Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Monday, October 26, 2026

Israel Has Committed Genocidal Acts in Gaza Since Cease-Fire, U.N. Human Rights Panel Says - The New York Times

Israel Has Committed Genocidal Acts in Gaza Since Cease-Fire, U.N. Human Rights Panel Says

"The panel also accuses Israel of committing crimes against humanity in the West Bank. Israel condemned the report.

A fiery orange explosion and dark smoke rise from buildings at night. Bright sparks are scattered across the dark sky, with bare trees in the foreground.
An Israeli strike on a Gaza City mosque in July.Saher Alghorra for The New York Times

A commission of United Nations human rights experts said on Monday that Israel was committing genocidal acts against Palestinian civilians in Gaza despite a cease-fire agreement there and carrying out crimes against humanity in the West Bank.

The report by the U.N. Independent Commission of Inquiry, which comes on the eve of Israel’s first general election since the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack, is meant to look at the drivers of violence by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the panel said. It said that Israel was deliberately targeting Palestinian children and was using torture, rape and sexual violence as part of a broader attack aimed at displacing and subjugating the Palestinian population.

Israel immediately rejected the claims.

The report, delivered to the U.N. General Assembly, noted that between the cease-fire announced on Oct. 10, 2025, and the end of September 2026, Israeli airstrikes, artillery and gunfire had killed 1,431 Palestinians in Gaza, including 300 children. The report rejected a claim in May by the Board of Peace set up by President Trump that the cease-fire had “largely held.”

The combined findings of the U.N. commission, an independent panel of three human rights experts that has already released multiple reports, represent the most authoritative legal analysis of Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza pending a ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague on an allegation of genocide filed by South Africa.

“The intentional killing and injuring of Palestinian civilians and destruction of homes in the West Bank combined with Israel’s persistent denial of responsibility form part of a broader strategy to exterminate and displace Palestinians and impose conditions of life that are unlivable,” Srinivasan Muralidhar, an Indian lawyer who serves as the panel’s chairman, said in a statement accompanying the report.

The commission also includes Chris Sidoti, an Australian expert on international human rights law who has served on the panel since it was set up in 2021; and Florence Mumba, a Zambian judge who served on international criminal tribunals investigating war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The commission cited a series of Israeli airstrikes, artillery bombardments and sniper attacks in Gaza and said they “show that Israeli authorities and forces continue to commit genocidal acts with the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians in Gaza.”

Israel’s permanent mission to the United Nations in Geneva called the report misinformation and an attempt to demonize Israel.

Daniel Meron, Israel’s ambassador in Geneva, condemned what it called “efforts by actors such as the U.N. Commission of Inquiry to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and deny its fundamental right to exist and defend itself.”

The U.N. panel first asserted that Israel committed genocide in the war in Gaza in September 2025, when the commission was led by Navi Pillay, who was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The new report said that Israel’s government and security forces had deliberately inflicted death, severe injury and mental harm on Palestinian children, amounting to “age-based persecution.” 

It also said that since a report on sexual violence in March 2025, the commission had verified more cases against detainees from Gaza and the West Bank, including gang rape, groping, forced nudity and cavity searches. It also said the commission had investigated two cases of sexual violence against participants in a flotilla of about 50 boats that were apprehended in the Mediterranean Sea as they tried to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza. 

The panel said Israeli forces were increasingly applying lethal force against Palestinians in the West Bank, killing 1,080 Palestinians since the cease-fire agreement.

The West Bank has experienced soaring levels of settler violence, but the commission said Israeli security forces were responsible for 95 percent of killings and 82 percent of injuries to Palestinians in this period.

The combination of Israeli military operations and settler violence “had formed part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population in the West Bank,” the panel said, committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The targeting of children by security forces and settlers was deliberate and intended to form part of the attack on the civilian population, it said.

Israeli military operations since January 2025 had driven more than 34,000 Palestinians from their homes by August 2026, in what the commission said amounted to the largest displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank since 1967, when Israel captured the territory from Jordan during the Arab-Israeli war that year.

The commission also said that the Palestinian Authority, which administers parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, had used excessive force resulting in killings in the course of large-scale operations targeting Palestinians wanted by Israel and conducted in coordination with the Israeli authorities.

Over a period of about two years up to October 2025, such operations had resulted in the deaths of at least 14 Palestinians, the commission reported. The Palestinian Authority responded harshly to criticism of these operations, targeting journalists and human rights defenders in an attempt to silence dissent, it said.

Ibrahim Khraishi, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations at Geneva, said in response: “We remain committed to ensuring that law enforcement respects the law and human rights, including freedom of expression and the work of journalists and human rights defenders. Any misconduct will be addressed.”"

