Whitewashing Genocide, Again
How the UN’s Language Launders Atrocity in Gaza
On April 11, 2025, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a report1 documenting Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza. It described hundreds of strikes on residential buildings and tents, the mass killing of women and children, and the starvation of a besieged population. It even acknowledged that conditions in Gaza were “increasingly incompatible with [Palestinians’] continued existence as a group.”
And yet — the word genocide was nowhere to be found.
Instead, we get phrases like “raises serious concerns,” “may amount to a breach,” and “evacuation orders”. Bureaucratic hedging. Diplomatic fog. Legalistic inertia. The language of atrocity control — not atrocity prevention.
Let’s be clear: this is not just a failure of tone. It is a structural betrayal — a form of institutional whitewashing that launders genocidal violence through procedural language, obscures intent, and ultimately shields perpetrators from accountability. It is cowardice wrapped in concern, complicity veiled as impartiality.
Here’s how.
1. From Forced Displacement to “Evacuation Orders”
“The increasing issuance by Israeli Forces of ‘evacuation orders’ – which are, in effect, displacement orders – have resulted in the forcible transfer of Palestinians…”
This is how the OHCHR describes what international law calls a war crime: the forcible transfer of civilians under military duress. The report repeats Israel’s term — “evacuation orders” — as if it's a logistical inconvenience rather than a weapon of terror. The word "evacuation" evokes safety, protection, coordination. But these are not orderly departures. They are expulsions — under fire, without water, into zones that are later bombed anyway.
By centering the euphemism, the UN reproduces the occupier’s narrative, allowing state violence to masquerade as humanitarian concern. This is not objective reporting — it is linguistic collaboration with a military project of ethnic cleansing.
What the law says: Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers… regardless of their motive.” These displacements are not legally ambiguous — they are crimes.
2. “Buffer Zones” as Bureaucratic Genocide
“…raise serious concerns that Israel intends permanently to remove the civilian population from these areas in order to create a ‘buffer zone’.”
Here the report acknowledges the permanent removal of civilians, but immediately blunts its force by naming the goal as a “buffer zone” — a phrase borrowed from military doctrine that transforms the crime of depopulation into a reasonable security measure.
Let’s name this for what it is: the deliberate erasure of a people from their land to make it easier to control. This is not just forced transfer — it is settler-colonial realignment by military means.
What the law says: Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, forcible transfer and population removal “with intent to destroy” a group in part or in whole is an act of genocide (Article 6). Describing this as a buffer is not analysis — it is genocide revisionism by deflection.
3. Killing Children, Counting Casualties
“In some 36 strikes… the fatalities recorded so far were only women and children.”
What does it mean to say that “only” women and children died — and say it without attributing responsibility? This is the grammar of statistical atrocity: civilians are transformed into incidental figures, while the state that kills them disappears into the passive voice.
This is structural dissociation — a failure to psychologically and politically register the horror of what is being described. In trauma psychology, we call this emotional numbing — a defense mechanism. But in international policy, it becomes something worse: a discursive strategy for absolving power.
What the law says: Indiscriminate or deliberate attacks on civilians are war crimes. Under customary international humanitarian law, targeting civilians — especially protected populations like children — is never permissible. This isn’t a miscalculation. It’s a method.
4. Starvation as Strategy, “Concern” as Cover
“…raising serious concerns about collective punishment and the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of war…”
Here, the UN gets dangerously close to naming the crime — then retreats into institutional ambiguity. It does not say Israel is using starvation as a weapon. It only says there are “concerns.” This framing isn’t neutrality — it’s plausible deniability.
The reality is clear: the intentional withholding of food, water, fuel, and medicine from a trapped civilian population is not a regrettable side effect of war — it is a tactic of war. And under international law, that tactic is illegal, immoral, and genocidal.
What the law says: Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute defines “using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” as a war crime. No qualifiers. No "concerns." Just criminality.
5. Avoiding the Word for What It Is: Genocide
“…inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life increasingly incompatible with their continued existence as a group…”
This is the most damning line in the report — and also the most cowardly. It echoes the exact language of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention — “deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about [a group’s] physical destruction in whole or in part.”
