serving as a vivid example of international bias. The Commission brands Israeli counter terror efforts in the West Bank and Gaza as genocide and extermination, but this kind of language is not anchored in the gritty reality on the ground. Instead, readers are left with a document that sounds more like a propaganda tool than any fair, rigorous legal assessment.
The real problem with the report is its glaring double standard. It spends page after page criticizing the Israel Defense Forces in detail, but only mentions Hamas a total of two times. Even then, the report carefully avoids accusing Hamas of a single crime, violation, or violent action. It is striking: three years after October 7, observers would expect any serious review of the Arab Israeli conflict to address the jihadist group that has been driving the violence, yet the Commission practically gives Hamas a free pass. That is more than just sloppy reporting. It is wholesale ideological advocacy, dressed up as impartial analysis.
It is no wonder the Israeli Foreign Ministry fired back immediately. When a so called international watchdog points fingers only at Israel, holds armed terror groups blameless, and tries to strip away the basic right of a democracy to defend its citizens, that is not about supporting human rights. It is about legitimizing terror tactics and giving diplomatic cover to factions that openly call for the destruction of the Jewish state.
Look at how the Commission tries to support its claim of extermination. It highlights a jump in Israeli airstrikes in the West Bank, pointing out 254 deaths from October 7, 2023, to September 30, 2026. But the report glosses over why the tactics shifted in the first place. After Operation Iron Wall began in January 2025, Israeli forces had to adapt fast: suddenly they were facing waves of heavy weaponry, improvised explosive devices, and Iranian backed terror cells burrowed deep in dense cities like Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nablus. In that context, using precise airstrikes to take out armed combatants hiding in civilian packed buildings is not an act of extermination. It is basic urban counterinsurgency, a harsh necessity in the asymmetric warfare of today. Demanding that Israeli soldiers charge into urban firefights against heavily armed cells, without air support, just to appease legal theorists in Geneva, is a demand no country could, or would, accept.
The report does not stop at operational distortions. Instead, it turns up the political theatrics. It cherry picks hotheaded statements from politicians like Bezalel Smotrich and yanks others from military commanders out of context, all to try and pin state level criminal intent on the entire defense establishment. But in any functioning democracy, wild political talk is not the same as military orders or doctrine. The IDF really does enforce strict discipline and runs its own tough, independent investigations into allegations of abuse. Still, the UN panel breathes right past these facts, dismissing military accountability in favor of their own sweeping, and already determined, verdict.
And then there is the selective outrage when it comes to the Palestinian Authority. The report briefly mentions the arbitrary arrests, torture, and crackdowns on journalists in Ramallah, but treats these as bureaucratic blips, barely worth more than a footnote. Meanwhile, every Israeli action is painted as a top down criminal conspiracy. The contrast is impossible to ignore.
The bias runs even deeper on the evidence front. Allegations against the IDF are laid out as established facts, apparently enough if they are sourced from local accounts or politically motivated NGOs. On the other hand, whenever the Israeli military offers official data or presents its side of the story, the Commission just waves it off. That sets up an impossible standard: Israel is always presumed guilty, its explanations dubbed as bad faith excuses.
And look at the timing. The release of the report lands right as Israelis prepare to vote in a national election, a move too calculated to chalk up to coincidence. By injecting loaded legal accusations into the domestic debate of Israel on the eve of an election, the Commission is trying to influence voters and sway the political course of the country. That is a naked political intervention, the exact opposite of what international civil servants are supposed to do. Impartiality, neutrality, and political independence are not just empty words, they are supposed to be the bedrock for these institutions.
This document is not just a one off. It is the latest salvo in a familiar campaign to delegitimize Israel internationally. When the UN brandishes the label genocide against the counter terror operations of Israel, operations aimed against irregular militants, not uniformed armies, they cheapen the actual meaning of that word. If every operation to stop rocket attacks, destroy command posts, or break smuggling chains is automatically called a crime against humanity, then what use is international humanitarian law for countries fighting non state threats?
The upshot? Reports like this do not just undermine the trust of Israel in international bodies, they also corrode the global credibility of those institutions. If the people running these organizations cannot tell the difference between a democracy protecting its people and a terror group taking hostages behind civilian walls, then what business do they have as neutral arbiters?
At the end of the day, these kinds of reports just lock the conflict in deeper, signaling to terror groups that if they play dirty, hiding behind civilians, waging asymmetric campaigns, they will get diplomatic support on the world stage. That is not how a more stable or humane future is built for anyone.
So, for the next government of Israel, recognizing lawfare as a real front in this conflict is not about bravado, it is about survival. Refusing to play along with international institutions that demand surrender under the guise of legal process is not an act of arrogance; it is essential if Israel is going to preserve its freedom to defend itself from ongoing terror.
About the Author
Eitan Levi is a Security and Geopolitical Analyst with expertise in Israeli defence strategy, Iran’s regional operations, Middle Eastern power rivalries, and Israel’s security partnerships.