Did Secretary-General Guterres Betray Gaza and the UN to Appease Israel?

In July 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres released his office’s annual report, Conflict-Related Sexual Violence.¹ (Hereafter: Report) It was “focused on countries for which information verified by the United Nations exists” ² and divided into two parts: a synoptical description of sexual violence perpetrated by various State and non-State actors, and the all-important Annex that comprised a “List of Parties Credibly Suspected of Committing or Being Responsible for Patterns of Rape or Other Forms of Sexual Violence in Situations of Armed Conflict.” The section devoted to “Israel and the State of Palestine” more or less accurately summarized the allegations contained in UN reports on sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas and Israel.³ But then, something strange happened on the way to the Annex: Hamas was but Israel was not listed as a perpetrator of sexual violence. How could this be? The evidence adduced in UN reports documenting sexual violence committed by Israel far exceeded—both in quantity and quality—the evidence against Hamas. The Report acknowledged that, although the UN mission mandated personally by Guterres and headed by Pramila Patten “found reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence occurred” at the hands of Hamas-led forces “including rape and gang rape,” still, the mission could at best point to “circumstantial” evidence that “may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence.” ⁴ Indeed, the Patten mission conceded that, even with Israel’s full cooperation, it came up with “no digital evidence specifically depicting acts of sexual violence.” The Report correctly observed that the Independent International Commission of Inquiry headed by Navi Pillay “found reasonable grounds to conclude that sexual violence was committed on 7 October,” but it left out that this Commission of Inquiry “was not able” to confirm the Patten mission’s rape allegation. On the ledger’s other side, the Report stated that “the United Nations verified 12 incidents of conflict-related sexual violence perpetrated by Israeli armed and security forces…, including one rape, one attempted rape; three incidents of squeezing or pulling detainees’ genitals; and seven incidents of kicking, or beatings to genitals,” and that “In addition, the Commission of Inquiry documented at least two cases of rape and four incidents of genital beating and kicking…. The Commission of Inquiry also received credible information of detainees subjected to burns to the anus.”⁵ Further, whereas the Patten mission unearthed “no digital evidence specifically depicting acts of sexual violence” perpetrated by Hamas, the Report pointed to the “digital evidence” of Gazan victims of sexual violence that was “filmed or photographed by Israeli armed and security forces.”⁶ The plot thickens. The Report was based on “information verified by the United Nations.” But why then was Hamas included in and Israel excluded from the Annex if the evidence adduced by Secretary-General Guterres on both sides was based on “information verified by the United Nations” and, to boot, digital evidence of sexual violence perpetrated against Gazans came from Israeli armed and security forces themselves?

A seeming answer to this conundrum appeared in an Appendix slipped into the very last page of the Report. It stated that, because of Israel’s “consistent denial of access for United Nations monitors…, it has been challenging to make definitive determinations regarding patterns, trends and systematicity of sexual violence.” The Secretary-General accordingly limited himself to putting Israel “on notice for potential listing in the next reporting period.” This response perplexed on multiple counts.⁷ First, only a court of law can make “definitive determinations.” The relevant standard of a UN commission of inquiry is “reasonable grounds to conclude.” The UN Commission headed by Pillay did in fact find “reasonable grounds to conclude” that Palestinian armed groups and Israel committed sexual violence. Second, the Report as a whole was based on “information verified by the United Nations.” The Appendix itself stated that the “patterns of sexual violence” of which Israel stood accused “have been consistently documented by the United Nations.” Didn’t the findings against Israel then meet the Report’s evidentiary threshold? Third, if the Commission of Inquiry’s findings against Israel were discounted because Israel denied it access, then the allegations it leveled against Hamas must also be discounted: if the Commission couldn’t confirm in situ sexual violence perpetrated by Israel in Gaza, then it also couldn’t confirm in situ sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas in Israel; the Commission’s remote mode of inquiry predicated all its conclusions; either Israel and Hamas were both credibly suspected by the Commission of committing sexual violence or neither was—the respective findings stand or fall together. It might be contended that the Secretary-General could still have leaned on the Patten mission. But the Patten mission itself stated that it was “neither intended nor mandated to be investigative in nature.” In other words, it was not just incapable of making “definitive determinations,” it was constitutionally incapable of making any determinations. The bottom line is: Guterres’ clarification clarified nothing. The answer to the mystery of Israel’s omission from the Annex must be sought elsewhere.

On 24 October 2023, Secretary-General Guterres delivered an address to the Security Council in which he “condemned unequivocally the horrifying and unprecedented 7 October acts of terror by Hamas in Israel.” However, he went on say that “It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.”⁸ Israel reacted in a fit of rage. Guterres made it known privately that he was a marked man. Meanwhile, Israel not only, as per usual, refused entry to the UN Commission of Inquiry headed by Navi Pillay, but was also actively “obstructing its investigation.” Still, the centerpiece of Israel’s global hasbara campaign was Hamas’s alleged use of rape as a “weapon of war” and it coveted the UN’s imprimatur in this disinformation gambit. It handpicked self-important nonentity Pramila Patten to do its bidding and Guterres, fearful of being unceremoniously driven from office, gave the green light to her mission. Once Patten dutifully performed her appointed role by finding “reasonable grounds to conclude” that Hamas committed “rape and gang rape,” Israel next fixed its sights on getting Hamas listed in the Annex to the Secretary-General’s annual report on sexual violence. Israel’s semi-official Dinah Project exhorted “the UN Secretary-General to include Hamas on the blacklist of entities responsible for the strategic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.”⁹ But if Israel was listed alongside Hamas, it would have canceled the victory. No doubt Guterres came under terrific pressure. And yet again, he capitulated. Was it cowardice, careerism—or maybe blackmail? It’s anyone’s guess. What’s certain is that by omitting Israel from the Annex, Guterres disgraced himself and his office. He inflicted yet another blow on the UN by rewarding Israel’s obstructionism: wasn’t the take-away in Tel Aviv that it could get its way even as it sabotaged the UN’s system of accountability? The members of the Commission of Inquiry headed by Pillay couldn’t have been pleased. In a slap in the face and to save his own hide, Guterres sleazily discredited their findings on Israel while appropriating their findings on Hamas. His shameful Report was officially released on 15 July 2025. The day before, on 14 July 2025, it was announced that all three members of the Commission of Inquiry had “suddenly” submitted their resignations. ¹⁰

But beyond all else, Guterres betrayed, in its moment of truth and death agony, Gaza. He might not be the first and most certainly won’t be the last but, all the same, among those—albeit diminishing few—who still believe in Truth and Justice, he now carries and will henceforth carry forever the mark of Cain.

Adapted from Norman Finkelstein’s new book, Gaza’s Gravediggers: An Inquiry into Corruption in High

_________________________________________________________________

1 Report of the Secretary-General, Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (15 July 2025; S/2025/389). Fifteen previous reports had been issued.

2 Ibid., paras. 4, 8.

3 Ibid., paras. 35-37.

4 Ibid., para. 35.

5 Ibid., para. 36.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., p. 34.

8 “Secretary-General’s Remarks to the Security Council—On the Middle East” (24 October 2023; https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-10-24/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-the-middle-east%C2%A0).

9 Ruth Halperin-Kaddari et al., A Quest for Justice: October 7 and beyond, p. 78.

10 “All Three Heads of UN Anti-Israel Inquiry Suddenly Resign” (14 July 2025; https://hrvoices.org/article/all-3-heads-of-un-anti-israel-inquiry-suddenly-resign/).