Tribe of Abimelech Platform Report

Published by: Tribe of Abimelech | ʿAshīrat Ḥasanāt Abū Muʿailiq
Published through: the Tribe of Abimelech Platform
Date of Publication: November 3rd, 2026
Subject: Protestant Christianity and its genocide of the indigenous people of the Holy Land

Abstract

This Abimelech Report charges British and American Protestant Christian actors, institutions and political networks as the principal architects, directors and facilitators of the Palestinian Genocide. It finds that the genocide was committed through three connected crimes, the theft of the identity, history and land of the indigenous people of Palestine, the lies by which that theft was presented as law and prophecy, and the murder of the people who stood in its way. It finds that Britain and the United States committed these crimes through a proxy they created, armed and protected, and that they continue to shield that proxy from accountability today.

The Report finds that the crime began with a question of authority, not of land. When England broke from the Church of Rome in 1534, its rulers lost the authority of the Pope, on which European kings had relied for a thousand years. To replace it, English Protestants stole the identity of the ancient people of Palestine. They declared England the new “Israel,” claimed for themselves the history and the promise that belong to the indigenous people of the land, and treated Palestine as theirs to dispose of. The possession of the Holy Land became the seat of the authority they had lost (Sections III.D, III.E and VI.C).

From the nineteenth century Britain, and then the United States, turned that claim into state policy. Between 1839 and 1841 Anthony Ashley-Cooper pressed Henry Temple, the minister directing British foreign policy, to transfer a European population into Palestine under British protection. In 1891 William Blackstone delivered to Benjamin Harrison, head of the United States government, a petition from 413 bankers, legislators and Protestant clergy demanding Palestine for that population. This was five years before Theodor Herzl, the Austro-Hungarian journalist who in 1897 founded the Zionist Organization and with it political Zionism, published Der Judenstaat, and the British clergyman William Hechler then opened Europe’s courts to Herzl. The Protestant actors came first, and political Zionism became their operational instrument. The population they transferred was given the stolen name “Israel” and presented to the world as the people of a history that was not its own. In 1948 it was given 78 percent of the country, the homes, fields and property of the Palestinians whom the terrorist organisations had forcibly transferred by massacre and terror, and the names of more than 500 Palestinian towns and villages, which those organisations and then the army of the Nazi-Zionist state demolished and renamed (Sections III.H, VI.A and VII.A).

The responsible States wrote the theft into law. In 1917 the government of David Lloyd George and Arthur James Balfour promised Palestine as a national homeland for Europeans whom Britain had itself shut out under the Aliens Act of 1905. The instrument of 1922, drafted by Britain and endorsed by the United States, turned that promise into an international legal title and reduced the indigenous people to “the existing non-Jewish communities” of their own country. The lie of an empty land and a people returning to it hid the crime from the populations of the responsible States and from the world. In 1948, in the same months that the terrorist organisations armed and trained by Britain were massacring and forcibly transferring the people of Palestine, the delegations of Britain and the United States voted to strike cultural genocide, the destruction of a people’s identity, language and heritage, from the Genocide Convention, so that the theft of an identity would not be counted as genocide in law (Sections III.G, III.I, IV.C and VI.D).

Under the British occupation Britain transferred the illegal immigrants into Palestine against the will of its people, armed and trained its terrorist organisations, and suppressed the resistance of the indigenous people by killing. In 1933 Zionist organisations concluded the Haavara Agreement with Nazi Germany to finance that transfer, and in 1941 Lehi offered Germany a military alliance. From December 1947 the terrorist organisations carried out massacres and forcible transfers while British forces were still present in Palestine, and between 1947 and 1950 those organisations, and the army of the Nazi-Zionist state into which they were merged, forcibly transferred about 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland by terror and massacre and depopulated and demolished more than 500 towns, villages and tribal lands. The same army continues the same system of killing, forcible transfer, starvation and demolition, and since October 2023 at least 73,388 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza as at 13 August 2026 (Section V.C), among them at least 134 members of the Tribe of Abimelech (Sections V, VII.B, VII.C and VII.D).

The Report finds that the genocide was not the end in itself but the means of securing the stolen authority, because the indigenous people of Palestine were the living proof that the identity was stolen. Britain and the United States therefore established, under their protection, a state of illegal immigrants they had transferred into Palestine, their Nazi-Zionist proxy, to carry out the genocide on their behalf and in their name. They have armed it, funded it and protected it with their veto at the United Nations ever since. They and their proxy have also concealed the record of the crime. Britain hid the files it shipped from Palestine until 2011, and the proxy has sealed its own files of 1948, among them its intelligence report of 30 June 1948 attributing the forcible transfer of the indigenous people to the operations of the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi (Section VII.J). This Report holds them responsible as principals, not bystanders, and it rests that position on four grounds in law, each sufficient in itself. They failed to prevent the genocide although they knew of the serious risk of it, in breach of Article I of the Genocide Convention. They are complicit in it under Article III(e), because they supplied the means with knowledge of the specific intent of their proxy. They aided and assisted its commission with knowledge of the circumstances under Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s articles on State responsibility, in breach also of the duty not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the unlawful presence of the proxy in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which the International Court of Justice declared in its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 (para. 279). For the years of its occupation from 1917 to 1948, Britain in the alternative directed and controlled the terrorist organisations through which the genocide began, under Article 17 (Sections IV.G, VI.B, VII.E to VII.I and VIII). Each act is judged by the law in force when it was committed (Section I.B).

On the evidence examined in this Report, those who knowingly conceived, directed, financed, armed, facilitated, or protected that enterprise must be investigated for genocide, complicity in genocide, and aid or assistance in the commission of internationally wrongful acts.

Contents

I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of Theft, Lies and Murder
B. Genocide under International Law
C. The Identity Theft
D. The Identity Fraud and the Lies
E. The Murder
F. Specific Intent
G. Responsibility of British and American Protestant Actors
H. Requests

II. Scope and Methodology
A. Scope
B. Standpoint of the Tribe
C. Methodology and Sources
D. Terms Used in this Report

III. Background
A. The Indigenous People of Palestine and Their Continuous Presence on the Land
B. The Tribe of Abimelech and Its Ancestral Territory
C. El of Kanaʿan and the Name “Israel”
D. The Break from Rome, 1534
E. The Claim to the Identity of Israel
F. The Patriarchal Narrative as a Foundational Myth
G. The Identity Fraud and the Law
H. The Restoration Movement, 1621–1897
I. The Balfour Declaration and the British Occupation, 1917–1948

IV. Genocide under International Law
A. The Prohibition and the Definition
B. Lemkin, 1944
C. The Exclusion of Cultural Genocide, 1948
D. The Palestinian People as a Protected Group
E. Specific Intent
F. The Punishable Acts under Article III
G. Commission through a Proxy
H. Jurisdiction

V. Genocidal Acts
A. The Genocide of 1947–1950
B. Conditions of Life, Walls, Checkpoints and Siege
C. The Genocide since October 2023
D. Acts against the Tribe of Abimelech

VI. Specific Intent
A. The Theft of the Identity
B. The Living Proof
C. Genocide to Secure the Claim
D. The Lie of the Empty Land
E. Statements and Incitement
F. The Same Method against Other Indigenous Peoples
G. The Witness of the Churches of Palestine

VII. Commission through a Proxy
A. The Transfer of an Unwanted Population
B. The Arming of the Terrorist Organisations
C. Haavara and the Lehi Offer to Nazi Germany
D. Withdrawal and Recognition, 1947–1948
E. The Structure of the Proxy and the Authority Retained
F. Weapons, Funding and Intelligence
G. Protection at the United Nations
H. From Haavara to the Economy of Genocide
I. Attribution to the Proxy Alone
J. Concealment of the Record

VIII. Responsibility
A. The United Kingdom and the United States as States
B. Churches, Institutions and Individuals
C. Concealment and Obstruction
D. Consolidated Findings

IX. Conclusion and Recommendations
A. Conclusion
B. Submissions of the Tribe
C. Restitution after the Identity Theft
D. Preservation of Evidence

Annex. Audiovisual Material
Notes

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview of Theft, Lies and Murder

1. This Report makes five findings. Each is stated here and proved in the sections cited.

2. When England broke from the Church of Rome in 1534, its rulers lost the authority of the Pope, on which European kings had relied for a thousand years. The Report finds that the enterprise against the people of Palestine began as the search for a replacement for that authority, and that the possession of the Holy Land became its seat (Sections III.D, III.E and VI.C).

3. English Protestants stole the name “Israel,” and the history, ancestry and heritage of the indigenous people of Palestine, and claimed them for England. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries Britain, and then the United States, committed the same theft on behalf of a population of illegal immigrants they transferred into Palestine, and gave that population the land, the property and the place names of the indigenous people (Sections III.E, III.H and VI.A).

4. The responsible States used the identity theft to deceive. They presented the illegal immigrants as an ancient people returning home, they presented the land as empty or held only by late arrivals, and after 1948 they presented the state declared in the stolen name as acting alone, with Britain and the United States standing outside what it did. Each of these claims is false (Sections III.G, VI.D and VII.I).

5. The killing and forcible transfer of the indigenous people, by the terrorist organisations armed and trained by Britain and then by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, was the means of securing the stolen authority, not the end in itself. The indigenous people were targeted for destruction because their continued presence on the land disproved the identity fraud. The genocide began in December 1947, while British forces still occupied the country, and it continues in Gaza today (Sections V and VI.B).

6. Britain and the United States committed the genocide through a proxy they created, armed and financed, and they shield that proxy from accountability with their weapons, their money and their veto at the United Nations (Sections VII and VIII).

7. Raphael Lemkin, the jurist who gave genocide its name in 1944, wrote that genocide has two phases, “one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.” (1) The identity theft is the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. The murder is the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group. In Palestine both phases were carried out by the same responsible States through the same proxy.

B. Genocide under International Law

8. Under Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948 (2), genocide is the commission of any of five acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The acts are killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, and forcibly transferring its children. The prohibition binds every State, and it was part of customary international law before the Convention was written. The Palestinian people are a protected national and ethnical group, and the Tribe of Abimelech is part of it (Sections IV.A and IV.D).

9. This Report applies to each act the law in force when it was committed. The Genocide Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and does not operate retroactively, and the International Court of Justice has held that acts committed before a State was bound by it fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction under Article IX, although they may be relied on as evidence of the intent behind later acts (Croatia v. Serbia, 2015, paras. 95 to 100) (3). For the acts of 1917 to 1948 the Report relies on the obligations of Britain as occupying power under Articles 43 and 46 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907 (4), on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (5) and Articles 2 and 5 of the Mandate for Palestine (6), on customary international law, and, from 8 August 1945, on the prohibition of crimes against humanity stated in Article 6(c) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (7) and affirmed by General Assembly Resolution 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 (8). For the acts of 1947 to 1950 it relies also on the prohibition of genocide in customary international law, declared by General Assembly Resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946 (9) and recognised by the International Court of Justice as binding on States even without any conventional obligation (Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 1951, p. 23) (10). For the acts from 12 January 1951, and for every act committed since October 2023, it relies on the Genocide Convention itself. The acts before 1951 are also evidence of the intent with which the later acts were committed. The denial of return, the confiscation of property under the Absentees’ Property Law of 1950 (11) and the concealment of the record are continuing wrongful acts within Article 14(2) of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), and the course of conduct as a whole is a composite act within Article 15, whose breach extends over the entire period from the first of the acts for as long as they are repeated. Under Article 13 of those Articles no act is judged by an obligation that did not bind the State when the act was committed.

10. The acts of 1947 to 1950 are relied on before the International Court of Justice as evidence of the intent with which the acts after 1951 were committed, and before other courts and bodies as genocide under customary international law.

11. The Report makes a further finding that bears on the law itself. In 1948, in the same months in which British and American power completed the transfer of Palestine to the Nazi-Zionist proxy, the delegations of Britain and the United States acted to strike cultural genocide from the Convention, namely the destruction of a group’s language, libraries, schools, monuments and places of worship. The written position of Britain (United Nations document A/C.6/236) (13), the instructions of the United States delegation (14) and the recorded votes are set out in Section IV.C. The responsible States wrote out of the law the very crime they were committing, so that the identity theft would not be counted as genocide.

C. The Identity Theft

12. The identity theft is proved by documents in the order in which it was committed. In 1563 John Foxe presented England as a nation chosen by God in the place of Rome (15). In 1630 John Winthrop told the Puritans sailing to Massachusetts that they would be “as a city upon a hill,” a new Israel entering a promised land (16). In 1840 and 1871 English writers argued that the British were themselves the lost tribes of Israel. In 1865 the Anglican cleric who presided over the founding of the Palestine Exploration Fund told his audience, “Palestine belongs to you and to me. It is essentially ours” (17) (Sections III.E and III.H).

13. When the theft moved from doctrine to the land, it was carried out by the state. In May 1948 the state declared by the terrorist organisations adopted the stolen name “Israel.” In 1949 its government ordered the indigenous names of the Naqab, where the territory of the Tribe lies, to be struck from the map and replaced with Hebrew names. In 1948 and 1949 tens of thousands of books were stolen from Palestinian homes in Jerusalem and other towns and catalogued in the national library of the Nazi-Zionist state as abandoned property. In 1950 the Absentees’ Property Law (11) transferred to the state the homes and lands of the Palestinians whom its forces had forcibly transferred and barred from return (Sections V.A and VI.A).

D. The Identity Fraud and the Lies

14. The claim that the illegal immigrants descend from the Israelites of the Bible and inherit the land is false as history, false as descent and false in law. The ancient record of Egypt and Mesopotamia shows the indigenous people building and ruling the cities of Kanaʿan for more than a thousand years before any people called Israel appears. The names Jacob, Benjamin and Dan are recorded first as Canaanite names, and the name Israel is built on El, the high god of Kanaʿan (Sections III.A to III.C).

15. The instrument of 1922, drafted by Britain and endorsed by the United States, gave the identity fraud the form of a legal title and reduced the indigenous people to “the existing non-Jewish communities” of their own country (Section III.G).

16. Ashley-Cooper wrote in his diary in 1854 that the land was empty, and the claim was repeated for a century after him. The first British census of 1922 counted 757,182 inhabitants (18), the great majority of them Muslim and Christian Palestinians (Section VI.D).

17. The claim that the proxy acts alone is contradicted by every bomb, every appropriation and every veto set out in Section VII.

E. The Murder

18. Between December 1947 and 1950 the terrorist organisations that Britain had armed and trained, and the army into which they were merged, killed members of the Palestinian people, caused them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicted on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction, within the meaning of Article II(a), (b) and (c) of the Convention (2). They massacred villagers at Deir Yassin, Tantura and al-Dawayima, forcibly transferred about 750,000 Palestinians from their homes by terror and massacre, and depopulated and demolished more than 500 towns, villages and tribal lands. British forces remained in Palestine until 15 May 1948, and in Haifa until 30 June 1948, while these acts began. In 1948 the Haganah, made that year the army of the Nazi-Zionist state and whose conduct is attributed to that state under Article 10(2) of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), forcibly transferred the Tribe of Abimelech from its lands in the Naqab, six of its members were killed, its homes were demolished and one of its wells was filled with earth (Sections V.A, V.D and VII.D).

19. The same acts continue. Since October 2023 the Ministry of Health in Gaza has recorded at least 73,388 Palestinians killed (19). Famine was confirmed in Gaza Governorate in August 2025. The Tribe has recorded at least 134 of its own members killed in Gaza, about one third of them children (20). This count is partial, and it rises as the names and identity numbers of the dead are confirmed (Sections V.C and V.D).

F. Specific Intent

20. Genocide requires specific intent, the intent to destroy the group as such. Under the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, where there is no direct admission, that intent may be inferred from a pattern of conduct where it is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from it (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, 2007, para. 373; Croatia v. Serbia, 2015, para. 148) (21), (3). The Report finds intent on four grounds.

21. The intent to forcibly transfer and destroy the indigenous people was formed and recorded long before the first massacre. Herzl recorded the method in his diary on 12 June 1895, in these words, “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.” (22) Balfour wrote in 1919 that Britain would not even consult the inhabitants (23) (Section III.I). From 1940 the Haganah compiled files on nearly every Palestinian village in preparation (Section V.A).

22. The claim to be “Israel” supplies the motive. It could only be completed by the forcible transfer and destruction of the people whose existence disproved it, and it explains why the conduct of 1947 to 1950 and since October 2023 was directed at the Palestinian people as such (Sections VI.A to VI.C). The intent itself is shown by that conduct and by the statements set out below, and Section VI.C shows that no other inference from them is reasonable.

23. On 28 October 2023 the head of the proxy’s government invoked Amalek in a televised address, and on 25 March 2024, at a town hall meeting in Dundee, Michigan, a member of the United States Congress, a former pastor, said Gaza should be treated “like Nagasaki and Hiroshima” (24) (Section VI.E). The record of 1948 shows that the same powers who built the proxy also narrowed the law that would have named the identity theft as genocide (Section IV.C).

24. The authors of the crime have sealed its record. Britain hid the files it shipped from Palestine and its other territories until 2011. The proxy has withdrawn from public access documents on 1948 that historians had already read and published, among them its own intelligence report attributing the departure of the indigenous population to the operations of the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi (Section VII.J). Where the party that controls the evidence conceals it, a court may draw inferences of fact against that party (Corfu Channel, Judgment of 9 April 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 18) (25).

G. Responsibility of British and American Protestant Actors

25. Britain conceived the forcible transfer of the indigenous people, committed the identity theft on behalf of the illegal immigrants, transferred them into Palestine under its occupation, armed and trained the terrorist organisations that began the genocide, and withdrew in 1948 leaving the indigenous population exposed. The Report finds the United Kingdom responsible, in this order, for failing to prevent the genocide under Article I of the Convention (2), for complicity in it under Article III(e), and for aid or assistance in its commission under Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s articles on State responsibility (12), read with the duty of non-assistance declared by the International Court of Justice on 19 July 2024 (26), and in the alternative, for the years of its occupation from 1917 to 1948, for direction and control of the terrorist organisations under Article 17. For the years of its occupation from 1917 to 1948 the conduct of the British administration is the conduct of the United Kingdom itself under Article 4 of those articles (Sections VII and VIII).

26. The United States approved the Balfour Declaration before it was issued (27), recognised the proxy eleven minutes after it was proclaimed, and has financed and armed it ever since. It ratified the Genocide Convention only in 1988, forty years after signing it, and then only with a reservation that before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the International Court of Justice under Article IX, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case (reservation of 25 November 1988). The United States has also imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court. The Report finds the United States responsible for failing to prevent the genocide, for complicity in it and for aid or assistance in its commission, and for incitement through the statements of its officials (Sections VII.F, VII.G and VIII.A).

27. Germany joined them through the Haavara Agreement of 1933, which financed the transfer of the illegal immigrants, and it has armed and financed the proxy since 1952 (Sections VII.C and VIII).

28. Behind the governments stand the Protestant Christian Zionist churches, organisations and individuals who supplied the doctrine and the political direction. The Report finds that those among them who knowingly conceived, directed, financed, armed, facilitated or protected the enterprise must be investigated (Section VIII).