Israel Has Committed Genocidal Acts in Gaza Since Cease-Fire, U.N. Human Rights Panel Says - The New York Times

Netanyahu Pushed for Attack on Iran Ahead of Israeli Election, Officials Say - The New York Times

Netanyahu Pushed for Attack on Iran Ahead of Israeli Election, Officials Say

"Israel’s military chief resisted the prime minister, who then pressed in recent days for a separate action, short of an overt strike, according to an official and a person briefed on the matter.

A billboard showing Mr., Netanyahu and Mr. Trump looking determined in front of an Israeli flag and military jets.
A campaign billboard in Tel Aviv depicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump on Monday, the eve of Israel’s national election.Jack Guez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

In advance of Israel’s pivotal election on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought for weeks to orchestrate a new airstrike on Iran but ran into resistance from the military’s chief of staff, according to three senior Israeli defense officials and three other people briefed on the matter.

Then, over the past few days, the chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, became concerned that Mr. Netanyahu had begun pushing for a separate action against Iran, short of an overt strike, according to an Israeli official and a person briefed on the matter, neither of whom described the nature of such an action. General Zamir believed that this would be a miscalculation that could provoke Iran into attacking Israel.

Spokesmen for Mr. Netanyahu did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

The Israeli officials and the people briefed on the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Mr. Netanyahu’s rationale for pressing to attack Iran before the election was not clear, but a return to war could have potentially disrupted or even delayed the vote.

The behind-the-scenes tensions over a possible Israeli attack or other action against Iran come as Mr. Netanyahu has been publicly portraying the stakes of the election in increasingly apocalyptic terms. Over the weekend, he posted an A.I.-generated image on social media of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and warned in a television appearance that the vote would decide “Israel’s existence.”

The appeals to Israelis’ fears are meant to get voters to see the conflict with Iran as the most urgent issue and to entrust him with continuing to lead the struggle against Israel’s chief regional adversary.

When Mr. Netanyahu pushed to heat up the conflict with Iran, General Zamir raised a number of objections and concerns and ultimately concluded that there was no immediate or urgent need for action, the officials and people briefed on the matter said.

Such a determination by the military chief carries special weight: It can make it harder to portray the timing as a military necessity.

While General Zamir was not opposed to taking action against Iran in principle, he objected to doing so before the election, according to an Israeli official and two people briefed on the matter. General Zamir and the Israeli air force commander, Maj. Gen. Omer Tischler, cited the political sensitivities  and the difficulty of explaining to the public why it had to occur then, according to two senior Israeli defense officials.

In a statement, the Israeli military said its operational decision making was strictly based “on security considerations,” as well as “its responsibility as a national institution.”

The concerns about political motivations for an attack on Iran do not expire on Tuesday. According to three senior Israeli defense officials and two people briefed on the matter, a resumption of fighting with Iran in the weeks after the election could also have a large impact.

If Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents prevail in the election, they would likely have an opportunity to form the new government, but a return to war could hinder or even thwart their ability to assemble a governing coalition within the time allotted by law. Renewed fighting could also create political pressure to establish a national unity government that includes Mr. Netanyahu.

Reports of disagreement between Mr. Netanyahu and the military over a possible attack, first carried by Israel’s Channel 12, sparked outrage in Israel. One of Mr. Netanyahu’s rivals, Avigdor Liberman, demanded Monday that the attorney general open an investigation into whether the prime minister had committed treason.

“The attempt to drag Israel into a war on the eve of elections, including sacrificing Israeli soldiers, just because of the fear of losing the elections, is a betrayal of the nation,” Mr. Liberman, a defense minister and foreign minister in earlier Netanyahu governments, wrote in a formal complaint.

Mr. Netanyahu, 77, is battling to keep his hold on power in the face of opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief of staff.

Mr. Netanyahu’s appeals to voters became increasingly disturbing over the campaign’s final weekend, with the prime minister saying that his defeat could lead to Israel’s annihilation. He has also suggested that tougher times could be ahead for Israel regardless of the outcome.

On Friday, he said that Israelis should prepare for the end of billions of dollars in American military support from the United States, given the sharp decline of Israel’s standing in U.S. public opinion. He also said the possibility that Israel will face “banking sanctions” arising from international condemnation could force the country in coming years to rely on cryptocurrency to circumvent the penalties.

The remarks prompted a wave of criticism. Israel’s nonpartisan central bank, the Bank of Israel, issued a rare warning, saying that cryptocurrency would not save the economy in the event of international sanctions. And a former governor of the Bank of Israel, Jacob Frenkel, said that turning away from the global financial system would make Israel into “a leper.”

Opposition leaders accused Mr. Netanyahu of essentially accepting that Israel would become a pariah state.