But the UN stops short. It buries genocide beneath passive syntax and bureaucratic phrasing.
What moral clarity demands:
“Israel is deliberately destroying the conditions necessary for Palestinian life in Gaza: food, water, shelter, medicine, and safety. These acts, taken together, constitute genocide under international law.”
The Psychology of Diplomatic Language: Why the UN Fails
So why does the UN speak this way?
Because the UN is not a moral institution. It is a political bureaucracy, built to serve the balance of state power — not the liberation of colonized peoples.
Its language reflects this function:
Passive voice obscures agency.
“Concerns” replace condemnation.
Ambiguity substitutes for action.
This is the colonial psychology of the international system: to see mass death not as horror but as data, to interpret extermination as policy debate, to delay naming atrocity until the dead are already buried.
Decolonizing the Discourse
True decolonization requires us to reject the idea that the language of empire is the language of justice. The UN cannot continue to center the narrative of the powerful while pretending to defend the powerless.
We must demand a new standard — one grounded not in institutional neutrality but in moral truth:
Forced displacement is ethnic cleansing.
Starvation is a war crime.
The systematic destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure is genocide.
And the UN’s failure to name these acts is not impartiality — it is institutional whitewashing.
Final Words
History will not remember how carefully the UN parsed its verbs. It will remember how many children were incinerated while diplomats debated definitions.
We do not need another statement of concern. We need moral courage — and we need it now.
Call it what it is.
This is genocide.
MARGINALIA:
Policy Marginalia: The Responsibility to Protect2 is not a rhetorical ideal — it is a binding international commitment grounded in the recognition that sovereignty does not grant states the right to annihilate their populations. When the machinery of international law fails to respond to evident genocidal acts, the Responsibility to Protect becomes more than a doctrine — it becomes an indictment of the global order’s moral collapse. Gaza has become a proving ground not just for military impunity, but for the international community’s willingness to abandon its most foundational obligation: to intervene when a population is being destroyed. If R2P means anything, it must mean this — not tomorrow, not after a tribunal, but now.
R2P STIPULATES THREE PILLARS OF RESPONSIBILITY:
PILLAR ONE
Every state has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
PILLAR TWO
The wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual states in meeting that responsibility.
PILLAR THREE
If a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter.
In addition, if R2P were instigated with genuine commitment — not as a symbolic gesture but as an operational imperative — it would look like immediate, coordinated international action to halt the mass atrocities in Gaza. This would include the deployment of an independent international protection force to guarantee the safety of civilians, the imposition of sanctions and arms embargoes on the perpetrating state, emergency humanitarian corridors enforced by international mandate, and the referral of state officials to the International Criminal Court without delay or deferral. It would mean removing veto power as a shield for genocide and treating Palestinian life as equally worthy of protection as any other. R2P, if serious, demands intervention not after consensus, but at the threshold of annihilation.
Call to Action: Demand R2P for Gaza
Demand Immediate Implementation of R2P: The Responsibility to Protect must be enforced for Gaza, where mass genocidal violence is ongoing and starvation is being used as collective punishment, and for the West Bank, where genocidal systemic violence continues.
Center Gaza in Every Demand: Prioritize Gaza—where over 600,000+ are dead or dying due to direct and indirect genocide.
Flood Officials with Calls, Emails, and Petitions: Hold governments accountable for ignoring their R2P obligations.
Disrupt Silence: Interrupt every space that claims moral authority but refuses to act—academia, NGOs, media, and religious institutions. Subversive action is required.
Refuse Euphemisms: This is not a “conflict”—this is genocide. R2P exists because of this.
Amplify Survivor Voices: Center Palestinian testimony, not white savior NGOs or sanitized “peace” narratives.
Make R2P a Non-Negotiable Demand: Not just ceasefire. Not just aid. Protection.
Now. It means now.
Methinks the concern is that, the absence of support may mutate into more malevolent actions against UN officials, including a … closure of the cited Commissioner’s orific … er … office.