H. Requests

29. The Tribe of Abimelech asks every competent court and body to recognise the Palestinian Genocide. It asks them to investigate the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, and the individuals and organisations who directed and protected the genocide. It asks them to refuse any legal effect to the identity fraud, to order the return and restitution of the indigenous people, and to order restitution after the identity theft. It asks that the evidence of the indigenous people, their cemeteries, archives, libraries and records, be protected as evidence of the crime (Section IX).

II. Scope and Methodology

A. Scope

30. This Report determines who conceived, directed, financed, armed and protected the Palestinian Genocide, and on what claim they did so. It examines the conduct of the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, and of the individuals and organisations who acted for them, against three bodies of law. These are the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, including complicity under Article III(e) (2), the law of State responsibility, including Articles 16 and 17 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (12), and the rights of indigenous peoples. It answers that question from the documentary record, and it places the answer before the Palestinian people, before the indigenous peoples who have suffered the same kind of dispossession elsewhere, and before every court and body competent to examine the Palestinian Genocide.

31. The genocidal acts set out in this Report begin in December 1947 and continue to the present day. The genocide has not ended. Each killing, forcible transfer, demolition and denial of return by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, carried out with the weapons and protection of the responsible States, is a further act of the same crime. The Palestinian Genocide is a single course of conduct composed of acts committed from 1947 to the present. In the law of State responsibility it is a composite act within Article 15 of the International Law Commission’s Articles, and the denial of return and the confiscation of property are continuing wrongful acts within Article 14(2) (Section I.B).

32. The Report also sets out documents from 1563 onward. They are not offered as separate charges. They are offered as evidence of motive, premeditation and specific intent, which a court must establish before it can find genocide, and a court may receive evidence of events before the period of its jurisdiction in order to establish the intent behind the acts within it. The ancient record set out in Sections III.A to III.C serves a different purpose. It identifies the protected group, it establishes the title of the Tribe to its land, and it tests the identity fraud on which the responsible States rely. Where the Report infers specific intent from a pattern of conduct, it applies the test set by the International Court of Justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007, para. 373) (21), and confirmed in Croatia v. Serbia (2015, para. 148) (3), that the intent must be the only reasonable inference to be drawn from that conduct.

B. Standpoint of the Tribe

33. This Report is issued by the Tribe of Abimelech, known in Arabic as ʿAshīrat Ḥasanāt Abū Muʿailiq (عشيرة حسنات أبو معيلق), an indigenous Palestinian tribal confederation of the Naqab made up of several families. Abū Muʿailiq is the Arabic form of the name Abimelech, and the two names denote the same tribe. The Tribe of Abimelech Platform (abimelech.org) is the platform through which the Tribe speaks, and it issues this Report in the Tribe’s name. Its people were forcibly transferred from their ancestral lands in 1948 and remain dispossessed of them. The Tribe writes as a member of the group whose destruction this Report examines. It does not write as an outside observer, and it does not write for an audience in London or Washington. It writes first for its own people and for the other indigenous peoples who will recognise in this record what was done to them.

34. The history of Palestine is the history of its indigenous people. Too often it is told as a stage on which the British, the Europeans and the Americans act, while the people of the land appear only as an obstacle or a problem. This Report does not treat the history of the indigenous people as background to European events. It treats European and American events as what they were for the people of Palestine, the theft of their land, the theft of their identity and history, and the killing and forcible transfer of their people by the terrorist organisations Britain armed and trained and by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state that succeeded them.

C. Methodology and Sources

35. The Report follows the documents in the order in which they were written. Where a document can speak for itself, the Report quotes it and then explains what it shows. The words of Foxe, Winthrop, Ashley-Cooper, Balfour, Truman and the delegations of 1948 are given as they wrote them, so that the reader may judge the intent from the source and not from the summary.

36. The Report separates what the record proves from what the Report infers from it. Where a fact rests on a primary document, the document is named. Where the Report draws a conclusion from a pattern of documents, it says so.

37. For the ancient period, every source used as evidence dates from before 2000 BC down to the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep III (c. 1390–1352 BC). That reign produced the Soleb inscription, the earliest record of the name Yhw. Nothing written after that reign is used as evidence of ancient events. Later contemporary inscriptions, among them the Merneptah Stele of about 1208 BC, are cited only for the first appearance of a name, and never as evidence of the events that later texts describe. The Hebrew Bible and later texts appear in the Report only as statements of the claim under examination. They are never used as evidence of the events they describe.

38. Dates for the ancient period follow the conventional Middle Chronology and are approximate. The Egyptian sources were produced by an empire that sought to curse, conquer, tax and administer the people of Kanaʿan. They are used for the facts they record about that people, not for the imperial view they express.

39. The Report does not challenge the faith of any community in its scripture. It examines the use that the responsible States and the Protestant Christian Zionist movement made of scripture to justify the theft of the land and identity of the indigenous people of Palestine. The Palestinian Christian theologian Mitri Raheb has shown how this use of scripture served the empire. In his words, “Christian Zionism preceded Jewish Zionism by half a century.” (28) This Report builds on that insight and carries it into the law of genocide.

D. Terms Used in this Report

40. The Palestinian people are the indigenous people of Palestine and a national and ethnical group protected under Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (2). Their indigenous status rests on continuous presence in the land from the first farming villages of the Neolithic, through the towns of the fifth and fourth millennia BC and the written record of Kanaʿan, to the present. They meet the working definition adopted by the United Nations, under which indigenous peoples are those which, “having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories” (para. 379) (29), and the test of descent “from the populations which inhabited the country … at the time of conquest or colonisation” in Article 1(1)(b) of ILO Convention No. 169 of 1989 (30). Their rights as an indigenous people are affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (31) and secured in binding law by Article 1 of the two International Covenants of 1966 (32), Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (33), and the customary right of peoples to self-determination, which is owed erga omnes (East Timor, 1995, para. 29; Chagos, 2019, para. 180) (34), (35). The Tribe of Abimelech is part of that people.

41. The Palestinian Genocide is the enterprise to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part, as such, through occupation, dispossession, forcible transfer, the infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction, and killing. Its responsible States conceived and organised it before 1917. It was carried out under British occupation from 1917, reached its first campaign of massacre, terrorism and forcible transfer in 1947–1950, carried out by the terrorist organisations that Britain armed and trained and then by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, and continues to the present. The conduct before 1947 is set out as evidence of motive and intent. The acts charged as genocide are those from 1947.

42. The responsible States are Britain and the United States, which through their Protestant Christian Zionist governments, institutions and networks conceived, directed, financed, armed and protected the Palestinian Genocide. Germany is named as a third State that has aided the proxy, through the Haavara Agreement of 1933 and by arming and financing it since 1952 (Sections VII.C, VII.F and VIII.A). The Protestant Christian Zionist actors are the clergy, ministers, financiers, organisations and churches in those States that supplied the doctrine and the political direction.

43. The Nazi-Zionist proxy is the instrument that the responsible States built to carry out the Palestinian Genocide on their behalf. It is made up of the illegal immigrants transferred into Palestine, the terrorist organisations that Britain armed and trained, and the institutions that Britain built for them under its occupation. On 14 May 1948 the People’s Council of the terrorist organisations and those institutions declared a state calling itself “Israel”, which the United States recognised eleven minutes later and Britain recognised de facto on 29 January 1949 and de jure on 27 April 1950, the same day it recognised the annexation of the West Bank by Transjordan. Under Article 10(2) of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (12), the conduct of the terrorist organisations before that declaration is the conduct of the State they established. The proxy acts for the responsible States and is financed and armed by them, and yet it is the only party brought before the courts. The term “Nazi-Zionist” rests on the record set out in Section VII.C, namely the Haavara Agreement of 1933, the commercial partnership between the Zionist organisations and the Nazi state that financed the transfer, and the military alliance offered to Nazi Germany by Lehi in 1941.

44. The Nazi-Zionist state is the state apparatus of that proxy, its government, army, courts, laws and administration, which carry out the killing, forcible transfer and dispossession of the Palestinian people. Where this Report refers to official acts, decisions and laws, it names the Nazi-Zionist state. Where it refers to the relationship of agency between the responsible States and the instrument they built, it names the Nazi-Zionist proxy.

45. The illegal immigrants are the foreign population from Russia and Eastern Europe, and later from other countries, transferred into Palestine under the protection of the responsible States, under foreign military occupation, without the consent of the indigenous people and in breach of their rights. Their entry was illegal because the people of Palestine never consented to it, and no occupying power had the right to grant it. Their entry was illegal under the law of Palestine as the country of the indigenous people, whatever Britain declared. Palestine was never British territory. Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (5) its people were recognised as a provisionally independent nation, and Britain held only an administration in trust, with no sovereignty over the country and no right to dispose of its population or its land. The people of Palestine were never asked to consent to the transfer, and no vote of theirs was ever held on it. Britain recorded in 1919 that it did not propose “even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country” (23) (Section III.I). The term rests on Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 (4), which bound Britain as occupying power to respect the laws in force in the country, on Article 22(4) of the Covenant, under which the wishes of the community were to be a principal consideration, and on Article 2 of the Mandate (6), which bound Britain to safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants. Article 6 of the Mandate, which directed the administration to facilitate the immigration, was imposed without the consent of the people of the country and in breach of those obligations, and under Article 20 of the Covenant the members of the League undertook not to enter into engagements inconsistent with its terms. The King–Crane Commission in 1919 (36) and the Shaw (37) and Hope Simpson reports of 1930 (38) recorded the opposition of the population to the immigration and the harm it caused them. The Report does not call them by the identity that the responsible States assigned to them.

46. The terrorist organisations are the armed groups of the illegal immigrants, the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi, which carried out bombings, massacres and the forcible transfer by terror of the people of Palestine. Britain armed and trained them under its occupation, and in 1948 they became the army of the Nazi-Zionist state (Sections VII.B and VII.D). The British administration outlawed the Irgun and Lehi and treated them as terrorist organisations, and the Haganah carried out joint operations with them through the United Resistance Movement of 1945 and 1946. After Lehi assassinated the United Nations Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, in Jerusalem on 17 September 1948, the provisional government of the Nazi-Zionist state itself declared Lehi a terrorist organisation on 20 September 1948 and enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance on 23 September 1948 (39). The conduct of the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi before 14 May 1948 is attributed to the Nazi-Zionist state under Article 10(2) of the International Law Commission’s Articles, as the conduct of the movements that established it. The Haganah became its army by the order of 26 May 1948, and the Irgun and Lehi were absorbed into that army in 1948.

47. The British occupation is the rule of Palestine by Britain from 1917 to 1948. The “Mandate for Palestine” is named only as the document by which the League of Nations recorded that occupation.

48. The identity theft is the theft of the name “Israel,” and of the history, ancestry and heritage of the indigenous people of Palestine, committed first by English Protestants for themselves after the break from Rome and later by Britain and the United States on behalf of the illegal immigrants. The identity fraud is the use of the identity theft to deceive, the claim that the illegal immigrants are the Israelites of the Bible returning to their land and that this descent gives them title to Palestine. It is examined in Sections III.E and III.G.

49. The Patriarchal Narrative is the account of Noah, Shem, Ham, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael and Jacob, as the Protestant Christian Zionist movement used it to assign the land of Palestine to the illegal immigrants and to deny the indigenous people any right to it (Section III.F). The Report does not attack scripture. It examines the use made of it.

50. The Arab–Jew binary (as a term naming the construct, not the peoples) is the division of the peoples of the region into two lines of descent drawn from the Patriarchal Narrative, “Jews” presented as the sons of Isaac and Jacob and “Arabs” presented as the sons of Ishmael. The indigenous peoples of the region did not name themselves in this way. The division was imposed from Europe, in the same manner in which European scholars and the German racial sciences sorted the peoples of the world into sons of Shem and sons of Ham. Britain made the binary an instrument of occupation. It assigned the identity of “Israel” to the illegal immigrants, labelled the indigenous Palestinians “Arabs” as though they descended from Ishmael and belonged elsewhere in the region, and installed rulers of its choosing as kings over “the Arabs,” the Hashemite family in Transjordan and Iraq and the rulers of the Persian Gulf coast whom it bound by treaty. The Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and North African peoples descend from the indigenous population of Kanaʿan and of their own lands, and they cannot be classed under a single father taken from a foundational myth. This Report therefore does not use the words “Arab” or “Jew” in its own voice. It uses them only when quoting others.

51. The Abraham Accords are the agreements concluded from 2020 (40) under the direction of the United States between the Nazi-Zionist proxy and rulers installed or protected by the responsible States. They rest on the Arab–Jew binary and present the dispossession of the Palestinian people as a family reconciliation between the sons of Abraham. Their legal effect is examined in Sections III.F and VIII.A.

52. Arabic place names are given first, followed by the ancient form where the record preserves one.

III. Background

A. The Indigenous People of Palestine and Their Continuous Presence on the Land

53. The Report finds that the Palestinian people are the continuous indigenous population of Palestine from at least the fifth millennium BC, with roots in the first farmers of the land, to the present, and are therefore the protected group under Article II of the Genocide Convention (2).

54. A court that considers genocide must first identify the group whose destruction is alleged. The responsible States and their proxy deny that the Palestinian people are the indigenous people of the land, and present them as late arrivals. The ancient record answers them. It is not the record of the Bible, which was written many centuries later. It is the record of Egypt and Mesopotamia, carved and written at the time, together with the cities dug out of the soil of Palestine and the bones buried beneath its villages. That record shows the indigenous people of Palestine on the land for at least seven thousand years, organised in tribes, farming their orchards and vineyards, ruling their own cities, and continuous in blood with the people who live there today.

55. Tell es-Sakan lies on the northern bank of Wadi Ghazza, about five kilometres south of Gaza City. It was found by chance during construction work in 1998 and excavated in 1999 and 2000 by a joint Palestinian and French team under Moain Sadeq of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Pierre de Miroschedji of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (41). The excavators found a settlement enclosed by mudbrick fortification walls in the last centuries of the fourth millennium BC, which they reported as the oldest fortifications then known in the southern Levant, and later phases of town life continuing into the third millennium. The area of Gaza therefore held a fortified town more than a thousand years before the earliest written records cited in this Report.

56. In October 2019 the Israel Antiquities Authority announced the excavation of an Early Bronze Age city at ʿAyn al-Asawir, at the western end of Wadi ʿAra (42). The excavators described a planned city of about 65 hectares with fortifications, streets and a public temple, home to about 6,000 people around 3000 BC, built over a settlement some seven thousand years old. Inland Kanaʿan held planned cities with public places of worship at the opening of the third millennium BC.

57. Weni was a senior official of the Egyptian Sixth Dynasty under Pharaoh Pepi I, around 2300 BC. His tomb inscription at Abydos records five campaigns against the Ḥeryu-shaʿ, “those who are upon the sand,” an Egyptian term for the people of the lands north-east of Egypt. In the translation of Miriam Lichtheim the army “ravaged the Sand-dwellers’ land,” “sacked its strongholds,” “cut down its figs, its vines,” “thrown fire in all its mansions,” and “slain its troops by many ten-thousands.” (43) This inscription is worth reading slowly. It is the earliest Egyptian account of war against the people of Kanaʿan, and it shows them living in walled towns and tending fig trees and vines. It also shows that an empire destroyed those trees and vines on purpose, as a method of war. The uprooting of the olive and the fig did not begin in our time.

58. A century earlier the tomb of Inti at Deshasheh in Middle Egypt, from the Fifth Dynasty, had already shown an Egyptian assault on a walled town defended by its Asiatic inhabitants, with soldiers climbing scaling ladders and breaching the wall while the townspeople stand inside. W. M. Flinders Petrie published the relief in 1898 (44). It is a picture, drawn at the time, of a fortified town of Kanaʿan in the middle of the third millennium BC.

59. The Story of Sinuhe is an Egyptian work of literature of about 1950 BC. It is not an administrative record, and it is used here only for what it shows of the Egyptian knowledge of Kanaʿan. In the story an Egyptian official flees his country and collapses from thirst in the desert. A tribal chief who had been to Egypt recognises him, gives him water, boils milk for him and takes him to his tribe. He is then received by ʿAmmunenshi, ruler of Upper Retjenu, the Egyptian name for the highlands of Kanaʿan, who gives him his eldest daughter in marriage and land in a district called Yaa. The text describes that land in these words.

“Figs were in it, and grapes. It had more wine than water. Abundant was its honey, plentiful its oil. All kinds of fruit were on its trees. Barley was there and emmer, and no end of cattle of all kinds.”

60. The official becomes chief of a tribe. He receives travelling messengers, gives water to the thirsty, guides those who have lost their way, rescues those who have been robbed, and fights a formal single combat against a champion of Retjenu. Any Bedouin or farming family of Palestine before 1948 would recognise these customs. Four thousand years ago an Egyptian writer knew Kanaʿan as a land of orchards, vineyards, oil, honey, grain and herds, held by tribes and rulers who protected the traveller and settled their disputes by custom.

61. The tomb of the provincial governor Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan contains a painted procession dated by its caption to the sixth year of Pharaoh Senusret II, around 1890 BC (45), (46). The caption records the arrival of thirty-seven ʿAamu, the Egyptian term for the people of Kanaʿan, bringing eye-paint. They are led by a man named Abisha, who bears the title ḥeqa khaset, “ruler of a foreign land.” The painting shows men, women and children in patterned woven clothing, donkeys carrying goods and children, composite bows and axes, a lyre and metalworking tools. It is the earliest known coloured picture of the people of Kanaʿan. It shows a tribal group under its own ruler, trading with Egypt, with its own weaving, metalwork and music.

62. The stele of Khu-Sebek, an officer of Pharaoh Senusret III, is held in the Manchester Museum (47). It records that the king “reached a foreign country called Sekmem. Then Sekmem fell, together with the wretched Retjenu.” Sekmem is Shechem, the city beside present-day Nablus, and around 1870 BC it was important enough to draw a royal Egyptian army. No Egyptian source of this period records any people in Kanaʿan other than its own.

63. The royal archive of Mari, at Tell Hariri on the Euphrates in present-day Syria, holds more than 20,000 cuneiform tablets, most of them from the reigns of Yasmah-Addu and Zimri-Lim (c. 1790–1761 BC). It is the largest surviving body of letters and records from the Amorite and Canaanite world of the eighteenth century BC, and in it the people of the region are named Kinaḫnum, the people of Kanaʿan. The letters describe two great tribal confederations. One is the Binu Yamina, “sons of the right hand.” The other is the Binu Simʾal, “sons of the left hand.” For a person facing east, the right hand points south and the left hand north, so the names mean “southerners” and “northerners.” Each was made up of named tribes, and those of the Binu Yamina included the Uprapû, Yaḫrurû, Amnanû and Rabbû. King Zimri-Lim himself belonged to the Binu Simʾal. These tribes herded, farmed and lived in towns. They held seasonal grazing grounds under their own heads and settled their affairs through assemblies, oaths and alliances.

64. The biblical tribe of Benjamin bears the name Binyamin, which has the same form and meaning as Binu Yamina. Genesis 35:18 explains it as a name Jacob gave to his youngest son. The Mari archive records the name about a thousand years before any biblical text, and records it as a directional name for a confederation of southern tribes, not as the name of a man.