“He’s lost it,” said Yair Lapid, one of Mr. Netanyahu’s centrist rivals. “Israel’s prime minister, in an election campaign, is saying three days before the elections to vote for him and he’ll ensure that Israel stays isolated.”

For weeks, Mr. Netanyahu has also been saying that Iran might attack Israel in an attempt to sabotage the elections — statements that some military analysts consider destabilizing. His messaging became even more dire over the weekend.

On Sunday morning, Mr. Netanyahu posted the image of an A.I.-generated cloud from a nuclear blast mushrooming over Tel Aviv, Israel’s biggest metropolis. He attached a quote from a supporter to the effect that the scandals dogging him — he is currently facing trial on corruption charges, which he denies — were a distraction from “the real and tangible existential danger” that Iran posed.

Iran denies that it is pursuing a nuclear weapon but has also repeatedly threatened Israel, which is widely believed to have its own nuclear arsenal.

Hours later, Mr. Netanyahu gave one of the final interviews of his election campaign to Israel’s Channel 14, a network that largely echoes the prime minister’s talking points. He warned that his right-wing bloc was facing possible defeat.

“It’s not in our pocket and it’s not a lost cause,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

The prime minister warned that Israel was at risk of joining the ranks of countries like Belgium, Britain and France that, he said, have been “ruined” by an alliance between “the left and radical Islam.”

Rising to his feet, Mr. Netanyahu likened himself to a Jewish leader warning 1930s European Jewry of the impending Holocaust. Mr. Netanyahu said Mr. Eisenkot and his allies would not do what was necessary and vowed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and topple its government.

Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly boasted of having destroyed the Iranian nuclear program, only to speak of it as if it remains an imminent threat. “We cannot live side by side with this bomb,” he said. “Either they will either destroy us or we will destroy that poisonous cult.”

Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents also believe the future of their country is hanging in the balance on Tuesday. Many liberal Israelis fear that this election is their last chance to prevent their country from becoming an authoritarian state, under the sway of the religious right and shunned on the world stage.

On Sunday evening, Mr. Eisenkot made his own final pitch to voters, calling for the country to come together “to save our Israel.” He vowed to order an inquiry into the government’s failure to prevent the Hamas-led attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, uproot Hamas’s rule in Gaza within 18 months and force Mr. Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish allies, now exempted from military service, to share the burden of conscription.

“At stake in the elections is nothing less than the security of Israel and the survival of the Israeli story as we know it,” Mr. Eisenkot said.

David M. Halbfinger is The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, leading coverage of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. He also held that post from 2017 to 2021. He was the politics editor from 2021 to 2025.

Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv.

Natan Odenheimer is a Times reporter in Jerusalem, covering Israeli and Palestinian affairs.

Adam Rasgon is a reporter for The Times in Jerusalem, covering Israeli and Palestinian affairs.

Aaron Boxerman is a Times reporter covering Israel and Gaza. He is based in Jerusalem.

See more on: Benjamin Netanyahu"
Netanyahu Pushed for Attack on Iran Ahead of Israeli Election, Officials Say - The New York Times

Republicans should have to answer for Elon Musk

 

Joy Reid Explains Why Trump Is Exactly What America Wanted!

 

The Republican Party & The Far Right: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

 

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis becomes a victim of voter fraud allegations

 

Republicans Are Crude, Craven, Cruel. It’s Not Working Anymore

 

Jamelle Bouie

​

​

“Republicans Are Crude, Craven, Cruel. It’s Not Working Anymore.

The Capitol dome, bathed in pink-and-purple light.
Aleksey Kondratyev for The New York Times

In my column last week, I wrote about the Democratic Party’s dramatic change of fortune in the race to control the Senate. The expectation at the start of this election cycle was that Republicans would hold the chamber easily and, depending on the course of events, even expand their majority.

After all, just to maintain the status quo, Democrats had to defend incumbents in states that President Trump won handily. And to have any chance at a majority, they would need to defeat at least one incumbent — Susan Collins of Maine, for example — and overcome the Republican Party’s home-field advantage in at least two states.

A tall order if there ever was one.

But thanks to a set of Trump’s bad decisions — from his authoritarian occupations of American cities that enraged liberal voters to a war in Iran that has angered swing voters and independents with inflation and high prices — Democrats have turned what was supposed to be a bad Senate map into one where they stand a real chance of winning a decently sized majority in the chamber.

But while the fundamentals determine the overall shape of the electoral landscape, candidates and campaigns play a meaningful part in the final outcome. And it is in the realm of candidates and campaigns that I want to remark on two particular aspects of this campaign season.

