In my critical framework, "The 11 Stages of Genocide Denial," I outline all eleven rhetorical tactics used to attempt to dismantle, distort, and dismiss allegations of genocide, moving from questioning scale to outright historical revisionism. Applying this framework proactively, we can use the Introduction of the UN Commission of Inquiry's document, A/HRC/60/CRP.3, entitled 'Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,' not merely as a legal finding but as a strategic defense mechanism. By analyzing its carefully constructed language, mandated authority, and legally-grounded methodology, we can preemptively identify how the document's own text is engineered to counter each of the eleven stages of denial, fortifying its conclusions against the very attempts to erase them from the historical and legal record before they even begin.
Denial Tactic: 1. Question the Scale
Document's Preemptive Response: The report explicitly states that its findings are "non-exhaustive" (Para. 2) and are based on a rigorous, evidence-based methodology ("reasonable grounds to conclude," Para. 7). It does not rely on a single casualty figure but on a pattern of acts, including mass killing, destruction of healthcare, and imposition of starvation, that are illegal regardless of the final toll. The scale is established not just by numbers but by the systematic nature of the violence and the conditions inflicted on the entire group.
Denial Tactic: 2. Challenge the Intent
Document's Preemptive Response: This is the core focus of the report. The Introduction states its purpose is to move beyond the already-established actus reus (the physical acts) to analyze if they fulfil the requirements for the mens rea (specific intent) of genocide (Para. 4). It will infer intent from patterns of conduct, official statements, and the "deliberate" and "calculated" nature of the acts, such as the destruction of reproductive health services and the intentional imposition of starvation (Para. 3, 15).
Denial Tactic: 3. Blame the Victims
Document's Preemptive Response: The report firmly contextualizes its investigation. While it acknowledges its mandate covers "all parties" (Para. 2) and does not foreclose future analysis of violations against Israelis (Para. 5), its legal analysis on genocide is strictly focused on the conduct of the Israeli security forces (Para. 4). It separates the events of October 7th from the subsequent military operations in Gaza, analyzing the latter under a distinct legal framework. It does not accept violations by one party as legal justification for the commission of international crimes by another.
Denial Tactic: 4. Highlight Counter-Violence
Document's Preemptive Response: Similar to the above, the report circumvents the "justified retaliation" narrative by focusing on state responsibility under international law. The obligations under the Genocide Convention are absolute and not contingent on the actions of other non-state actors. The document establishes that a state's duty to prevent and not commit genocide exists independently of the initial violence (Para. 8-11). The crimes of one party cannot legally excuse the commission of genocide by another.
Denial Tactic: 5. Assert Political Motivations
Document's Preemptive Response: The Introduction grounds its work in strict legalism and its established UN mandate (Para. 1). It acknowledges the parallel ICJ case (Para. 6), demonstrating that its findings are part of a broader, legitimate international legal process, not a singular political act. Its methodology ("reasonable grounds to conclude"), reliance on previous published evidence, and application of defined international law frameworks (Para. 8-17) are designed to present an objective legal analysis, insulating it from claims of being a purely political document.
Denial Tactic: 6. Dispute Historical Consensus
Document's Preemptive Response: The report bases its analysis on the undisputed, authoritative sources of international law: the Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute, and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Para. 8, 12-14). It cites ICJ rulings (Barcelona Traction, Bosnia v. Serbia) to define key legal terms like erga omnes obligations and the standard for state complicity. It is not creating a new consensus but applying an existing, well-established one to a specific set of facts.
Denial Tactic: 7. Call for ‘More Research’
Document's Preemptive Response: The Commission states it has already published three mandated reports and three conference room papers detailing violations since October 2023 (Para. 2, Footnotes 2-4). This report is the product of that extensive prior research. Its purpose is to synthesize this existing body of evidence into a specific legal analysis of genocide, arguing that it already possesses sufficient evidence to make a preliminary finding on "reasonable grounds."
Denial Tactic: 8. Draw False Comparisons
Document's Preemptive Response: The legal framework section (Para. 12-17) meticulously defines the unique crime of genocide, distinguishing it from other war crimes or crimes against humanity by the requirement of "specific intent to destroy... a group, as such." By applying this strict, technical legal definition, the report preempts attempts to make false equivalences to other conflicts. Its conclusion will stand or fall on the specific evidence of intent presented against this precise legal standard, not on superficial comparisons.
Denial Tactic: 9. Undermine Witnesses and Survivors
Document's Preemptive Response: While the Introduction does not detail its sources, it states its findings are based on its "own investigations" (Para. 2). As a UN-mandated body, its methodology for collecting and vetting witness testimony is designed to meet international standards for credibility and reliability. By aggregating patterns of conduct from a vast body of evidence rather than relying on isolated testimonies, it makes its findings more resilient to attacks on individual witnesses.
Denial Tactic: 10. Rewrite History
Document's Preemptive Response: As an official United Nations document (a Conference Room Paper) from an established Commission of Inquiry, it becomes part of the official international record. Its purpose is to create a definitive, evidence-based account to counter disinformation and revisionism. By detailing its sources and legal reasoning, it provides a benchmark for historians, legal scholars, and future judicial proceedings (like the ICJ), making it harder to simply erase or dismiss the events it documents.
Denial Tactic: 11. Claim Religious Oppression
Document's Preemptive Response: The report's legal analysis is explicitly secular and grounded in universal international law. It defines the protected group as the "Palestinian people," a national group recognized as such by the ICJ (Para. 13, Footnote 16). The findings are based on the conduct of state security forces and the state's responsibilities, not on religion. It examines violations of the Genocide Convention, not religious persecution, thereby nullifying any claim that the allegations are a form of religious discrimination against the perpetrators.
This analysis demonstrates that the UN report A/HRC/60/CRP.3 is structurally fortified against the predictable Stages of Genocide Denial. By applying the "11 Stages of Genocide Denial" framework, it becomes clear the document's introduction is not a mere procedural note but a preemptive legal shield. It methodically anticipates and neutralizes each future denialist argument; from questioning scale and intent to claims of bias and victim-blame—by grounding its findings in immutable international law, a clear standard of proof, and an existing body of evidence. By systematically dismantling the architecture of denial before it can even be built, the report effectively removes the logic behind the genocide itself, leaving the stark reality of the crime exposed and indefensible.