65. In a letter published as ARM 2 37 (48), the official Ibal-El reports to Zimri-Lim that when an alliance was to be concluded between tribal groups he refused the sacrifice of a puppy and a goat, and had a donkey foal killed instead, according to the custom of the tribes, and peace was made. In these texts, “to kill a donkey foal” means to conclude a treaty. The name of the official, Ibal-El, carries the name of the god El (Section III.C).

66. The Mari records also note shipments of tin sent to the rulers of cities in Kanaʿan, among them Hazor and Laish. Hazor, at Tell al-Qedah beside the Palestinian village of Waqqas in the Upper Galilee, was the largest city of Kanaʿan at the time, and its ruler wrote directly to Mari. Laish, at Tell al-Qadi near the springs of the Jordan, appears as a city with its own ruler, trading in metal. Judges 18:29 states that a group called the tribe of Dan seized Laish and “called the name of the city Dan… howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.” The biblical text itself admits that the name Dan was laid over an older Canaanite city, and Mari confirms that the older name was in use a thousand years before.

Video. The Names of the Twelve Tribes Are Names of Places (Arabic). Tribe of Abimelech Platform.
{“src”: “VIDEO_URL”, “poster”: “POSTER_URL”}

67. What the Mari letters show is that the tribal names and customs which the Christian Zionist claim presents as the heritage of a people from outside the land are recorded first as the names and customs of the indigenous tribes of the region.

68. Tell el-Dabʿa, in the eastern Nile Delta, is Avaris, the capital of the Fifteenth Dynasty of Egypt. It has been excavated by the Austrian Archaeological Institute since 1966, first under Manfred Bietak (49). The excavators found a population of Levantine origin present from the late Twelfth Dynasty onward, with temples of Canaanite plan, burials in Canaanite style, some with pairs of donkeys laid before the tomb, and Canaanite pottery and weapons. The rulers of this dynasty, among them Khyan and Apepi, bore the title ḥeqau khasut, “rulers of foreign lands,” from which the Greek name “Hyksos” derives. It is the same title that Abisha bore at Beni Hasan. One ruler of this period was named Yaʿqub-Har, as his royal scarabs record. The name is the West Semitic form of the name later rendered Jacob.

69. In 2020 Chris Stantis, Arwa Kharobi, Nina Maaranen, Geoff Nowell, Manfred Bietak, Silvia Prell and Holger Schutkowski published a study of strontium isotopes in the teeth of people buried at Tell el-Dabʿa (PLOS ONE 15(7)) (50). They found many people born outside the region of Avaris both before and during the Fifteenth Dynasty, and they concluded that the dynasty rose from within a long-settled population of Levantine origin in the Delta rather than from an invasion.

70. The autobiography of Ahmose son of Ebana, an Egyptian naval officer, is carved in his tomb at el-Kab. It records that after Pharaoh Ahmose captured Avaris, the Egyptian army pursued its population into Kanaʿan and “besieged Sharuhen for three years.” Sharuhen stood on Wadi Ghazza, either at Tell el-ʿAjjul at the mouth of the wadi or at Tell el-Farʿah (South) further inland. Both lie where the lands of the Naqab tribes meet the coast of Gaza. The siege opened four centuries of Egyptian imperial occupation of Kanaʿan. The record of this period shows the indigenous population withdrawing into its own land. It shows no foreign people entering it.

71. In the twenty-third year of his reign, around 1457 BC, Pharaoh Thutmose III marched against a coalition of Canaanite and Syrian rulers led by the ruler of Kadesh and gathered at Megiddo, Tell al-Mutesellim, beside the Palestinian village of al-Lajjun in Marj Ibn ʿAmer. The Egyptian army came through the ʿAruna pass, which is Wadi ʿAra, defeated the coalition in the field and besieged the city for about seven months. The annals at Karnak list what was taken from Megiddo and its plain, 340 prisoners, 2,041 horses, 924 chariots, 1,929 cattle, 2,000 goats and 20,500 sheep (51). They also record that the army harvested the fields of the plain and carried off more than 200,000 sacks of grain. Marj Ibn ʿAmer was a plain rich enough to feed an imperial army, and an empire seized its harvest and its herds. The same records of Thutmose III at Karnak name Ḫazzatu, which is Ghazza, among the towns of Kanaʿan.

72. The list of conquered places carved at Karnak under Thutmose III includes the entry y-ʿ-q-b-ʾ-r, Yaʿqub-El, a place in central Kanaʿan (52). Its name joins the verbal element yaʿqub to the name of the god El. In the fifteenth century BC, then, the name later presented as that of the ancestor of a people from outside the land is the name of a Canaanite place, joined to the name of the Canaanite god.

73. Tell Taʿannak stands beside the Palestinian village of Taʿannak near Jenin. Between 1902 and 1904 Ernst Sellin recovered there cuneiform tablets of the fifteenth century BC, among them letters to the local ruler, one of them from an Egyptian official, and lists of persons (53). The towns of Kanaʿan were administered by their own rulers, who received letters and kept written records inside the land.

74. A stele of Pharaoh Amenhotep II from Memphis, from around 1420 BC, lists the people he claims to have carried to Egypt from Kanaʿan and Syria. The list includes 127 rulers of Retjenu and 179 of their brothers, 3,600 ʿApiru, 15,200 Shasu, 36,300 Kharu, 15,070 people of Nuhasse and 30,652 members of their families (54). Whatever the true size of these royal numbers, the list shows two things. The Egyptian state sorted the people of the region into named groups, all of them native to it. And imperial policy in Kanaʿan included the mass deportation of its people. No record of this period names any people called Israel.

75. In 2020 Lily Agranat-Tamir and her colleagues published in Cell the genome-wide analysis of 73 individuals buried at sites in the southern Levant between about 2500 and 1000 BC (55). The sites include Megiddo, Hazor, Abel Beth Maacah, which is the emptied Palestinian village of Abil al-Qamh, Yehud, which is the emptied Palestinian village of al-ʿAbbasiyya, and others. The study found that the people associated with Canaanite material culture across these sites formed one genetically related population, and that present-day Arabic-speaking and other populations of the region carry substantial ancestry from it. This Report relies only on its Bronze Age results. A study of 2017 sequenced the genomes of Canaanites buried at Sidon about 1700 BC and found that the present-day people of Lebanon draw about 93 percent of their ancestry from that population, and it traced that continuity across the last five millennia (56). The bones that tell this story lie beneath and beside villages whose people the Haganah and the army of the Nazi-Zionist state forcibly transferred by terror in 1948, and which that army then demolished or renamed. The laboratory confirms what the people of those villages always knew, that they are the descendants of those who were buried there.

Video. More than 120 Canaanite Bodies: The Genetic Evidence of Indigenous Ownership (Arabic). Tribe of Abimelech Platform.
{“src”: “VIDEO_URL”, “poster”: “POSTER_URL”}

76. The Egyptian Execration Texts of about 1900 BC already name established cities of the land, among them Rushalimum, which is al-Quds, and Šakmu, which is Nablus. The Amarna Letters of the fourteenth century BC record Urušalim, Šakmu, Lakiša (Lachish), Gazru (Gezer), Ḫaṣura (Hazor), Ašqaluna (Asqalan) and Akka (Acre) under the continuous rule of their own princes. No entity called “Yahuda” appears anywhere in this record. The name Yhw first appears around 1400 BC in the Soleb inscription, outside Kanaʿan, as the name of a land of the Shasu in the southern desert (57) (Section III.C). The name Israel first appears on the Merneptah Stele of about 1208 BC, as the name of a people, not of a city or a state. The sign that follows the name marks a people of the land, named beside Ashkelon, Gezer and Yenoʿam, and not a land or a state. The books of the Hebrew Bible were composed from the late seventh century BC onward and compiled largely in the Babylonian and Persian periods, many centuries after the events they claim to describe. No administrative or imperial record of any period describes an invading army that destroyed the cities of Kanaʿan and replaced their people. The names of those cities pass through the record into the twentieth century, and their people remained on the land.

77. This evidence bears on the case in three ways. It rebuts the defence, because the claim of ancestral title is false in fact and cannot justify the acts committed in its name. It establishes the protected group, because the Palestinian people are the continuous indigenous population of the land. And it is evidence from which intent may be inferred, because the responsible States and their proxy relied on a claim that the evidence contradicts, which shows that the claim was adopted as an instrument of genocide and not held in good faith. For thousands of years before the first written records the land held farming villages, fortified towns, a planned city and a farming people. In the second millennium BC it was ruled by its own princes, organised in tribes with their own customs, and repeatedly invaded by an empire that seized its harvests, cut down its trees and carried away its people. The names Jacob and Benjamin and the city later called Dan belong first to that indigenous world. The people who lived it are the ancestors of the Palestinians. The archaeological and genetic record set out above is the historical continuity with pre-invasion societies that the United Nations definition of indigenous peoples requires (29) (Section II.D).

78. Mandate-holders of the United Nations have described the Palestinians in the same terms. In 2022 the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese, found that the State had seized the land “while subjugating and displacing its indigenous people and replacing them with its nationals” (A/77/356, para. 10) (58), and in 2024 she found its conduct “predicated on the erasure of the Indigenous Palestinian people” (A/79/384, para. 56) (59). Her predecessor, Michael Lynk, called on it to “recognize the freedom of the indigenous people” (A/HRC/49/87, para. 36) (60). In 2017 the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia described the system as one of “domination over the indigenous Palestinian people” (E/ESCWA/ECRI/2017/1) (61). That report was withdrawn under pressure from the United States, and the Executive Secretary of the Commission, Rima Khalaf, resigned rather than withdraw it herself. The withdrawal of a United Nations finding at the demand of a responsible State is itself an act of the shield.

B. The Tribe of Abimelech and Its Ancestral Territory

79. Restitution requires a court to know what land was held, by whom and on what title. The Tribe of Abimelech, ʿAshīrat Ḥasanāt Abū Muʿailiq, is an indigenous tribal confederation of the Naqab and a part of the Palestinian people. In 1948 the forces of the Haganah, armed and trained by Britain and that year made the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, forcibly transferred the Tribe from its ancestral lands in Gerar, Wadi al-Shariʿa, Wadi Ghazza and the Naqab by terror and massacre, in the operations of October and November 1948 that began with Operation Yoav on 21 October 1948 (Section V.D). The Nazi-Zionist state has barred it from them ever since. Its members are among those killed, forcibly transferred and dispossessed in the Palestinian Genocide, and it therefore speaks as a victim of the crime.

80. Tell Abu Hureira lies on Wadi al-Shariʿa between Gaza and Bir al-Sabʿ. The Tribe knows it as Khirbet Umm al-Jarrar, and it stands at 31.3817° N, 34.6069° E. Yohanan Aharoni identified it with ancient Gerar in 1956 (62), and Eliezer Oren of Ben-Gurion University excavated it between 1982 and 1992 (63). The excavations showed that in the Middle Bronze Age the site was a fortified city of about 15 hectares, enclosed by earthen ramparts, with a sacred precinct on its summit holding a temple and pits filled with offerings and cult vessels. The site covers about forty dunams of the Tribe’s land and holds a Canaanite temple of the Late Bronze Age and remains from the Chalcolithic to the Byzantine periods. In the sacred precinct the excavators found the burial of a donkey with a metal bit in its mouth and the metal fastenings of its saddlebags. Guy Bar-Oz, Pirhiya Nahshoni, Hadas Motro and Eliezer Oren published the find in PLOS ONE in 2013 (64), dated it to the Middle Bronze Age and reported it as the earliest direct evidence for the use of a metal bit. The people of this valley were riding and loading their donkeys with metal gear while the Mari letters were being written.

81. W. M. Flinders Petrie excavated Tell el-ʿAjjul at the mouth of Wadi Ghazza between 1930 and 1934 (65). It was one of the largest cities of southern Kanaʿan in the Middle Bronze Age, and its hoards of gold jewellery are among the richest finds of the period in the region. Petrie also dug Tell el-Farʿah (South), a fortified town further inland, in 1928 and 1929, and Tell Jemmeh in 1926 and 1927. He proposed Tell Jemmeh as Gerar before the identification with Tell Abu Hureira was adopted. Together these sites show that the valleys of Wadi al-Shariʿa and Wadi Ghazza held a network of fortified cities with sanctuaries, long-distance trade and wealth in gold.

82. The Tribe is a confederation of ten founding lineages that bear the name of Abimelech, eight families joined to it through marriage, land and loyalty, and twelve families allied to it by tribal agreement. Its core bloodline is Ḥasanāt Abū Muʿailiq of Umm al-Jarrar, descended from Hassan through the lineages of ʿAwad and ʿOuda. The Tribe held this land as farmers and as peace-makers among the tribal confederations of the Naqab, in alliance with al-Tarabin, al-Jabarat, al-Sarahiyn and al-ʿAzazma, until 1948.

83. The founding lineage of Beersheba, descended from Hassan through ʿOuda, held the central lands of the Beersheba district. Its branches include Ḥasanāt Ibn Sabah (al-Sabahiha), al-ʿAwadira and al-ʿOwaidat. The southern seat at Khirbet Abū Muʿailiq, near Deir al-Balah, was lived in until 1948, when the army of the Nazi-Zionist state forcibly transferred its families toward Deir al-Balah.

84. Other lineages carry the name of the Tribe beyond the Naqab. The Ḥasanāt of Deir al-Dhaban in the Hebron highlands descend from Muhaysan and kept the Tribe’s customs through centuries of migration and war. The Ḥasanāt of Lifta, on the edge of Jerusalem, include the Saad and Maqbil families, who worked the land and the stone of Jerusalem. The Ḥasanāt of Haifa descend from Madi bin Hermas, who moved north and founded the al-Madi family in Ijzim, on the coast that came to be called the Coast of Ibn Madi. The Ḥasanāt of Wadi Musa in Jordan descend from families who left in times of famine and war. They include the families of Ayal ʿIsa, Ayal Sulayman, Ayal Siyah and Ayal Shahin, and they are allied with al-Liathina and Bani Hamida. The Ḥasanāt of al-Karak, an offshoot of Wadi Musa, are allied with Bani Hamida. The Ḥasanāt of Sudan, living between the Blue and the White Nile and allied with al-Kawahla, and the Ḥasanāt of Saudi Arabia, allied with Bani ʿAtiya, keep the identity of the Tribe in exile.

85. Eight families were joined to the Tribe through marriage, land and loyalty. Abū ʿAwimer held land at al-Sahmani. Abū Mazid expanded the Tribe’s farming. Abū al-ʿAwar defended the Tribe under Ottoman and British rule. Abū Sabra held rights to water and shared grazing. Al-ʿAfash brought building and craft. Al-Ashʿal bought land, settled in peace and drew from the Tribe’s wells. Abū Mutawwaʿ and al-Zeer complete the eight.

86. Twelve families were allied to the Tribe by agreements over grazing, water, mediation, trade and defence. They are al-Waliyan, al-Mashoukhi, al-Sarahiyn, al-Shaalan, al-Zira, al-ʿAwamra, al-Buraikat, Abū Mutawiʿ, al-Sabour, al-Mazayda, al-Mutawaʿiyin and al-ʿAwran. Among them were mediators of disputes, guides of the desert routes, keepers of the seasonal migration routes and the wells, traders between the tribes and the towns, and religious advisers. This structure of lineages, families and alliances is the social order of an indigenous people holding defined land under its own customary law.

87. The territory of the Tribe lay between Gaza and Beersheba, along Wadi al-Shariʿa and its tributaries. Wadi al-Shariʿa runs for about forty kilometres from the hills near Lahav through the northern Naqab, past Tell al-Shariʿa, to join Wadi Ghazza. Its valley and the valleys of Wadi Suhmaan and Wadi al-Baha were the Tribe’s grazing and farming lands. Its villages and sites carry names that describe the land itself, Khirbet Umm al-Jarrar, Khirbet al-Gharar, Khirbet Abū Muʿailiq, Khirbet Umm Nadhur, Khirbet al-ʿAdhar, al-Rasm, Dhiraʿ al-Rih, al-Mashbeh, Sawata, al-Ramala, Khirbet Umm Nakheela, Khirbet Umm Rajl, al-Sarawil, Khirbet Umm al-Ghazlan, Mahni Yadaya, Qaʿ al-Qadar, al-Habwa, al-Hamra, al-Jahmiyat, Umm al-Doud, Tell al-Maghribi, al-Sahmani, al-Qasr, al-Muʿtarada, al-Shuwaihi, Shaʿrata and Umm al-Hayyat. The names remember the palms of Umm Nakheela, the gazelles of Umm al-Ghazlan, the red earth of al-Hamra, the sand of al-Ramala and the wind of Dhiraʿ al-Rih. They are the names of a people who lived on the land and named it.

88. Bir al-Sabʿ, the place of the covenant between Abimelech and Abraham, was the administrative and market centre of the Naqab tribes. The Ottoman state made it a district centre in 1900. The British census counted 2,959 inhabitants in the town in 1931 and 5,570 were recorded in 1945. Across the Naqab between 65,000 and 90,000 Bedouin lived on the eve of the war, and about 11,000 remained at its end. On 21 October 1948, in Operation Yoav, the forces of the Nazi-Zionist state seized the town and forcibly transferred its people (Section V.D).

89. The Tribe’s presence on this land was continuous until 1948, when it was forcibly transferred by the forces named above. The families of the Beersheba district who reached Jordan became known as al-Sabʿawiya and now number more than one million. Those who reached the Gaza Strip were confined to Deir al-Balah, al-Nuseirat and al-Maghazi, a few kilometres from lands they are barred from entering. Others live in the West Bank and in exile in Sudan and Saudi Arabia. The Tribe keeps a register of its members killed in the genocide since October 2023 (Section V.D). Its title to its territory rests on this continuous presence, on its customary law of land, water and grazing, and on the record of the sites themselves.

90. The text on which the identity fraud rests describes this land in the following terms. Genesis 20 states that Abraham “sojourned in Gerar” and that Abimelech was king of Gerar. Genesis 21:22–34 records a covenant between Abraham and Abimelech at Beersheba concerning a well. Genesis 26 records quarrels over wells between Isaac’s household and the herdsmen of Gerar, and a further covenant with Abimelech. The text presents the land of Gerar as held by an established ruler, and it presents the ancestor of the claim as a resident stranger who must make a covenant with that ruler for access to water. The excavations show that a fortified city with a sanctuary stood in the valley centuries before any biblical text was written. The claim’s own scripture, in other words, names Abimelech as the lord of the land and Abraham as his guest.

91. The Tribe is an indigenous people as affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007 (31). Article 8 of the Declaration affirms the right of indigenous peoples not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture, and requires States to provide effective redress for any action that deprives them of their integrity as distinct peoples, their cultural values or ethnic identities, or their lands, territories or resources. Article 10 affirms that indigenous peoples “shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.” Article 28 affirms their right to redress, including restitution, for lands they traditionally owned that were taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent. These rights are secured in binding law by Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (32) and Article 5(d)(v) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (33). This Report is submitted in the exercise of those rights.