The first is the wide gap in candidate quality between the Republicans and Democrats. In race after race, Democrats have managed to recruit and advance candidates who are well positioned to capitalize on changing political circumstances. Even if he were not facing off against Ken Paxton, an experienced but still strikingly weak candidate, James Talarico would still be an impressive recruit. He is a natural communicator — whose seminarian background and personal faith have been a great asset in winning over Texas voters — and he has proved to be both nimble and aggressive, able to hold Paxton’s feet to the fire despite facing an onslaught of cash from outside groups and actors, like Elon Musk.

You could say similar things of Adam Hamilton in Kansas, perhaps the surprise candidate of this cycle, who is running a competitive race against the Republican incumbent, Roger Marshall. Hamilton is a religious leader — the founder and senior pastor of the Church of the Resurrection, the largest United Methodist congregation in the United States — with broad appeal in a state that is, like Texas, known for its deep religious feeling. With his moderate politics, Hamilton has successfully presented himself as a bipartisan figure, with support from prominent Republicans in Kansas. It also helps that Marshall, a doctor, has struggled in the face of revelations that he took harsh and punitive action against his patients, dragging them to court for trivial amounts of money.

Other Democratic candidates, such as Josh Turek in Iowa, Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Troy Jackson in Maine, have also successfully capitalized on the Republican Party’s worsening electoral position. And even those Democrats who might be a little more progressive than their electorates — Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan — show a great deal of political talent and are well-positioned to win.

As for the Republicans, the opposite appears to be true. There are a few candidates in the field who may well outperform the fundamentals, like the Iowa Senate nominee Ashley Hinson. Michele Tafoya in Minnesota also seems to be keeping up with her opponent. But beyond them, Republicans are working with candidates who are just not up to snuff. In Georgia, Mike Collins has been marred by his associations with white nationalists and other extremists, and is headed for a crushing defeat in his race against the incumbent, Senator Jon Ossoff. Darline Graham in South Carolina is barely ahead of her Democratic opponent, and again, this is South Carolina. The aforementioned Ken Paxton is such a lackluster candidate that he may well deliver the Texas Republican Party its first statewide defeat for federal office since 1988.

Perhaps the most striking example of a candidate ill-equipped for a competitive race is Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican nominee for governor of Ohio. Ramaswamy ran unsuccessfully for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, then returned home to Ohio to try to lead the party there. Perhaps the fact that Republicans were not anticipating a competitive year is how Ramaswamy managed to win the nomination. Either way, he is currently poised to lose to the Democratic nominee, Amy Acton.

In apparent desperation, the Ramaswamy campaign commissioned an advertisement featuring Amy Acton’s mother. The two have not seen or spoken to each other since 1978.  As a child, Acton testified against her stepfather, who was charged with sexually abusing her.  Acton’s mother took her husband’s side, and the two fled the state.  In the advertisement, Acton’s mother calls her daughter a liar, someone who “lies about her past.” The evidence says otherwise. To give one example, documents released by Mahoning County officials in Ohio corroborate Acton’s claim that she lived in a tent as a child.

The Ramaswamy camp, which includes fellow Ohioan JD Vance, thinks the ad is effective. But it’s been condemned by people on both sides, including the state’s Republican governor, as crude, craven and cruel. There is a chance, as well, that it blows back on Ramaswamy, undermining his campaign in the critical final stretch of the election. It is the kind of move that a more seasoned and competent candidate might have avoided. As it is, Ramaswamy’s gambit may well drag down the entire statewide ticket.

We’re still 10 days away from Election Day, so I’m not going to make any grand pronouncements about the outcome. But I will say that if Republicans do lose the Senate, and if they lose it badly, it will be a testament to one of the most striking political dynamics of the Trump era.

It is very possible that Trump was the only Republican who could have stitched together his particular electoral coalition. It is undoubtedly the case that Trump has some special sauce that makes him a formidable general election candidate. But this has not extended to the rest of the Republican Party. No other Republican is able to mimic Trump’s particular style of politics. And while Trump’s endorsement is a powerful force in Republican primaries, the president does not actually have a great track record of picking candidates who go on to win general elections.

Trump is in absolute command of the Republican Party, but outside of his own victories, he has steered it, more often than not, into troubled electoral waters.


What I Wrote

My column this week was on the Trump administration’s attempt to denaturalize and expel Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

It should be said that the drive to denaturalize Omar is, by itself, a startling attack on the liberty of all Americans. It’s a move that harks back to the worst of the nation’s past — those moments when the government sought to shape, define and ultimately choose who would be “the people” of the United States.

I joined my colleagues Michelle Cottle and David French for an episode of The Opinions. I’ll also talked a little about Representative Omar for a video. And I talked a little bit about my process and approach to writing with political scientist Hanna Sistek, media historian Sage Goodwin and communication scholar Julius Freeman at the Center for American Political History, Media and Technology at Purdue University.“