C. El of Kanaʿan and the Name “Israel”

92. The Report finds that the name “Israel” is an indigenous Canaanite name built on El, the god of the people of Kanaʿan, and that its use by the proxy is part of the identity theft.

93. The proxy bears the name “Israel.” The responsible States and the Protestant Christian Zionist movement present that name as the title of an incoming people to whom the land was given. The record before 1350 BC tells a different story. The name Yisra-El is built on El, the high god of the indigenous people of Kanaʿan, and the name was stolen from the heritage of the indigenous people.

94. El is the general Northwest Semitic word for “god” and the name of a particular deity. Herbert Huffmon’s study of the personal names in the Mari archive (66) found that ʾil, El, is the most frequent divine element in the Amorite personal names of the eighteenth century BC. The official Ibal-El at Mari and the place Yaʿqub-El in Kanaʿan both carry it (Section III.A). In the Canaanite texts of Ugarit, from the thirteenth century BC, El is the head of the gods. Those texts fall outside the period of evidence and are not relied on here. Within it, El was the dominant divine name in the personal and place names of the region.

95. Shasu is the Egyptian term for pastoral groups of the deserts east and south of Egypt’s frontier. Raphael Giveon collected the Egyptian texts that mention them (67). They place the Shasu in Seir and Edom, south and east of the Dead Sea, in the Naqab and in Sinai. The Shasu first appear in the records of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, and Amenhotep II counted 15,200 of them among his captives. In region and way of life, the Shasu of the Egyptian record correspond to the Bedouin tribes of the Naqab and southern Palestine.

96. The temple of Amenhotep III (c. 1390–1352 BC) at Soleb, in Nubia in present-day Sudan, carries lists of lands carved on the bases of its columns. One group names the “lands of the Shasu,” each entry in the form “land of the Shasu” followed by a name. One such name is Seir. Another is Yhw. In this list Yhw stands where Seir stands, as the name of a district or group of the Shasu of the south (57). The list does not describe Yhw as a god, and it does not connect the name with the cities of Kanaʿan or with any people called Israel.

97. From before 2000 BC to the reign of Amenhotep III, the record contains no people or land called Israel and no polity called Judah. It contains no god named Yhw worshipped in the cities of Kanaʿan and no text of the Hebrew Bible. It contains no account of a people entering Kanaʿan from outside and taking possession of it.

98. The name that Christian Zionism presents as that of a universal deity who granted the land to an incoming people is recorded first as an indigenous name of the southern desert, in the region of the Naqab tribes. The name “Israel” itself joins a verb to El, the god whose name the people of Kanaʿan gave to their children and their places. The name the proxy carries was not brought into the land. It was stolen from the indigenous people of the land, and its use by the proxy is part of the identity theft defined in Section II.D.

D. The Break from Rome, 1534

99. The Report finds that the motive for the Palestinian Genocide was formed in England in the sixteenth century, and that it was a motive of authority, not of land. Having broken from Rome, the English Crown sought to recover the authority it had lost by claiming the land of Palestine and the identity attached to it. The indigenous people of Palestine stood in the way of that claim, and the claim could be completed only by the genocide of that people.

100. Palestine is the land in which Christianity and the Church were born. The authority that the Church of Rome held over the rulers of Europe for a thousand years was not native to Rome. It came from Palestine, from the life and death of the Christ, from the apostles and from the first Church of Jerusalem, and Rome held it by succession. Kings were crowned by that authority, their wars were blessed by it and their title to land was certified by it.

101. In 1534 the English Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy and declared the King of England the supreme head of the Church in England. In breaking with Rome, the English Crown and its Protestant reformers cut the line of succession on which their own authority had rested. They could not recover that authority through the Church they had rejected.

102. The English Protestant establishment resolved this crisis by going around Rome to the source itself, the land of Palestine and the biblical identity attached to it. A power that held the source would no longer need the intermediary. The land was inhabited by its indigenous people, whose continuous presence was the living evidence of where that authority had come from. The claim could therefore be completed only by denying the existence of that people, stealing its identity and seizing its land, and in the end it required the genocide of that people. The plan became State policy when Henry Temple, the minister directing British foreign policy, instructed the British ambassador at Constantinople on 11 August 1840 to recommend to the Ottoman government that it encourage the transfer of the population he called “the Jews of Europe” to Palestine (F.O. 78/390, No. 134) (68).

103. The Report does not charge these events as separate crimes. They are evidence of motive and premeditation (Section II.A). They show that the genocidal intent of the responsible States, the intent to destroy the indigenous people of Palestine “as such” in the words of Article II (2), has its source in a doctrine formed in England centuries before any act on the ground. The doctrine formed in England after 1534 is the motive and ideological source of the claim. The intent to destroy is shown by the conduct and statements of 1947 to 1950 and since 2023 (Sections V and VI), and the doctrine explains why that conduct was directed at the indigenous people as such, because their existence contradicted the claim (Section I.F).

E. The Claim to the Identity of Israel

104. The Report finds that the identity theft was committed in two stages. First, English Protestants stole the name “Israel,” and the title to the land that the biblical text attaches to it, for themselves. Second, the responsible States committed the same identity theft on behalf of the illegal immigrants they moved into Palestine. At both stages the theft was accompanied by the reversal of indigenous and immigrant, in which the indigenous people were recast as intruders on their own land.

105. In 1563 John Foxe, the English Protestant martyrologist, published Acts and Monuments, which presented England as a nation chosen by God in the place of Rome (15). Foxe’s book was placed beside the Bible in English churches, and generations of English people learned from it that they were the elect nation. In 1644 John Milton, the Puritan writer and later an official of Oliver Cromwell’s government, wrote in Areopagitica that God revealed himself “first to his English-men.” (69) In 1794 Richard Brothers, an English self-proclaimed prophet, announced that the British people descended from the ancient Hebrews (70). In 1840 John Wilson, an English lecturer, published Our Israelitish Origin (71), and in 1871 Edward Hine published Identification of the British Nation with Lost Israel (72). From these works grew British Israelism, the doctrine that the English-speaking Protestant peoples were themselves the biblical Israel.

106. To claim the name “Israel” was to claim the land that the biblical text attaches to that name. A people that called itself Israel claimed by that act a title to Kanaʿan. The English Protestant establishment committed the identity theft first for itself. The same establishment later transferred it to the illegal immigrant population it moved into Palestine. That second use of the identity theft, to deceive the world into accepting a false title, is the identity fraud examined in Section III.G.

107. An occupying regime of illegal immigrants does not seek to live beside the indigenous people. It seeks to replace them. To do so it presents the immigrant as the true and rightful inhabitant, and the indigenous people as intruders, nomads or temporary occupants. The English Puritans applied this method in North America before it was applied to Palestine. In 1630 John Winthrop, leader of the English Puritans sailing to Massachusetts, told his company that they would be “as a city upon a hill,” and cast Massachusetts as a new Israel entering a promised land (16). The Puritans called themselves Israel and called the indigenous nations Canaanites and Amalekites, the peoples whom the biblical text orders destroyed. In May 1637 they burned the Pequot fort at Mystic, killed several hundred men, women and children, and justified the massacre from scripture (Section VI.F).

108. The same reversal was applied to Palestine. The indigenous Palestinian people, who have lived on the land without interruption since the cities of Kanaʿan were built (Sections III.A and III.B), were recast as “late occupiers,” as invaders of the seventh century or as migrants of the British period (Section VI.D). The illegal immigrant population, brought from Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, was recast as the native returning home.

109. Protestant restorationism began as a doctrine of prophecy and expectation. The Protestant Christian Zionist actors themselves turned it into a political programme. From 1839 they pressed the British government to move a foreign population into Palestine under its protection, and in 1891 they petitioned the government of the United States to the same end (Section III.H). Political Zionism, organised after 1896, adopted that programme and gave it the form of a secular nationalist movement. A nationalist movement must define the people it claims to represent as a nation and bind that nation to a territory. Political Zionism therefore anchored its new national identity in the land the responsible States had already claimed. To make that identity appear ancient and lawful, it stole the history, geography and names of the indigenous people who lived there.

110. This record shows a course of conduct in which each party supplied an essential part. The responsible States supplied the doctrine, the maps, the imperial access and the state protection. Political Zionism supplied the illegal immigrants and the terrorist organisations. The object of the plan was the seizure of Palestine and the genocide of its indigenous people. From 1947 the plan was carried out by the terrorist organisations that Britain armed and trained, the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi, and from 1948 by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state. The intent formed in England passed to the instrument that would carry it out, and that is the basis of the responsibility of the responsible States for failure to prevent, complicity, aid or assistance and, for Britain in the years of its occupation, direction and control in the alternative (Sections I.G and VIII). The Nazi-Zionist proxy that the responsible States brought into being in 1948 carries a stolen name on behalf of those who stole it.

F. The Patriarchal Narrative as a Foundational Myth

111. The Report finds that the Patriarchal Narrative, as Protestant Christian Zionism uses it, is a political classification of territories and peoples and not a record of descent. Its persons are literary figures, its “sons” are places, and no title to land and no claim to identity can rest on it.

112. The stories of Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Book of Genesis are known in scholarship as the Patriarchal Narrative. The historians Keith Whitelam, in The Invention of Ancient Israel. The Silencing of Palestinian History (73), and Nur Masalha, in The Bible and Zionism (74), have shown how political Zionism and its Protestant supporters turned that narrative into a foundational myth. In that myth the illegal immigrants brought from Russia and Eastern Europe descend from the persons of the narrative and inherit the land, and the indigenous people are outsiders with no right to the land. This Report does not challenge the faith of any community in its scripture. It examines the use made of that scripture to justify the genocide.

113. Genesis 9:18–27 names the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth, and identifies Ham as the father of Canaan. Noah then pronounces a curse.

“Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” (9:25). “Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant” (9:26).

114. Genesis 10, the Table of Nations, lists the sons of Ham as Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan (10:6), the descendants of Canaan as Sidon, Heth, the Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgasite, the Hivite and others (10:15–18), and gives “the border of the Canaanites” as running “from Sidon… unto Gaza” (10:19). It lists the sons of Shem as Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram (10:22). Genesis 11:10–26 then traces one line from Shem through Arphaxad to Terah and his son Abram, later called Abraham, and Genesis 12 to 50 continues it through Isaac and Jacob to the twelve sons of Jacob.

115. The genealogy does two things. It places Abraham and his line within the descent of Shem, who receives the blessing. And it places Canaan, the name of the land and of its indigenous people, within the descent of Ham, condemned to serve Shem. This is the Patriarchal Narrative that Christian Zionism adopted, and the identity fraud follows its line (Section III.G).

116. The “sons” of Genesis 10 are recorded in the ancient sources as lands, cities, states and peoples, not as persons. Canaan is the name of the land and its people in the Mari archive of the eighteenth century BC, and Genesis 10:19 itself gives Canaan borders, from Sidon to Gaza. The text is describing a territory. Mizraim is the Northwest Semitic name of Egypt. Cush is Kush, the kingdom of Upper Nubia, whose rulers are named in the Egyptian Execration Texts. Elam is the land and state of south-western Iran, recorded from the third millennium BC. Asshur is Assur, the city on the Tigris and its god, whose merchants left the Old Assyrian archives of Kanesh in Anatolia between the twentieth and eighteenth centuries BC. Heth is Hatti, the Hittite kingdom of central Anatolia, established by about 1650 BC. The Amorite is Amurru, the name for the peoples and lands west of Mesopotamia in Sumerian sources of the third millennium BC.

117. Each of these names existed as the name of a land, city, state or people before any biblical text was written. The genealogy turns those territories into persons and arranges them as fathers, sons and brothers. Robert R. Wilson’s study of biblical genealogies (75) showed that such lists express political, territorial and social relationships between groups, not the biological descent of individuals. No source of the period of evidence records Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Abraham or Isaac. The only name of the patriarchal line that appears is Jacob, and it appears as the Canaanite place name Yaʿqub-El and the royal name Yaʿqub-Har (Section III.A).

118. Elam, which the genealogy places among the sons of Shem, spoke Elamite, a language unrelated to the Semitic family. Heth, which it places under Canaan and Ham, spoke Hittite, an Indo-European language. Canaan, which it places under Ham, spoke Canaanite, a Northwest Semitic language close to the Amorite of Mari and to the later Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. The genealogy separates Canaan from its own language family and places it in the same branch as Egypt and Kush, under whose rule Canaan lay for much of the second millennium BC. The arrangement follows political relationships, not descent or language. It is a political classification that gives blessing and land to one line and servitude to the indigenous people of Canaan.

119. This Report finds that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob as an ancestor, and the twelve sons of Jacob are not historical persons. They are literary figures created by the authors of a text compiled between 1,200 and 1,400 years after the events it claims to describe. The Patriarchal Narrative is a literary construction and not an authentic record of the descent of any real population. Four grounds support this finding.

120. The first ground is that the founding ancestor is borrowed from older Mesopotamian literature. The Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis survives in a copy dated by its colophon to the reign of King Ammi-saduqa of Babylon (c. 1646–1626 BC). It tells how the gods sent a flood to destroy humanity, and how one man, Atrahasis, was warned, built a boat, took his family and animals aboard, survived and offered a sacrifice around which the gods gathered (76). A Sumerian flood story from Nippur of about the same period tells the same story with a hero named Ziusudra, and copies of the Sumerian King List from the early second millennium BC already divide the history of kingship into the periods before and after “the flood.” (77) The flood story of Genesis 6–9 follows this Mesopotamian story, and Noah takes the place of Atrahasis and Ziusudra. The figure from whom the whole genealogy of Genesis 10 and 11 descends is a character adapted from older literature, not a historical ancestor.

121. The second ground is that the sons are places. A land with borders cannot be the grandson of a man. The same method appears in the names of the twelve sons of Jacob. The biblical text itself uses Judah and Ephraim as the names of hill-country regions, and the Mari archive records the name later given to Benjamin as a directional name for a confederation of tribes.

122. The third ground is that the persons are absent from the record and archaeology does not support them. Thomas L. Thompson (78) and John Van Seters (79) examined the customs, names and settings that earlier scholars had used to place the patriarchs in the second millennium BC, and showed that this material does not support that dating. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (80) concluded from the archaeological record that the patriarchal stories were composed in the first millennium BC and reflect the conditions of their writing. In critical historical and archaeological scholarship the patriarchs are not treated as historical individuals.

123. The fourth ground is that the genealogy contradicts the linguistic record, as shown above.

124. A claim of descent from these figures is therefore a claim of descent from literary characters, and a title to land based on that descent has no historical basis.

125. The words “Semite” and “Semitic” do not occur in any ancient source. In 1781 August Ludwig von Schlözer, a historian at the University of Göttingen, proposed the name “Semitic languages” for the family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic and their relatives, taking the name from Shem in Genesis 10. The proposal was published in Johann Gottfried Eichhorn’s Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur (81), a journal of German Protestant biblical scholarship. In the nineteenth century European scholars turned this linguistic term into a racial category, the “Semitic race,” and the French scholar Ernest Renan is the most cited example (82). “Semite” is therefore a category of eighteenth-century European Protestant scholarship, later racialised in Europe. As a linguistic term it describes the family to which the Canaanite of the ancient record and the Arabic of the Palestinian people both belong. As a claim of descent from Shem it has no basis in the ancient record.

126. The curse on Canaan in Genesis 9:25 became known in Britain and North America as the “curse of Ham.” Protestant writers in the United States used it to justify the enslavement of Africans, as Stephen R. Haynes (83) and David M. Goldenberg (84) have documented. The same genealogy gives the land of Canaan to the line of Shem through Abraham and assigns the people of Canaan to servitude, and the Christian Zionist claim to Palestine follows that assignment. In both uses a text that turns territories into persons was used to decide which people are entitled to land and freedom, and which are condemned to dispossession and servitude.

127. The genealogy did not stop at Shem and Ham. The same narrative divides the descendants of Abraham into two lines, Isaac and Jacob on one side and Ishmael on the other. European scholarship and British policy turned that division into a classification of living peoples. The illegal immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe were named the sons of Isaac and Jacob and given the name “Israel.” The indigenous peoples of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and North Africa were named “Arabs,” the sons of Ishmael, as though they were one people from one father who belonged somewhere other than their own land.

128. The indigenous peoples of the region did not name themselves in this way. The Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and North African peoples descend from the indigenous populations of Kanaʿan and of their own lands, as the ancient DNA evidence shows for Palestine. The classification served the British occupation. Britain bound the rulers of the Persian Gulf coast to itself by treaty from 1820 (85), named the coast the “Pirate Coast” and its rulers the “Trucial” sheikhs, and at the Cairo Conference of 1921 installed the Hashemite family as rulers of Iraq and Transjordan. It then presented the rulers it had installed and protected as the kings and leaders of “the Arabs,” entitled to speak for peoples they did not represent.

129. The Abraham Accords (40) continue this method. Concluded from 15 September 2020 under the direction of the United States, they bound the Nazi-Zionist proxy to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, rulers with whom Britain concluded the treaties of 1820, 1853 and 1892 that placed their foreign relations under British control, and later to Morocco and Sudan. The Accords take their name from the Patriarchal Narrative and present the dispossession of the Palestinian people as a quarrel within one family, to be settled by a reconciliation between the “sons of Abraham.” The Palestinian people, whose land and lives are the subject of the matter, were not a party. Morocco’s accession was exchanged for United States recognition of Moroccan claims over Western Sahara (86), the territory of another people.

130. The Accords cannot bind the Palestinian people or dispose of their rights. The right of a people to self-determination is owed to all States (erga omnes), as the International Court of Justice held in East Timor (1995, para. 29) (34) and in its Chagos advisory opinion (2019, para. 180) (35), and cannot be traded away by third States. Articles 26 and 28 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (31) recognise the right of indigenous peoples to the lands they have traditionally owned and to redress for lands taken without their free, prior and informed consent. No agreement between the proxy and rulers installed by the responsible States can give that consent. The Accords also rest on the identity fraud, which has no force in law.

131. The Patriarchal Narrative, read as the Christian Zionist movement reads it, is a political map drawn in the form of a genealogy of nations. It gives the land to one line and condemns the people of the land to servitude. Its persons are not historical, its “sons” are places, and the category “Semite” drawn from it is a European invention. A claim of descent from literary figures cannot found title to land or identity in law (Section III.G). The Arab–Jew binary built on it was an instrument of the British occupation, and the Abraham Accords that rest on that binary cannot bind the Palestinian people and have no effect on their rights.

G. The Identity Fraud and the Law

132. The responsible States, the proxy and the Protestant Christian Zionist movement assert that a deity granted Palestine to the illegal immigrants and that this grant overrides the rights of the indigenous people. The Report finds that this claim, the identity fraud, is false as history, false as descent and void in law, and that the responsible States nonetheless wrote it into law and made it the foundation of their policy. The history on which the claim draws is the history of the indigenous people of Palestine, one of the oldest continuous societies in the world. The deity it invokes is El, the ancient god of Kanaʿan, whose name the indigenous people carried in their own place names and personal names long before any biblical text was written (Section III.C). The population to which the claim was assigned had no ancestral connection with that land, that history or that deity. It was given an identity it did not possess, and the indigenous people were denied the identity that was theirs. The claim is set out first in its own terms.

133. Protestant Christian Zionism asserts that the God of the Hebrew Bible granted the land of Palestine to a people who entered it from outside, and that the state calling itself “Israel” holds that grant today. On this assertion the movement finances, arms and protects the proxy (Section VII), and on the same assertion it attacks the courts that prosecute the proxy’s officials (Section VIII.C). The text on which the claim rests is Genesis 15:18–21. There the land is promised “from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” The same passage names ten peoples already in possession of it, the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites. Genesis 12:6 states that when Abram passed through the land, “the Canaanite was then in the land.” The claim therefore concedes in its own founding text that an indigenous people held the land before the grant was made.

134. The claim is a claim of priority. It asserts that the deity, the people and their tribal and personal names stand at the beginning of the history of the land, and that the indigenous people are secondary to them. A claim of priority can only be tested against the oldest available record. This Report has conducted that test in Sections III.A to III.F and finds the claim to be false.

135. The responsible States did not leave the identity fraud as a matter of preaching. They wrote it into law. In 1922 the “Mandate for Palestine,” drafted by Britain and endorsed by the United States, declared in its preamble that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” (6) By these words the Mandate attributed to a population of European immigrants a connection with Palestine drawn from the Patriarchal Narrative, and named that connection the ground for giving them the country as a homeland. By this instrument the identity fraud of the British Protestant establishment was given the form of a legal title. The people it spoke for were Europeans from Russia and Eastern Europe whom Britain and the United States had refused at home (Section VII.A). They had no connection with Palestine and no home there to restore. Article 6 required the occupation administration to bring them in, which meant the transfer of unwanted Europeans into Palestine, against the will of its people and under foreign military occupation, to serve as the instrument through which the responsible States would hold the land. In the same instrument the indigenous people, the true heirs of the land’s history, were given no name of their own. They were reduced to “the existing non-Jewish communities” of their own country. The instrument thus gave a fraudulent claim the force of an international title and denied the indigenous people any recognition as a people in their own country.

136. The claim depends on the story of an outside people who left Egypt, invaded the land and destroyed its inhabitants. Excavations across Palestine since the middle of the twentieth century have found no sign of that arrival, and no foreign occupation following the collapse of the Bronze Age world that struck the whole Eastern Mediterranean and Near East. The archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and William Dever and the historians Thomas L. Thompson and Keith Whitelam have shown that the ancient communities of Palestine emerged from within its indigenous population and were not invaders (80), (87), (78), (73).

137. No evidence links the illegal immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe to the ancient population of Palestine as its heirs. The responsible States did not discover that identity in these immigrants. They assigned it to them. The indigenous people of Palestine were never destroyed or replaced, and their continuity is the Palestinian people, above all the Fellahin and the Bedouin.

138. A religious text does not give title to territory under international law, and ancient descent, even where it can be proved, gives no title to land and no right over the people who live on it. In its Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara of 16 October 1975 (88), the International Court of Justice held that historical ties claimed by an outside party do not override the right of the people of a territory to self-determination. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations (89) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) (90) affirms “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” In its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 (26), the International Court of Justice held that the occupation of the Palestinian territory is unlawful and that the Palestinian people hold the right to self-determination over that territory.

139. The claim of ancestral title is not a matter of faith. In law it is a component of the crime and the motive for it. The responsible States used it to give a foreign population the identity of the indigenous people and to strip the indigenous people of their standing as the natives of their own land. For the identity fraud to stand, the responsible States required the genocide of the indigenous people, because their existence disproves it. From 1947 the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi, which Britain had armed and trained, carried it out by massacre, terrorism and forcible transfer, and the Nazi-Zionist state continues it. That is why they are targeted as such, inside and outside occupied Palestine. By making the claim the foundation of their policy, the responsible States supplied the motive and the premeditation, and the claim explains why the conduct set out in Sections V and VI, from which the specific intent required by Article II of the Genocide Convention (2) is shown, was directed at the Palestinian people as such. The claim is examined here because it is the instrument through which the Christian Zionist movement mobilises the political, financial and military support on which the genocide depends. To expose it is to deny that support any justification.

H. The Restoration Movement, 1621–1897

140. The Report finds that the plan to transfer a foreign population into Palestine was conceived by English Protestants in the seventeenth century, adopted as British state policy by the dispatch of Henry Temple to the British ambassador at Constantinople of 11 August 1840 (68) and supported by American Protestant leaders from 1891, before political Zionism existed. Political Zionism joined a plan that the responsible States had already made.

141. The Palestinian theologian Mitri Raheb has written that “Christian Zionism preceded Jewish Zionism by half a century.” (28) The record bears him out. The call to move an unwanted population out of Europe and into Palestine, in order to bring about the return of Christ, did not begin with that population. It began in English Protestantism, and it became British state policy long before political Zionism existed.

142. In 1621 the English lawyer Henry Finch published The World’s Great Restauration (91), which called for the Jews, as he named them, to be restored to Palestine under a kingdom of their own. In 1649 the English Puritans Joanna and Ebenezer Cartwright petitioned the English government to carry the Jews, as they named them, in English ships “unto the Land promised to their forefathers.” (92) In the 1830s and 1840s the Anglo-Irish preacher John Nelson Darby organised these ideas into dispensationalism, a theology in which the gathering of the Jews, as the theology names them, in Palestine is a condition for the end of the world.

143. The British enterprise reached Palestine through its missionaries before it reached it through its armies. In 1833 John Nicolayson of the London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews established himself in Jerusalem. In 1838 the Society bought land in the old city, on which it later built Christ Church, the first Protestant church in the Holy Land. In the same year Britain opened a consulate in Jerusalem, the first European consular post in the city. Its first vice-consul, William Young, was instructed by the British Foreign Office in 1839 “to afford protection to the Jews generally,” which made the British state the protector of a population it intended to use. Raheb draws attention to this coincidence of mission and consulate (93). The land purchase of the missionary society and the consular post of the British state arrived together, and both served the same purpose. The Americans followed close behind. The United States opened its first consular presence in Jerusalem in 1844, and in 1856 its first permanent consul, John Warren Gorham, took office inside the Jaffa Gate of the old city. In 1881 Horatio and Anna Spafford, Protestants from Chicago, founded the American Colony in Jerusalem. The United States was by then an independent country, no longer a British colony, but its Protestant establishment carried the same doctrine to the same city.

144. The man who joined the mission to the state was Anthony Ashley-Cooper, later Earl of Shaftesbury, a hereditary British aristocrat, member of Parliament and the leading evangelical of nineteenth-century Britain. He was related by marriage to Henry Temple, Viscount Palmerston, who directed British foreign policy. In January 1839 Ashley-Cooper published in the Quarterly Review a long article on “the State and Prospects of the Jews,” (94) calling for the transfer of that population to Palestine under British protection. Between 1839 and 1841 he pressed Temple to move a foreign population into Palestine under the protection of the British Crown. He recorded the opening of the Jerusalem consulate in his diary as the beginning of the fulfilment of prophecy.

145. In June 1841 Charles Henry Churchill, a British officer stationed in Damascus, wrote to Moses Montefiore in London urging that the transfer to Palestine of the population he called “the Jews” be adopted as a political cause under the protection of the European Powers. The initiative came from the British side. On 30 July 1853 Ashley-Cooper wrote to George Hamilton-Gordon, Earl of Aberdeen, who then led the British government, that Palestine was “a country without a nation” to be matched with “a nation without a country,” and in 1854 he wrote in his diary that Palestine was “a country without a nation” awaiting “a nation without a country.” At that date the indigenous people of Palestine, including the tribes of the Naqab, were farming, grazing and paying taxes on the land that a British aristocrat declared empty (Section VI.D) (95).

146. The plan was not born among the people it would later transport, nor among the people of the land. It was conceived in London by Protestant aristocrats, clergy and ministers who meant to use a foreign population to seize a land that was not theirs and to hold it for the British Empire.

147. The Palestine Exploration Fund was founded in London in 1865 under the patronage of Queen Victoria by British Protestant clergy, scholars and military officers (17). At its founding meeting William Thomson, the Anglican Archbishop of York, who presided, said in these words.

“Palestine belongs to you and to me. It is essentially ours.”

148. Between 1871 and 1877 the Fund carried out the Survey of Western Palestine (96) through officers of the Royal Engineers. Among them was Lieutenant Horatio Herbert Kitchener, later commander of the armies of the British Empire. The Survey mapped every village, well and ruin of the country, and beside the indigenous Arabic names it set the biblical names that the British enterprise claimed. It mapped Palestine as “the Land of the Bible” for a Protestant readership and supplied the British Empire with military maps of the country. Protestant theology and British military reconnaissance were carried out as one operation.

149. American Protestant Christian Zionism moved in step with the British. In 1891 William Blackstone, an American Protestant preacher of the Restoration Movement, presented to Benjamin Harrison, head of the United States government, a petition signed by 413 bankers, industrialists, legislators, editors and Protestant clergy, calling for Palestine to be given to a foreign population. In 1916 the same petition was presented again to Woodrow Wilson, head of the United States government and the son of a Presbyterian minister.

150. Theodor Herzl published Der Judenstaat in 1896 and convened the first Zionist Congress in 1897. By then British Protestant restorationism had been pressing the British state for more than fifty years, and American Protestant restorationism had already petitioned the government of the United States. Political Zionism joined a British Protestant enterprise and depended on British power to carry it out.

151. This chronology establishes premeditation. The plan to seize Palestine, transfer its indigenous people out of it by force and replace them with a transferred population, which the terrorist organisations armed and trained by Britain carried out from 1947, was formed, adopted as British State policy in 1840 and placed before the government of the United States in 1891 by a petition presented to Benjamin Harrison and signed by 413 leading Americans more than half a century before political Zionism existed. Political Zionism was the instrument of the plan, not its author. The Report holds the responsible States to be principals in it, on the grounds of failure to prevent, complicity, aid or assistance and, for Britain in the years of its occupation, direction and control in the alternative (Sections I.G and VIII).

I. The Balfour Declaration and the British Occupation, 1917–1948

152. Between 1915 and 1916 Henry McMahon, Britain’s representative in Cairo, pledged in writing to Hussein bin Ali, ruler of the Hijaz, that Britain would recognise and support the independence of the peoples of the region if they rose against the Ottoman Empire. The peoples of the region, including those of Palestine, rose in June 1916 and fought on that pledge. In the same year Britain secretly agreed with France, in the Sykes–Picot Agreement, to divide the same lands between them.

153. On 2 November 1917, while British forces were still fighting the Ottoman army in southern Palestine, Arthur James Balfour, the minister directing British foreign policy, declared that the British government viewed with favour “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” it being “clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” (27) The national home it promised was for Europeans unwanted in Europe, and its own proviso bound Britain to the rights it then breached. The Declaration carried the identity fraud into imperial policy, and it said nothing of the people whose home Palestine was. Woodrow Wilson had approved the text the month before. Balfour and David Lloyd George, head of the British government, were both raised in evangelical Protestant households. Lloyd George later said that the place names of Palestine were more familiar to him than those of the Western Front, because he had learned them in Sunday school.

154. The Declaration referred to the indigenous people, then about nine tenths of the country, only as “existing non-Jewish communities.” It did not name the Palestinian people and it did not consult them. It was issued without the knowledge or consent of the people to whom independence had been pledged.

155. Balfour stated the policy plainly in a memorandum of 11 August 1919 (23), in these words.

“In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country … The four great powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

156. The memorandum is direct documentary evidence that the denial of the indigenous people’s right to be consulted was deliberate British policy. A foreign Protestant power decided the fate of an indigenous people without consulting them, and recorded that it had done so on purpose. It is the founding statement of the Nazi-Zionist proxy.

157. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations recognised the peoples of the former Ottoman territories as provisionally independent nations, entitled to administrative advice and assistance until they could stand alone. The Covenant called their well-being and development “a sacred trust of civilisation.” (5) Britain turned that trust into an instrument of dispossession. In 1922 the League wrote the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine (6) and assigned the administration of Palestine to Britain. Article 4 of that instrument gave a seat beside the British administration to the body that spoke for the proxy, and Article 6 required Britain to transfer unwanted Europeans into Palestine and plant them on its land. No equivalent body and no equivalent guarantee were created for the people of Palestine. Britain set the transfer quotas and issued the entry certificates.

158. In September 1922 the United States Congress adopted, and Warren Harding, head of the United States government, signed, the Lodge–Fish Resolution (97). Its operative words declared that the United States “favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” It thereby endorsed the Balfour Declaration and its identity fraud, a national home in Palestine for Europeans unwanted in Europe, and committed the United States to the British Protestant enterprise as a co-responsible State.

159. For twenty-six years Britain used its occupation to build, inside Palestine, the government, the economy and the armed forces of the state that would replace the Palestinian people. It admitted the illegal immigrants (Section VII.A), it allowed the Haavara transfers from Nazi Germany (Section VII.C), and it armed and trained the terrorist organisations while it put down the Palestinian revolt of 1936 to 1939 by killing (Section VII.B). It wrote the emergency laws that the proxy still uses against the Palestinian people (Section VII.B). In 1947 and 1948 its forces remained in Palestine while the terrorist organisations massacred and forcibly transferred the Palestinian people, and Britain, still the occupying power and still responsible for their safety, did not protect them (Section VII.D).

160. Protestant Christian Zionism began in Britain in the seventeenth century and became British state policy in the nineteenth century, more than fifty years before political Zionism existed. Britain turned it into imperial law through the Declaration of 2 November 1917 and the instrument of 1922, and the United States endorsed it by an act of Congress in 1922. The genocide of the indigenous people was conceived, adopted and written into law by the responsible States before the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi, the terrorist organisations Britain had armed and trained, began their massacres in December 1947. This is evidence of premeditation and specific intent. It also engages the responsibility of Britain, as the occupying power under Articles 43 and 46 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 (4), Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and Article 2 of the instrument of 1922, applied as the law in force at the time (Article 13 of the International Law Commission’s Articles) (12), for the acts carried out under its occupation (Sections I.F, I.G and VIII).

IV. Genocide under International Law

A. The Prohibition and the Definition

161. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948 (2). Article II defines genocide as any of five acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The five acts are killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

162. Under Article I every State party undertakes to prevent and to punish genocide. In Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (21) the International Court of Justice held that this duty binds every State that knows, or should normally have known, of a serious risk of genocide and holds the means to influence those who might commit it. The duty arises at the moment the State learns of the risk, not at the moment the genocide is complete.

163. The prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law. It binds all States whether or not they are party to the Convention, and the obligations it creates are owed to the international community as a whole. In The Gambia v. Myanmar (98) the Court held that any State party may bring a case for their breach, whether or not it has itself been injured.

164. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951, after the Palestinian Genocide began in December 1947. That does not place the genocide outside the law. Genocide was already a crime under customary international law before the Convention was written. The General Assembly said so in Resolution 96(I) of 11 December 1946, which affirmed that genocide “is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns.” (9) The Palestinian Genocide is a single course of conduct, a composite act within Article 15 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), and the denial of return and the confiscation of property are continuing wrongful acts within Article 14(2). Every act committed in its course since 1951 falls directly under the Convention (Section IV.H).

165. The International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts set out how responsibility is shared between States. Under Article 4 the conduct of a State’s organs is attributed to that State, so the acts of the army of the proxy are the acts of the proxy. Under Article 10(2) the conduct of a movement that succeeds in establishing a new State is attributed to that State, so the acts of the terrorist organisations before May 1948 are also the acts of the proxy. Under Articles 16 and 17 the responsibility of the responsible States does not end where the proxy’s begins. A State that knowingly aids or assists another State in an internationally wrongful act is itself responsible for it, and a State that directs and controls another State in that act is responsible as well. Article 16 applies where the assisting State knows the circumstances of the wrongful act and the act would be wrongful if it committed it itself, and Article 17 requires actual direction and control and not mere influence. Under Article 41 no State may render aid or assistance in maintaining a situation created by a serious breach of a peremptory norm. Under Article 47, where several States are responsible for the same wrongful act, the responsibility of each may be invoked. In its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 (26) the International Court of Justice held that the presence of the proxy in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and that all States are obliged not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.

166. The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination binds every State. Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Britain accepted the well-being and development of the people of Palestine as “a sacred trust of civilisation” (5) (Section III.I). The law therefore reaches the responsible States as well as the proxy. The proxy stands before the courts. The responsible States stand behind it, and the law does not stop at the proxy.

B. Lemkin, 1944

167. The word “genocide” was made by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer who had escaped the Nazi occupation of his country. He introduced it in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, published in Washington in 1944 (1), and joined the Greek genos, a people or tribe, to the Latin -cide, killing.

168. Lemkin did not understand genocide only as mass killing. He wrote in these words.

“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”

169. He listed the fields in which this plan is carried out, the political, the social, the cultural, the economic, the biological, the physical, the religious and the moral. The destruction of a people’s language, its schools, its libraries, its names and its places of worship was for Lemkin part of the crime, not something separate from it.

170. Lemkin then described the shape of the crime in a single sentence.

“Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.”

171. Here we see the whole of this Report in Lemkin’s own words. The lie that the land was empty, and the murder and forcible transfer of its people by the terrorist organisations Britain armed and trained, and then by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, are the first phase, the destruction of the national pattern of the Palestinian people. The identity theft, the renaming of the land under a stolen name, the building of enclaves of illegal immigrants on the ruins of Palestinian villages and the giving of Modern Hebrew names to Palestinian places are the second phase, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. Theft, lies and murder are not three different crimes standing beside a genocide. In Lemkin’s terms they are the genocide.

172. Lemkin’s understanding was the understanding of the General Assembly in Resolution 96(I) of 1946 (9). Within two years the responsible States would see to it that the treaty did not carry it (Section IV.C).

C. The Exclusion of Cultural Genocide, 1948

173. The Genocide Convention as adopted on 9 December 1948 (2) does not contain cultural genocide, the destruction of a people’s language, culture, institutions and identity. Lemkin’s first phase was cut down to physical and biological destruction. Scholars have long recorded that this followed the opposition of the major Powers of the time. The records of 1948, read together, show more than that. They show that Britain and the United States led the deletion of cultural genocide from the treaty, that they did so while the terrorist organisations Britain had armed and trained, and the army of the Nazi-Zionist state they became, were massacring and forcibly transferring the people of Palestine in a territory Britain had just left, that those crimes were named before them in the very debates in which they voted, and that their own secret records describe their opposition as deliberate.

174. The Economic and Social Council set up an Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide, which met at Lake Success in New York from 5 April to 10 May 1948. Its chairman was John Maktos of the United States and its rapporteur was Karim Azkoul of Lebanon. The Committee’s first meetings were held in the same week as the massacre at Deir Yassin on 9 April 1948, and its work closed five days before Britain withdrew from Palestine on 15 May. In those weeks the terrorist organisations were forcibly transferring the people of the towns and villages of Palestine under Plan Dalet (99) (Section V.A).

175. The Committee’s draft convention (document E/794) (100) included cultural genocide as Article III. It defined it as follows.

“Any deliberate act committed with the intent to destroy the language, religion, or culture of a national, racial or religious group on grounds of national or racial origin or religious belief such as (1) Prohibiting the use of the language of the group in daily intercourse or in schools, or the printing and circulation of publications in the language of the group; (2) Destroying or preventing the use of libraries, museums, schools, historical monuments, places of worship or other cultural institutions and objects of the group.”

176. Azkoul reminded the Committee of its duty under Resolution 96(I) “not to restrict the convention to the physical protection of human groups.” The United States entered a declaration in the same report, in these words.

“‘Cultural genocide’ is a matter which certainly should not be included in this Convention … should appropriately be dealt with in connection with the protection of minorities.”

177. The Ad Hoc Committee’s records do not mention Palestine. Their importance lies in what the draft covered. Its second paragraph describes exactly what was being done in Palestine in those same months.

178. The General Assembly met in Paris that autumn, and the draft passed to its Sixth Committee. On 30 September 1948 the United States delegation met in secret at the Hotel d’Iéna. The minutes are published in the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States for 1948 (Volume I, Part 1, Document 185) (14). Ernest Gross, the State Department’s legal adviser, told the delegation that Britain favoured sending the convention back to the International Law Commission, which “would, of course, delay adoption of a convention which suited the British, since they were actually opposed to any convention.” He called proposals to include cultural groups “a dangerous extension.” Eleanor Roosevelt spoke of “cultural genocide, to which the United States was opposed.” John Foster Dulles, a Presbyterian layman who had chaired the Federal Council of Churches’ Commission on a Just and Durable Peace, said he “did not think it was necessarily desirable to perpetuate foreign language groups, for example, within another country.” Philip Jessup asked that it be made clear that “our opposition to this article did not indicate any lack of support for the rights of minorities.” The Secretary of State, named in the minutes only as “the Secretary,” warned that the word “cultural” “would lead to endless debates on its definition.” Gross also noted that the convention was “favored by many civic and religious organizations in the United States.”

179. These are not public statements made for an audience. They are the private words of the delegation of a responsible State, recorded for its own use. They show that the United States regarded Britain as opposed to any convention at all, and that the United States itself was opposed to cultural genocide as a matter of settled position.

180. On 16 October 1948 Britain tabled its own amendments (document A/C.6/236) (13). They proposed that States, and not only individuals, could be held responsible and that disputes should go to the International Court of Justice, which is the origin of Article IX. They also proposed a clause allowing a State to decide whether the Convention would apply to the territories it ruled abroad, which is the origin of Article XII.

181. On 15 October 1948 the Sixth Committee debated which groups the Convention would protect. The delegate of Egypt, Wahid Raafat, said that “Recent events in India, Pakistan and Palestine also provided examples of destruction of religious and not racial or national groups.” The Soviet delegate, Platon Morozov, answered that no analysis was needed to see that religious strife “was not the basis of those conflicts; the pretext of religious strife was used only to conceal the real aims pursued—material aims.” The meeting voted to keep political groups in the definition by 29 votes to 13 with 9 abstentions, and Britain and the United States voted with the majority (A/C.6/SR.75) (101).

182. From this date it cannot be said that the responsible States were unaware of what was happening in Palestine, or that the subject never came before the committee that drafted the law.

183. Ten days later, on 25 October 1948, the Sixth Committee voted on cultural genocide (A/C.6/SR.83). Egypt warned that metropolitan Powers might use their rule over Non-Self-Governing Territories to substitute their own culture for that of the peoples they ruled. Gross, for the United States, called cultural genocide a “new and far-reaching concept” that belonged to the “sphere of human rights.” A motion to adjourn the question was rejected by 24 votes to 18 with 2 abstentions. Cultural genocide was then deleted by 25 votes to 16 with 4 abstentions. Britain and the United States voted for deletion.

184. On 15 November 1948 the Committee debated Britain’s clause on the territories it ruled abroad, known in the records as the “colonial clause” (A/C.6/SR.107). The British delegate, Gerald Fitzmaurice, said that the objections to it were “based on purely political motives and designed to create difficulties for the colonial Powers.” He said that applying the Convention to non-self-governing territories was “technically possible, but the United Kingdom Government did not choose to adopt that course.” Maktos, for the United States, called the British arguments “extremely reasonable.” The Ukrainian delegate, Kovalenko, answered that the peoples of non-self-governing territories were those “most likely to become the victims of acts of genocide.” Morozov said that “Colonial policy had been a dark page in history” and that “millions must not be allowed to remain outside the scope of the convention and left to the arbitrary action of the colonial Powers.” The clause was adopted by 18 votes to 9 with 14 abstentions.

185. On 29 November 1948 the Committee reopened the question of political groups (A/C.6/SR.128). The motion to delete them was moved by Iran, Egypt and Uruguay. It must be recorded honestly that Egypt was among the movers. Reconsideration was carried by 26 votes to 4 with 9 abstentions, and deletion by 22 votes to 6 with 12 abstentions. Britain, the United States, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and India voted for deletion. Gross said the United States, which had argued for inclusion, now supported deletion “in a conciliatory spirit.” The secret position paper of the United States delegation (FRUS 1948, Document 186) records that the United States had “led the fight in favor of retaining” political groups, then accepted deletion “in the hope that there would be a maximum number of ratifications.” The delegate of China, Li, warned that “at a time of ideological strife, political groups stood in greater need of protection.” The Sixth Committee then adopted the draft by 30 votes to none, with 8 abstentions, Britain among them.

186. The United States had said in April that cultural genocide belonged with the protection of minorities. Gross had said in October that it belonged to the sphere of human rights. On 26 and 27 November 1948, in the Third Committee, chaired by Charles Malik of Lebanon, the same Powers kept the protection of minorities out of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (A/C.3/SR.161–162) (102). A Haitian resolution sent the question away for further study, and it became General Assembly Resolution 217 C (III) (103). Britain voted first, in favour. Eleanor Roosevelt said that “In America the problem was traditionally one of assimilation” and that the problem concerned only the continent of Europe. The Byelorussian delegate, Kaminsky, answered by naming Australia’s “forceful elimination of its aboriginal group” and said that “the North American Indian had almost ceased to exist in the United States.”

187. Here we see a double movement. Britain and the United States struck cultural genocide from the Genocide Convention on the ground that it belonged to human rights. The protection of minorities was then kept out of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the territories that Britain ruled abroad could be kept outside the Convention by a clause Britain had written. The destruction of a people’s identity was sent from one instrument to another and protected by neither.

188. On 9 December 1948 the General Assembly met in plenary to adopt the Convention. The delegate of Egypt spoke of “the sad events which had taken place during the last months close to the Egyptian borders” and said that “the recent massacres committed in the Holy Land must inspire all nations of goodwill to redouble their efforts to prevent and punish genocide wherever it might occur.” He named the gap that remained, the “complete absence of any reference to cultural genocide” (A/PV.178) (104).

189. Fitzmaurice, for Britain, said that “the whole field of cultural genocide was essentially a matter of human rights and that the convention on genocide should be confined in the strict sense to the physical extermination of human groups.” He denied any “sinister motive” behind the territorial clause and said that “The record of the United Kingdom with regard to its colonial peoples was sufficiently well known” (A/PV.179). The Soviet Union then moved three amendments. Its article on cultural genocide was rejected by 31 votes to 14 with 10 abstentions. Britain and the United States voted against it. Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan and China voted for it, and Egypt abstained. Its proposal to apply the Convention to all territories without exception was rejected by 23 votes to 19 with 14 abstentions. Britain, the United States, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and South Africa voted against it, and Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan voted for it. Its article requiring the disbanding of organisations that incite genocide was rejected by 31 votes to 10 with 14 abstentions, Britain and the United States voting against. The Convention was then adopted the same day as Resolution 260 A (III). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights followed on 10 December, and on 11 December Resolution 194 (105) resolved that the refugees of Palestine should be permitted to return to their homes.

190. While these debates were held, the acts described in the deleted article were being done in Palestine. In 1948 the libraries of Palestinian homes in West Jerusalem and other towns were seized by teams working for the Nazi-Zionist state and its national library, after the owners had been forcibly transferred by the Haganah and the army of that state. The historian Gish Amit has documented about 30,000 books stolen from the homes of West Jerusalem and about 70,000 in all. They were catalogued under the letters “AP,” for “Abandoned Property” (“Salvage or Plunder?”, Journal of Palestine Studies, 2011) (106). The draft article had named “destroying or preventing the use of libraries … or other cultural institutions and objects of the group.” Here was such an act, carried out in the same year in a territory Britain had just left.

191. The Report keeps proven facts apart from inference. It is proven by the records that Britain and the United States voted to delete cultural genocide on 25 October 1948 and voted against its restoration on 9 December 1948. It is proven that Britain wrote the clause that allowed it to keep its territories abroad outside the Convention, and that Britain and the United States voted against universal application. It is proven that Egypt named Palestine before the Sixth Committee on 15 October and spoke of the massacres in the Holy Land before the General Assembly on 9 December, and that the responsible States voted after hearing it. It is proven that the secret records of the United States delegation describe Britain as opposed to any convention and the United States as opposed to cultural genocide. And it is proven that the same Powers, having sent cultural genocide to human rights, kept the protection of minorities out of the Universal Declaration.

192. The records do not show that the responsible States struck cultural genocide from the Convention because of Palestine, and this Report does not claim that they did. The British Foreign Office files on the negotiations are not available online. They are published in Anton Weiss-Wendt (ed.), Documents on the Genocide Convention from the American, British, and Russian Archives (107), which the Tribe has not yet examined. What the records show is enough for the purpose of this Report. The responsible States narrowed the law of genocide, knowingly, at the moment when the theft of the identity, the land, the names and the libraries of the Palestinian people was being carried out under their eyes, and they narrowed it in exactly the place that such theft would have fallen. The narrowing of the treaty does not narrow customary law, and it does not narrow the evidence. Under the Convention as adopted, the theft of identity is not itself a genocidal act. It remains, as Lemkin understood it, part of the crime, and in law it is evidence of the specific intent behind the physical destruction that followed (Sections IV.E and VI.A to VI.C).

D. The Palestinian People as a Protected Group

193. The Palestinian people are a national and ethnical group protected under Article II of the Genocide Convention. The International Court of Justice treated them as such in its order of 26 January 2024 in the case brought by South Africa (108), where it found that the Palestinians “appear to constitute a distinct ‘national, ethnical, racial or religious group’” (para. 45) and found plausible the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide. The Palestinians of Gaza are a substantial part of the Palestinian people, and the Tribe of Abimelech is a part of the Palestinian people.

194. The ancient record set out in Section III.A establishes who the protected group is. The Palestinian people are the continuous indigenous population of the land, whose cities, place names and lineages pass through the record from the Bronze Age to the present. They are the group whose destruction as such is charged in this Report. The Fellahin and the Bedouin are at its core, and the Tribe is among them.

195. In 1948 the Haganah, armed and trained by Britain and that year made the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, forcibly transferred the Tribe of Abimelech by terror and massacre from its ancestral lands in Gerar, Wadi al-Shariʿa, Wadi Ghazza and the Naqab, and that state bars it from them to this day (Section III.B). Its members are among those killed, forcibly transferred and dispossessed in the Palestinian Genocide (Section V.D). It is also an indigenous people within the meaning of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (31). It speaks as a victim of the crime, not as an observer of it.

E. Specific Intent

196. Genocide differs from other crimes by its specific intent, the intent to destroy the protected group, in whole or in part, as such. A court will not find genocide without it. Intent of this kind is seldom written down. In Croatia v. Serbia (2015) (3) the International Court of Justice held that it may be inferred from a pattern of conduct where that inference is the only reasonable one to be drawn from the acts. Statements of officials, the scale and system of the acts, the targeting of the group as such and the conduct of those who plan and support them are all evidence of it.

197. Motive is not an element of the crime, but evidence of motive helps to prove intent. This Report shows a motive formed in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Section III.D), an identity theft written into law (Sections III.E and III.G), a plan to move a foreign population into Palestine adopted by the British state in the nineteenth century (Section III.H), and an instrument of 1922 that wrote the indigenous people out of their own land (Section III.I).

198. The identity claim supplies the motive. The intent is shown by conduct (Section V) and by statements (Section VI.E), and the claim explains why that conduct was directed at the Palestinian people as such. The identity fraud is the link between the motive and the acts. For the identity fraud to stand, the indigenous people had to be forcibly transferred and destroyed, because their existence disproves it. That is why they were targeted as such. The claim was adopted as an instrument of genocide, not held in good faith, because the evidence contradicts it (Section III.G). By making the claim the foundation of their policy, the responsible States established the motive and the premeditation. Section VI sets out the evidence of specific intent in full.

F. The Punishable Acts under Article III

199. Under Article III of the Convention, genocide is punishable, and so are conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide. A responsible State that helps to plan the destruction, incites it, or supplies the means of it with knowledge of its purpose commits a punishable act even if its own soldiers do not carry out the killing.

200. The acts carried out under the false identity claim are also crimes in their own right. The transfer of an occupying power’s own population into the territory it occupies is prohibited by Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (109), and Common Article 1 obliges every State to ensure respect for the Convention. The deportation or forcible transfer of the indigenous population and its persecution are crimes against humanity and war crimes under Articles 7(1)(d), 7(1)(h) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (110), and Article 6 of the Statute defines genocide in the terms of the Convention. Apartheid is a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(j) of the Statute and under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 1973 (111).

201. The continued promotion of the false identity claim by the responsible States is evidence of intent. Direct and public incitement under Article III(c) requires a direct call to commit genocide, understood as such by those who hear it (Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, 1998, paras. 557 to 559) (112). It is charged for specific statements calling for destruction, among them the invocation of Amalek by the head of the proxy’s government on 28 October 2023 and the statement of Congressman Tim Walberg of 25 March 2024 (24) (Section VI.E). It is also propaganda condemned by Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (33), which condemns propaganda based on ideas of the superiority of one race or group. In promoting the claim the responsible States also betrayed the sacred trust they had accepted under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (5).

202. The religious language in which the responsible States present their claim does not excuse it. No religious belief gives a right to take the land of another people or to destroy them.

G. Commission through a Proxy

203. International law does not allow a State to escape responsibility by acting through another. Under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute (110) a natural person who commits a crime through another person is liable as a perpetrator, and Article 25(3)(b) to (d) makes liable any natural person who orders, induces, aids, abets or otherwise assists in the commission of a crime. Under Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention complicity in genocide is a punishable act. Under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), a State that knowingly aids, assists, directs or controls another State in an internationally wrongful act is itself responsible for it. Under Article 47, where several States are responsible for the same wrongful act, the responsibility of each may be invoked. The Rome Statute governs the liability of individuals, and the responsibility of States rests on the Genocide Convention and the International Law Commission’s Articles.

204. In Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007) the International Court of Justice held a State responsible for failing to prevent a genocide carried out by forces it supported but did not formally command. Serbia was held responsible for that failure and for failing to punish, and not for commission or complicity (paras. 413 to 415, 424, 438 and 471) (21). In March 2024 Nicaragua brought proceedings against Germany (113) before the same Court for supplying weapons to the proxy. On 30 April 2024 the Court declined to indicate the provisional measures requested, while reminding all States of their obligations in relation to the transfer of arms. That case shows that a State standing behind the perpetrator can be called to answer before the Court. Before the International Criminal Court jurisdiction is not retroactive (Articles 11 and 24 of the Rome Statute). For Palestine it runs from 13 June 2014 under the declaration lodged under Article 12(3) and the accession effective 1 April 2015 (ICC-01/18-143, 5 February 2021) (114).

205. The responsible States and the Protestant Christian Zionist network present the proxy as a sovereign State that alone answers for its acts. On that view the legal and reputational consequences of the genocide fall on the proxy, while those who fund, arm and protect it stand outside the case. International litigation has so far followed that view. The case brought by South Africa in December 2023 is directed against the proxy alone. This Report holds that the separation of liability does not exist in law. It exists only in the practice of the responsible States, and it is part of the means by which they commit the Palestinian Genocide. The structure of the proxy is examined as a matter of fact in Section VII.E, and its legal consequences in Section VII.I.

H. Jurisdiction

206. Article IX of the Genocide Convention gives the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over disputes between contracting parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention, including disputes relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts listed in Article III. Article IX was proposed by Britain in 1948 (Section IV.C). The United Kingdom acceded to the Convention on 30 January 1970 and Germany on 24 November 1954, both without reservation to Article IX. The United States entered a reservation to it, and that reservation is examined in Section VIII.A. The obligations of the Convention are owed to all States parties together. In its judgment on preliminary objections of 22 July 2022 in The Gambia v. Myanmar (98), the Court held that every State party may invoke the responsibility of another State party for their breach, whether or not it has itself been injured. The Tribe, as a people and not a State, cannot itself file an application before the Court. It places this Report before every State party so that any of them may bring the facts and claims set out here against the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany.

207. The State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015, with effect from 1 April 2015, and lodged a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court from 13 June 2014. On 5 February 2021 Pre-Trial Chamber I decided that the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in the situation in Palestine extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (114). Under Article 12(2)(a) the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed on that territory by the nationals of any State, including States not party to the Statute. Officials and nationals of the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany who commit, order, aid, abet or otherwise assist in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes on that territory fall within that jurisdiction under Article 25. Article 25(3)(c) requires that the assistance be given for the purpose of facilitating the crime, and Article 25(3)(d) requires knowledge of the intention of the group. Under Article 15 any person or organisation may submit information to the Prosecutor, and the Tribe submits this Report to the Prosecutor under that Article.

208. This Report is also submitted to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.

209. The genocidal acts set out in this Report begin in December 1947 and continue to the present day. Each killing, forcible transfer, demolition and denial of return by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, carried out with the weapons and protection of the responsible States, is a further act of the same crime. The genocide is a composite act within Article 15 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), and the denial of return and the confiscation of property are continuing wrongful acts within Article 14(2) (Section I.B). The documents from 1563 onward are not offered as separate charges. They are offered as evidence of motive, premeditation and specific intent, and a court may receive evidence of events before the period of its jurisdiction to establish the intent behind acts within it (Section II.A).

V. Genocidal Acts

A. The Genocide of 1947–1950

210. The Palestinian Genocide began in December 1947, while Britain still occupied Palestine and its army was still in the country. As the occupying power Britain held the legal duty to protect the indigenous population and the means to do so. British forces stood aside as the terrorist organisations that Britain had built, trained and armed, the Haganah and its strike force the Palmach, the Irgun and Lehi, turned on the indigenous presence in Palestine (Section VII.B). On 31 December 1947 they attacked the village of Balad al-Shaykh near Haifa and killed dozens of its people, among them women and children (115), (116). On 5 January 1948 the Haganah bombed the Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem and killed more than twenty civilians. On 21 April 1948 the British commander in Haifa, Major-General Hugh Stockwell, withdrew his troops from the town (Section VII.D).

211. From 1940 to 1947 the intelligence service of the Haganah compiled a file on nearly every Palestinian village. Each file held maps, aerial photographs, the location of wells and roads, the number of armed men, and lists of men to be targeted. The files were used to plan the operations of 1948 set out below. They are evidence that the forcible transfer was prepared years before the war that is offered as its cause.

212. On 10 March 1948 the Haganah adopted Plan Dalet. The plan directed its forces to take control of Palestinian towns and villages, and its section 3(b) ordered that “in the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state” (Plan Dalet, Journal of Palestine Studies 18:1, 1988) (99). By these words the Haganah ordered the forcible transfer of the people of every village it met with resistance. In practice resistance was presumed. The Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi carried out massacres to terrorise the people of the surrounding areas and force them from their land. At Deir Yassin, west of Jerusalem, on 9 April 1948, Irgun and Lehi terrorists acting with the Haganah killed more than one hundred villagers, among them women, children and the elderly. At Tantura, on the coast south of Haifa, in May 1948, scores of men were killed after the village had surrendered. At al-Dawayima, in the hills west of al-Khalil, on 29 October 1948, soldiers of the army of the Nazi-Zionist state killed large numbers of villagers, among them people who had taken refuge in the mosque. In July 1948, in Operation Dani, the army of the Nazi-Zionist state under the command of Yigal Allon and Yitzhak Rabin forcibly transferred between 50,000 and 70,000 Palestinians from al-Lydd and al-Ramla and forced them to march east in the summer heat. Many died on the road of thirst and exhaustion.

213. The indigenous presence in Palestine was above all the Fellahin, the farmers of the villages, and the Bedouin, whose tribes and clans formed the core of the indigenous Palestinian people. The terrorist organisations massacred the people of their villages and terrorised their tribes and clans into leaving the ancient and sacred territories they had held without interruption since antiquity. They were singled out because they were the living continuity of the land and the proof of the identity that the responsible States had stolen.

214. By 1950 about 750,000 Palestinians, more than half of the indigenous people of the country, some 1.4 million, had been forcibly transferred by the terrorist organisations and the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, by direct order or by terror and massacre, and barred by that state from returning. In the territory the terrorist organisations seized, those forces forcibly transferred over 80 percent of the indigenous population into exile and refugee camps. Walid Khalidi documented 418 villages that these forces depopulated, most of which they then demolished. Salman Abu Sitta, counting towns, villages and tribal lands together, documented more than 530 localities (117). The proxy’s own intelligence service attributed about 70 percent of the departures up to June 1948 to the operations of the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi, and sealed its report (Section VII.J). The Palestinian people call this catastrophe the Nakba.

215. On 14 May 1948 the terrorist organisations declared a state under the name “Israel,” adopted through the identity theft that the Protestant Christian Zionist movement had claimed for them. On 26 May 1948 they were merged by decree into an army named the “Israel Defense Forces.” The terrorist organisations did not dissolve. They changed their name but not their purpose. Armed with the most advanced weapons and with new methods of terror driven by artificial intelligence, the same army carries on the same genocide today (118).

216. On 11 December 1948 General Assembly Resolution 194 (105) resolved that refugees wishing to return to their homes should be permitted to do so. The Nazi-Zionist state refused. In 1950 it enacted the Absentees’ Property Law (11), which handed to the state the land, houses and property of the Palestinians its forces had forcibly transferred. The sacred tribal territories, homes and wells of those Palestinians were seized under it and remain withheld from their owners. The United States knew of the refusal. On 28 May 1949 Harry Truman, head of the United States government, sent a message to the head of the proxy’s government stating that the United States was seriously disturbed by its attitude to the return of the refugees and to territory (119). The United States did not act on its message. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, of which it was one of three members, sent an Economic Survey Mission under the American Gordon Clapp, whose reports of 1949 (120) proposed programmes of relief and public works for the refugees in the countries where they were held, in place of their return. The General Assembly established the United Nations Relief and Works Agency on 8 December 1949 on that basis (121). The return ordered in Resolution 194 was set aside by the State that had the means to secure it.

217. In 1949 David Ben-Gurion, head of the government of the Nazi-Zionist state, appointed the Negev Names Committee and instructed it to strike the indigenous names of the Naqab from the map, where the territory of the Tribe lies, and to replace them with names in Modern Hebrew. Modern Hebrew was assembled in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and spoken by illegal immigrants whose mother tongues were Russian, Yiddish, Polish and German, and its sounds follow those European languages rather than the Semitic languages of the region. The territories of the Tribe and hundreds of other places across the Naqab were renamed. In the same years the libraries of Palestinian homes were seized by the state and catalogued as “Abandoned Property” (Section IV.C).

218. Article II of the Genocide Convention covers the destruction of a protected group “in whole or in part.” In Prosecutor v. Krstić (2004) (122) the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia held that the destruction of a substantial part of a group within a defined area falls within that definition. The International Court of Justice held the same in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007) (21), and confirmed that under Article I a State that knows of a serious risk of genocide and holds the means to prevent it must act. Britain had the knowledge, the means and the duty, and it let the genocide go forward with the weapons it had supplied.

219. The campaign of 1947 to 1950 meets the definition. Palestinians were killed in massacres. Palestinian society was broken apart. The army of the Nazi-Zionist state demolished Palestinian villages, and the state built enclaves of illegal immigrants on their ruins under Modern Hebrew names. Palestinian property was confiscated by law, and the return of the Palestinians forcibly transferred was forbidden by law. In Lemkin’s words, the national pattern of the Palestinian people was destroyed and the national pattern of the oppressor was imposed (Section IV.B). This Report classifies the campaign of 1947 to 1950 as the Palestinian Genocide, the founding crime of the Nazi-Zionist proxy.

B. Conditions of Life, Walls, Checkpoints and Siege

220. Apartheid is a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(j) of the Rome Statute (110) and under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 1973 (111). The system of segregation found by the International Court of Justice on 19 July 2024 (26) is evidence of the conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the protected group that are inflicted under Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention.

221. The Palestinians who remained inside the lines of 1948 were held under military rule until 1966. The Gaza Strip has been under blockade by land, sea and air since 2007. In the occupied West Bank, checkpoints, gates and a wall separate Palestinian towns and cut through Palestinian farmland. In 2004 the International Court of Justice found the building of the wall in occupied territory contrary to international law (123).

222. In the Naqab, the Bedouin villages that the proxy refuses to recognise are denied water, electricity, roads and schools, and are demolished again and again. The village of al-ʿAraqib has been demolished more than two hundred times. These are the lands and the people of the tribes of the Naqab, among whom the Tribe of Abimelech lived until 1948.

223. On 19 July 2024 the International Court of Justice found that the presence of the proxy in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and must end as rapidly as possible. It found that the proxy’s legislation and measures in that territory breach Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid (para. 229), without deciding whether the breach takes the form of segregation or apartheid. Since 1948 the indigenous people of Palestine have been confined behind walls, checkpoints and siege lines.

C. The Genocide since October 2023

224. The Palestinian Genocide has gone on without interruption since 1948, against the same people, with the same specific intent to destroy them as such. On 26 January 2024, in the case brought by South Africa, the International Court of Justice found the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention to be plausible and ordered the proxy to prevent genocidal acts (108). On 19 July 2024 the Court declared the occupation unlawful (26) and held that all States are under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining it. Britain and the United States, with Germany beside them, continue to supply the weapons, funding, intelligence and diplomatic protection with which the genocide is carried out, in full knowledge of these findings (Section VII.F).

225. As of 13 August 2026 the Ministry of Health in Gaza had recorded 73,388 Palestinians killed and 174,259 injured since 7 October 2023 (19). This is a minimum figure, which leaves out thousands of people still under the rubble.

226. The comprehensive damage assessment of the United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT) of July 2025 (124) recorded that about 78 percent of all structures in the Gaza Strip had been damaged or destroyed by the bombardment of the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, carried out with weapons supplied by the responsible States. In August 2025 the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification confirmed famine in Gaza Governorate (125). Hospitals have been labelled “command centres” and journalists “operatives” before being attacked (Section VI.E). The destruction of homes, universities, hospitals and food is the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group.

227. Amnesty International found in December 2024 that the proxy is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza (126). The human rights organisations B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel reached the same finding in July 2025 (127). The International Association of Genocide Scholars resolved in September 2025 that the legal definition of genocide is met (128). On 16 September 2025 the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded, in its conference room paper A/HRC/60/CRP.3 (129), that the proxy has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Among the dead are members of the Tribe of Abimelech.

D. Acts against the Tribe of Abimelech

228. Before the war between 65,000 and 90,000 Bedouin lived in the Naqab, organised in tribes holding defined lands, wells and cemeteries. On 21 October 1948, in Operation Yoav, the army of the Nazi-Zionist state seized Bir al-Sabʿ and occupied the Naqab. That army forcibly transferred about 30,000 Bedouin by terror in that operation and its aftermath. By the end of the war about 11,000 remained. They were confined to an enclosed zone in the north-east of the Naqab and placed under military rule.

229. The Tribe of Abimelech was among the tribes that army forcibly transferred. Its community archive records that the Tribe resisted the seizure of its water and land in 1948, that six of its members were killed, that its homes were demolished, that one of its wells was filled with earth, that its lands were closed off with barbed wire, and that the army forcibly transferred its families toward Deir al-Balah, al-Nuseirat and al-Maghazi in the Gaza Strip (130). The forcible transfers continued after the fighting ended. In 1950 the army of the Nazi-Zionist state loaded the remaining Palestinian people of al-Majdal, beside ancient Ashkelon, onto trucks and deported them to the Gaza Strip. The Tribe’s lands were then renamed and seized (Section V.A).

230. The genocide against the Tribe did not end in 1950. Since October 2023 the proxy has killed members of the Tribe in the Gaza Strip, to which its families were forcibly transferred in 1948. The Tribe of Abimelech Platform keeps a register of the dead. On 27 November 2025 the Platform published a partial list of 128 identified members of the Tribe killed in Gaza between 2023 and 2025 (20), with official identity numbers recorded for most of them. Of the 128 on that list, forty-two, about one third, were children. Seven were infants aged two or under, twenty-one were children aged three to twelve, and fourteen were aged thirteen to seventeen. Seventy-eight were adults of working age, five were elders and three were of unrecorded age. Since that list was published the proxy has killed at least six more members of the Tribe, Ibrahim al-Hasanat, a boy of fifteen, and Sheikh Kamal Abū Muʿailiq, an elder of the Tribe, together with his wife and their three sons. The Tribe has therefore recorded at least 134 of its members killed. The dead come from several families of the tribal confederation, not from one family alone. This count is partial, the true number is almost certainly higher, and the register is updated as the names and identity numbers of the dead are confirmed. The deaths cluster within families and branches of the Tribe.

231. On 22 July 2025 Ahmad al-Hasanat, a member of the Tribe, died of acute malnutrition at Shuhada al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah, under the siege and starvation imposed on the Gaza Strip. The Tribe holds photographic evidence of his death by starvation. On the same day the Tribe called on the United Nations to protect it under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (131).

232. On 15 March 2026 Ibrahim Mohammed Ibrahim al-Hasanat, fifteen years old, was killed in an airstrike while sheltering in Sawarha, west of the al-Nuseirat refugee camp, together with a civilian family. His name was entered in the register as the 129th recorded member of the Tribe killed since October 2023 (132).

233. On the night of 1 August 2026 an attack helicopter of the proxy struck the family home of Sheikh Kamal Nabhan Hamad Abū Muʿailiq, an elder of the Tribe, in the al-Mashaʿla neighbourhood west of Deir al-Balah. The attack killed Sheikh Kamal, aged 68, his wife Huda Khaled ʿArar Abū Muʿailiq, aged 59, and their three sons. Sheikh Kamal and his wife had stayed on their land after losing children in earlier attacks. They were buried from al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah on 2 August 2026 (133).

234. These killings are committed by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state with weapons, funds and diplomatic protection supplied by the responsible States (Section VII.F). Each is a further act of the same genocide by which that army forcibly transferred the Tribe in 1948. The pattern is the killing of members of the group and the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, within the meaning of Article II(a) and (c) of the Genocide Convention.

VI. Specific Intent

A. The Theft of the Identity

235. The acts set out in Section V were not the beginning of the crime. They were its execution. The crime began with a theft, and the theft was directed at the identity of the indigenous people of Palestine.

236. The English Protestant establishment appropriated the name “Israel,” the history attached to it and the title to the land that the biblical text joins to that name (Section III.E). In the nineteenth century the British state wrote that identity into its foreign policy (Section III.H), and in 1922 it wrote it into the instrument by which it ruled Palestine (Section III.I). It then committed the identity theft on behalf of a foreign population of illegal immigrants and to the proxy it built from them. The proxy carries a stolen name on behalf of those who stole it.

237. A people’s identity belongs to that people alone. An identity cannot be appropriated from a people while that people remains on its land, living in the places the identity names, speaking the language from which those names come and keeping the memory of its ancestors. The theft of the identity of the indigenous people of Palestine was therefore not a neutral act of belief. It was the first act of a plan that could only be completed by the forcible transfer and physical destruction of the people themselves. Lemkin described genocide in two phases, the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group and the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor (Section IV.B). The theft of identity is the second phase prepared in advance. The pattern of the oppressor was written first, in England, and the destruction of the indigenous pattern was needed to impose it.

238. The doctrine that supplies the motive was fixed centuries before any act on the ground, and the intent to destroy was carried out from 1947. The motive was formed when the English Crown broke with Rome in the sixteenth century and sought the source of Christian authority in Palestine itself (Section III.D). It was given a political programme from 1839, when Protestant aristocrats and clergy pressed the British government to move a foreign population into Palestine under British protection, and in 1891, when the same programme was put before the government of the United States (Section III.H). Political Zionism, organised after 1896, adopted that programme and gave it the form of a secular national movement. A national movement must define the people it claims to speak for and bind it to a territory. Political Zionism bound its new national identity to the land the responsible States had already claimed, and to make that identity appear ancient it appropriated the history, the geography and the names of the indigenous people who lived there. In this way the intent formed in England was handed to the instrument that would carry it out.

B. The Living Proof

239. The claim to be “Israel” had one obstacle. The land was inhabited. The indigenous people of Palestine had lived on it without interruption since the cities of Kanaʿan were built (Section III.A). They held the wells, the fields and the burial grounds. Their villages kept the ancient names of the land in Arabic form, and their tribes kept the memory of the places their ancestors had held. Their presence was the living proof that the land had a people and that the identity claimed in London belonged to them.

240. The proof was carried above all by the Fellahin, the farmers of the villages, and by the Bedouin tribes and clans. They were the part of the indigenous people most bound to particular places, and they were the part against which the terrorist organisations and the army of the Nazi-Zionist state directed the greatest violence. Those forces depopulated more than five hundred of their villages and tribal lands in 1947 to 1950 by massacre and terror (Section V.A). In the Naqab the army of the Nazi-Zionist state reduced the tribes by forcible transfer from as many as ninety thousand people to about eleven thousand and confined those who remained inside a fenced zone (Section V.D). That army filled their wells and closed their lands with barbed wire, and a committee appointed by the head of its government struck their names from the map.

241. The Tribe of Abimelech is part of that proof. Its territory lies at Gerar, the place where the biblical text itself sets the encounter between Abimelech, King of Gerar, and Abraham the stranger (Section III.B). The text records Abimelech as the ruler of the land and Abraham as a guest in it. A people that holds this memory on this land disproves the claim that the land was promised to strangers and empty of its owners. It was for this reason that the army of the Nazi-Zionist state forcibly transferred the Tribe in 1948, and it is for this reason that the same army is killing its members in the Gaza Strip, where it forced them into exile.

242. The indigenous people were not harmed by chance in the course of a war. They were targeted because of who they are, and because their existence contradicted the identity claimed over them. That is targeting of the group as such, which is the heart of specific intent under Article II of the Genocide Convention.

C. Genocide to Secure the Claim

243. The responsible States supplied the doctrine, the maps, the imperial access and the protection of the State. Political Zionism supplied the illegal immigrants and the terrorist organisations. Each party contributed an essential part to a common plan whose object was the forcible transfer of the indigenous people at any cost. Each bears responsibility for the genocide that the plan produced and continues to produce.

244. The claim could be completed by the forcible transfer of the indigenous people, and where forcible transfer was not complete it could be completed by their physical destruction. The record of 1947 to 1950 shows both. The Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi carried out massacres to terrorise the people of the surrounding villages and force them from their land, and the Nazi-Zionist state then forbade by law the return of those its forces had forcibly transferred (Section V.A). The record since October 2023 shows the army of the Nazi-Zionist state pursuing the same purpose by killing, by starvation and by the bombardment and demolition of everything that makes life possible, with weapons supplied by the responsible States (Section V.C).

245. The theft of the identity of the indigenous people of Palestine was not incidental to the Palestinian Genocide. It was its foundation and the first act of the common plan. The motive was formed in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The doctrine was premeditated and fixed centuries before any act on the ground, and the intent to destroy is shown by the conduct and statements of 1947 to 1950 and since October 2023. That intent was directed at the indigenous people as such, because their existence contradicted the claim of the responsible States, and that claim could be completed only by their forcible transfer and, where forcible transfer failed, by their physical destruction. The responsible States stole the identity of that people because their own gave them no legal or moral title to the land. They passed the fruits of the identity theft, and the intent that went with it, to political Zionism and to the proxy they brought into being in 1948. The proxy committed genocide against the Palestinian people from 1947 with the aid of the United Kingdom and the United States, and it continues to commit it today with their aid. The Report holds those States responsible for it on the grounds of failure to prevent, complicity, aid or assistance and, for Britain in the years of its occupation, direction and control in the alternative (Section VIII.A).

246. The responsible States will say that the acts were directed at territory or at armed groups. That inference is not reasonable on the evidence, and the intent to destroy is the only reasonable inference from the pattern of conduct (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, 2007, para. 373; Croatia v. Serbia, 2015, para. 148) (21), (3). The village files listed every village and not only armed men (Section V.A). Return was forbidden by law to the whole population after hostilities ended (Section V.A). Since October 2023 food, water and medicine have been withheld from the whole population. On 9 October 2023 the minister directing the proxy’s army ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza, and on 12 October 2023 its head of state declared that “it is an entire nation out there that is responsible” (South Africa v. Israel, Order of 26 January 2024, paras. 51 to 53) (108). Conduct directed at a whole people, including its children, its archives and its places of worship, admits of only one reasonable inference.

247. Applying the standard of Croatia v. Serbia (Section IV.E), this Report finds that the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people as such is the only reasonable inference from this record. The sections that follow set out the lies that served the intent, the words in which it has been spoken and the same method used against other indigenous peoples.

D. The Lie of the Empty Land

248. To justify the seizure of the land, the movement denied that the land had owners. On 30 July 1853 Anthony Ashley-Cooper wrote to George Hamilton-Gordon, Earl of Aberdeen, and in May 1854 he wrote in his diary, of Palestine as “a country without a nation” and of the people he wished to send there as “a nation without a country” (95). From 1901 the writer Israel Zangwill spread the slogan “a land without a people for a people without a land.” The slogan was not a description of Palestine. It was a description of what the movement intended Palestine to become.

249. In 1969 Golda Meir, head of the government of the proxy, told The Sunday Times of 15 June 1969 (134) in these words.

“There was no such thing as Palestinians.”

250. In 1984 Joan Peters published From Time Immemorial (135), claiming that most Palestinians were recent migrants who had come to Palestine during the British occupation. The historian Yehoshua Porath, writing in The New York Review of Books in 1986 (136), and the scholar Norman Finkelstein (137) showed that its population figures rested on misused and distorted sources. The book was nonetheless praised in the United States and is still quoted in support of the claim. In 2025 the United States appointed as its ambassador to the proxy a Baptist minister who had said that “there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian” (Section VI.E).

251. The administrative record answers the lie. The Ottoman population registers of the late nineteenth century record a resident population in the districts of Jerusalem, Nablus and ʿAkka that was overwhelmingly Muslim and Christian Palestinian (138). The first British census of Palestine, taken in 1922, counted 757,182 inhabitants (18). Of these 590,890 were Muslims, 73,024 were Christians and 9,474 belonged to other communities, among them the Druze. A further 83,794 were recorded under the category “Jews,” most of them having arrived after 1882 as immigrants organised by the Zionist movement. The indigenous people formed close to nine tenths of the country when Britain arrived, and the growth of their numbers under the British occupation came from births and not from immigration.

252. The lie took a second form. Where the presence of the indigenous people could not be denied, its age was denied. The Palestinians were presented as late occupiers, as so-called “Arab” invaders of the seventh century or as migrants of the British years, while the illegal immigrants brought from Eastern Europe in the twentieth century were presented as the natives returning home. This is the reversal of indigenous and immigrant described in Section III.E. The record of the indigenous presence on the land since the Bronze Age is set out in Sections III.A and III.C.

253. A people declared not to exist cannot be the victim of a crime. The lie of the empty land prepared the way for the forcible transfer of the people by denying in advance that there was anyone to transfer. It is evidence that the physical destruction of the group was intended, because the lie was told about the group that was to be destroyed.

E. Statements and Incitement

254. Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention makes direct and public incitement to commit genocide punishable in itself. Statements of officials are also evidence of the specific intent behind the acts. In 1948 the theft of a people’s identity was left out of the definition of genocide (Section IV.C). The words of those who direct and support the acts are therefore among the clearest evidence a court will have.

255. In May 1948 the founders of the state rejected the names “Judea” and “Zion” and chose the name “Israel.” In the Protestant Bible “Israel” is the name of the people of God, to whom the land is promised “from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18), and of whom God says “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee” (Genesis 12:3). By taking this name the state presented itself to the Protestant churches of Britain and America as the biblical people of God. Every act of the state, the bombing of Gaza among them, could then be presented to those churches as the fulfilment of scripture, and every criticism of the state as a curse against God’s people.

256. The transfer of the name depended on the theology of John Nelson Darby. For most of Christian history the churches taught that the biblical promises to “Israel” had passed to the Church. Darby’s dispensationalism separated “Israel” from the Church and assigned the promises of land to an earthly Israel to be gathered in Palestine. This separation made the name available to a modern state. The name itself, Yisra-El, is built on El, the high god of Kanaʿan (Section III.C). The name the movement uses as a divine title to the land is a name of the land’s own people.

257. The movement casts the Palestinian people in the roles of the enemies of biblical Israel, the Canaanites, the Philistines and Amalek. On 28 October 2023, at the start of the ground invasion of Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the government of the proxy, said to its population in these words.

“You must remember what Amalek has done to you.”

258. The command concerning Amalek in 1 Samuel 15:3 is to “slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.” South Africa placed this statement before the International Court of Justice as evidence of genocidal intent (108). The same passages are preached in Christian Zionist churches as scripture that applies to the present. Dispensationalist teaching treats war in Palestine as the fulfilment of prophecy, and a ceasefire as resistance to it. The fault here is not in scripture. It lies with those who take a text about the ancient past and turn it into an order to kill living people.

259. On 14 May 2018 the United States opened its embassy in Jerusalem. The opening prayer was given by Robert Jeffress, a Texas pastor who has preached that “you can’t be saved being a Jew.” The closing prayer was given by John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, who in a sermon made public in 2008 described Adolf Hitler as a “hunter” sent by God to drive the people he calls “the Jewish people” to Palestine. In 2025 the United States appointed Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister who has said that “there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian,” as its ambassador to the proxy. On 25 March 2024 Congressman Tim Walberg, a former pastor, told a town hall meeting in Dundee, Michigan, that United States money should not be spent on humanitarian aid for Gaza and that Gaza should be dealt with “like Nagasaki and Hiroshima.” (24) Here we see men who hold the offices of the United States, which finance and protect the proxy, speaking of the destruction of a people in the language of religion.

260. British officials called the Palestinian fighters of 1936 to 1939 “bandits” and “terrorists.” The proxy and the responsible States have used the same word against Palestinian society ever since, and its purpose is to place the indigenous people outside the protection of law. In October 2021 the proxy designated six leading Palestinian civil society organisations, among them Al-Haq and Defense for Children International–Palestine, as “terrorist organisations.” In July 2022 nine governments of the European Union stated that they had received no evidence to justify the designations (139). In January 2024 the proxy accused twelve employees of UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, of taking part in the attacks of 7 October 2023. Within days the United States, the United Kingdom and other governments suspended their funding to the agency on which the people of Gaza depended for food. The independent review led by Catherine Colonna found in April 2024 (140) that the proxy had not provided evidence for its wider allegations. In October 2024 the Knesset prohibited UNRWA from operating in territory under its control. Palestinian hospitals have been labelled “command centres” and Palestinian journalists “operatives” before they were attacked. This Report applies the term “terrorist” only on the basis of contemporaneous designations and conduct (Section II.D), and not as a label of a people.

261. The name, the casting of a living people as a biblical enemy marked for destruction, the words of officials in office and the label that strips a people of the protection of law all point to one intent. They are evidence of the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people as such, and where spoken directly and in public to those who carry out the acts, they are incitement under Article III(c).

F. The Same Method against Other Indigenous Peoples

262. The method used against the Palestinian people was not invented for Palestine. Protestant occupying powers had used the same theology, the same legal fictions and the same theft of identity against indigenous peoples on other continents. The comparison matters for the court because it shows an established method and not an accident of one war.

263. The English Puritans of New England described themselves as a new Israel and the indigenous nations as Canaanites and Amalekites. In May 1637 English forces burned the Pequot fort at Mystic, in what is now Connecticut, and killed several hundred men, women and children. The English commander John Underhill wrote in justification in these words (141).

“Sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents.”

264. In 1823, in Johnson v. M’Intosh (142), the Supreme Court of the United States adopted the “Doctrine of Discovery,” under which the Christian powers held title to the lands they “discovered” and the indigenous nations held only a right of occupancy. British occupiers claimed Australia as terra nullius, land belonging to no one, until the High Court of Australia rejected the doctrine in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) in 1992 (143). In Aotearoa New Zealand the British Crown confiscated Māori land under the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863. Ashley-Cooper’s “country without a nation” and the Australian terra nullius are the same claim.

265. In Kenya in the 1950s Britain called the Kenyans who fought for their land “terrorists” and held tens of thousands of them in camps where torture was systematic (144). In 2013 the British government paid compensation to more than five thousand survivors (145). The word used against the Kenyans was the word used against the Palestinians of 1936 and is the word used against Palestinian society today.

266. By way of comparison, European occupying powers practised the theft of identity wherever they seized land. In December 1773 English occupiers in Boston disguised themselves as Mohawk men to destroy the cargo of the British East India Company. They appropriated the image of the indigenous nation as the symbol of their own freedom while their governments and armed forces were forcibly transferring the indigenous nations from their land by massacre and war. In Australia British occupiers appropriated the tools, words and knowledge of the land of the Aboriginal peoples and built from them the figure of the “bushman,” presented as the natural inhabitant of a country the same occupiers had declared terra nullius.

267. In 1871 Karl Mauch, a German explorer, reached Great Zimbabwe, the stone city built by the ancestors of the Shona people, and declared it the work of foreigners connected with the Queen of Sheba. British writers and the authorities of Rhodesia, the territory named after Cecil Rhodes, gave the city to Phoenicians or Israelites, because to admit that Africans had built it contradicted the claim that the land was empty of civilisation. David Randall-MacIver, a British archaeologist, established its African origin in 1905 (146), and Gertrude Caton-Thompson, a British archaeologist, confirmed it in 1929 (147). The occupying authorities went on suppressing that finding until independence. In Egypt, British and French imperial scholars presented the modern people as strangers to the builders of the monuments and presented the European empires as the heirs of ancient Egypt, while its antiquities were carried to the museums of London and Paris. In South Africa the Afrikaner occupiers proclaimed themselves a chosen people bound by a covenant with God after their victory over the Zulu at Ncome, called Blood River, in 1838, and the doctrine of that covenant was carried into the apartheid state.

268. In 2024 the Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese recalled that settler colonialism, as the experience of the Native Americans in the United States shows, has “aimed at displacing and eliminating Indigenous groups, of which genocidal annihilation represents the peak” (A/HRC/55/73, para. 9) (148). On 13 September 2007, when the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (31), only four States voted against it, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the four States built on the occupation of indigenous land described in this section.

269. In each case the purpose was the same. The indigenous people were stripped of their history and their sovereignty, the occupier was clothed in the history of the land, and the replacement of the native people was made to appear lawful and righteous. Palestine is the case in which the method is still being carried out.

G. The Witness of the Churches of Palestine

270. The Christians of Palestine are the descendants of the first Church of Jerusalem. They have lived in the land of Christ since the beginning, and they have never accepted the theology that was used to take it.

271. On 22 August 2006 the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Syrian Orthodox Archbishop, the Anglican Bishop and the Lutheran Bishop of Jerusalem signed the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism (149). They declared that they “categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.”

272. In 2009 Palestinian Christian leaders issued Kairos Palestine (150), which declared any theology used to justify the occupation “far from Christian teachings.”

273. Mitri Raheb, a Palestinian Lutheran pastor and the founder of Dar al-Kalima University in Bethlehem, has traced the beginnings of modern Christian Zionism to British Protestant thought, long before political Zionism existed, in Decolonizing Palestine (93) and in his writing for Baptist News Global (28) (Section III.H). His witness is that of the indigenous Church of Palestine, which sees in Christian Zionism not the faith of its fathers but an instrument of empire.

274. The churches of Palestine have suffered the genocide together with the rest of their people. On 19 October 2023 a strike by the proxy hit the compound of the Church of Saint Porphyrius in Gaza, one of the oldest churches in the world, and killed eighteen people sheltering there. On 17 July 2025 a strike hit the Holy Family Catholic Church in Gaza and killed three people.

275. The churches of the land where Christianity was born reject the doctrine on which the responsible States built their claim. The theology that names the proxy as the people of God is not the teaching of the Church of Palestine. It is the teaching of the Protestant establishments of Britain and America, and it is answered by the Christians who live under the bombs it blesses.

VII. Commission through a Proxy

A. The Transfer of an Unwanted Population

276. The transfer of a foreign population into Palestine is often told as an act of rescue. The record tells a different story. The transfer served two ends at once. It rid the responsible States of a population they did not want at home, and it placed that population in Palestine as their instrument.

277. In 1905, under Arthur James Balfour as head of the British government, Parliament passed the Aliens Act (151) to keep immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe out of Britain as undesirable aliens. Twelve years later the same Balfour issued the declaration that sent the same people into Palestine (Section III.I). Here we see the two ends in one man. The population that was not wanted in London was wanted in Palestine.

278. The United States closed its doors to the same people with the Immigration Act of 1924, two years after its Congress had endorsed their transfer into British-occupied Palestine through the Lodge–Fish Resolution (97). In July 1938, at the Evian Conference, Britain and the United States again refused to take in the refugees fleeing persecution in Europe, while Britain went on moving them into Palestine.

279. Germany pursued the same end by force. From 1933 the Nazi state persecuted these same people and forced them to emigrate. Through the Haavara Agreement it directed them and their capital into Palestine rather than into the neighbouring countries of Europe or the responsible States (Section VII.C). After 1945 the Federal Republic of Germany took up the support of the proxy. Under the Luxembourg Agreement of 1952 it paid the proxy three billion Deutsche Marks in goods and services, and it has since become one of the proxy’s principal suppliers of weapons.

280. The responsible States refused these Europeans as unwanted foreigners in their own countries and, in the same years, declared them in Palestine to be the Israel of the Bible returning after two thousand years. The false identity claim was not a gift to them. It was the means by which a population unwanted in Europe and America was transferred into Palestine to do the work of the responsible States and to hold for them the authority they had sought since the break from Rome.

B. The Arming of the Terrorist Organisations

281. Britain did not only move a foreign population into Palestine. It armed it, trained it and gave it the laws with which it would rule the indigenous people.

282. When the Palestinians rose against British rule in 1936, Britain put the revolt down by killing and collective punishment. British forces demolished homes, executed rebels, held thousands without trial and in 1936 demolished a large part of the old city of Yafa. The historian Walid Khalidi (152) estimates that more than five thousand Palestinians were killed, and the historian Rashid Khalidi (153) records that about one in ten adult Palestinian men was killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled. Britain disarmed the indigenous people, executed and imprisoned their leaders and demolished their homes. British officials called the Palestinian fighters “bandits” and “terrorists.”

283. In the same years Britain enlisted thousands of illegal immigrants from Europe as auxiliary and supernumerary police, issued them rifles and paid them from a treasury funded by the taxes of the indigenous people. The force known as the “Jewish Settlement Police” grew to thousands of men.

284. In 1938 Britain authorised Orde Wingate, a British army officer raised in the Plymouth Brethren, the movement of John Nelson Darby, to form the Special Night Squads. Wingate regarded the British occupation of Palestine as the fulfilment of prophecy. The Squads were joint units of British soldiers and fighters of the Haganah, the terrorist organisation of illegal immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe. They raided Palestinian villages at night, beat and tortured villagers, executed people without trial and punished whole communities for resisting the British occupation. Moshe Dayan and Yigal Allon, who commanded the forces that forcibly transferred the people of Palestinian villages by massacre and terror in 1948, served under Wingate, and Dayan credited him with shaping the fighting doctrine of the Haganah. In 1941 British forces trained and equipped the Palmach, the strike force of the Haganah. Here we see the theology of Darby carried into the field by a British officer and handed to the men who would carry out the genocide.

285. Britain also wrote the laws the proxy still uses against the Palestinian people. The Defence (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 (154) authorised detention without trial, the demolition of homes, curfews, deportation and the closing of whole districts. At a meeting of lawyers of the Zionist movement in Tel Aviv in 1946, Yaakov Shimshon Shapiro, later Attorney General of the proxy, said of them in these words.

“Even in Nazi Germany there were no such laws.”

286. The proxy kept the Regulations after 1948 and uses them to this day to demolish Palestinian homes and to hold Palestinians in administrative detention.

287. Britain disarmed one people and armed the other. The terrorist organisations it trained turned the methods they had learned on the indigenous people. In December 1947 and January 1948, while British forces were still in the country, they began the genocide at Balad al-Shaykh and at the Semiramis Hotel, and in March 1948 they adopted Plan Dalet (Section V.A).

C. Haavara and the Lehi Offer to Nazi Germany

288. The economy that today finances the Palestinian Genocide has a documented beginning. In August 1933, seven months after the Nazi Party took power in Germany, the Zionist Federation of Germany and the Anglo-Palestine Bank, the principal Zionist bank in British-ruled Palestine, concluded the Haavara, or Transfer, Agreement with the Reich Ministry of Economics.

289. The agreement created a financial system with two ends. In Berlin the Palästina Treuhandstelle, known as Paltreu, was set up as a partnership between the Anglo-Palestine Bank and two German banking houses, M. M. Warburg of Hamburg and A. E. Wassermann of Berlin. It received the assets of those leaving Germany for Palestine. With the approval of the Nazi state, which controlled foreign exchange through the Reich Ministry of Economics and the Reichsbank, those assets were used to buy German goods such as agricultural machinery, irrigation pipes, pumps, fertiliser and building materials. In Tel Aviv the Haavara Trust and Transfer Office, first a subsidiary of the Anglo-Palestine Bank and later under the “Jewish Agency,” sold those goods in Palestine and paid the proceeds to the illegal immigrants on arrival.

290. The Zionist organisations broke the international boycott of Nazi Germany declared in 1933 at the moment when that boycott threatened the new regime, and the Nazi state gained an export market in British-ruled Palestine. By 1939 about 60,000 illegal immigrants and roughly 100 million Reichsmarks had been transferred into Palestine through Haavara and related arrangements. The breach of the boycott is relied on as evidence of political alignment with the Nazi state and not as the breach of a legal duty. The British occupation administration admitted them, many in the category it reserved for persons of capital, without the consent of the indigenous people. German machinery and German capital built the enclaves of the illegal immigrants, their industries and their infrastructure on land being seized from the indigenous people.

291. The illegal immigrant population also formed the Irgun and Lehi, terrorist organisations of immigrants from Eastern Europe, which Britain itself was forced to designate as terrorist. From 1937 the Irgun bombed Palestinian markets, buses and cafés. In July 1938 it bombed the vegetable market in Haifa and killed more than seventy Palestinians. Britain enacted the Defence (Emergency) Regulations 1945 against them. On 22 July 1946 the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and killed ninety-one people.

292. In January 1941 Naftali Lubenczik, an emissary of Lehi, met Werner Otto von Hentig, a diplomat of the German Foreign Office, in Beirut. He delivered a written proposal from Avraham Stern, the founder of Lehi, offering to join the war on the German side in exchange for Nazi support for a Zionist state in Palestine, a state to be built, in the words of the proposal, “on a national and totalitarian basis.”

293. On 9 April 1948 Irgun and Lehi terrorists, acting with the Haganah, carried out the massacre at Deir Yassin (Section V.A). In 1948 the Irgun and Lehi were absorbed into the army of the Nazi-Zionist state alongside the Haganah and the Palmach. Two of their commanders, Menachem Begin of the Irgun and Yitzhak Shamir of Lehi, later became heads of the proxy’s government.

294. The commercial partnership of a Zionist bank, private banking houses and the ministries of a state was the first economy built to dispossess the people of Palestine. The offer of 1941 shows that one of the terrorist organisations that made the proxy sought an alliance with Nazi Germany in order to build a state on a “totalitarian basis.” These records, the partnership with the Nazi state in 1933 and the offer of alliance in 1941, are the ground on which this Report names the proxy Nazi-Zionist (Section II.D). The structure of 1933 is set beside the economy of genocide of today in Section VII.H.

D. Withdrawal and Recognition, 1947–1948

295. On 29 November 1947 General Assembly Resolution 181 (105), a recommendation of an Assembly that had no power to dispose of the territory of a people without its consent, proposed that Palestine be cut in two, and offered about 56 percent of the country to the proxy as a state of its own. The people of Palestine were the majority in their own country and held nearly all of its land. The population the proposed state was meant for was not a people of Palestine. It was a population of illegal immigrants transferred into Palestine against the will of its people, under foreign military occupation, and with no legal right of entry that the people of Palestine ever recognised. Most of them had been brought in within the fifteen years before the vote, and in those years their number more than tripled, through permits that Britain alone issued. Their institutions held about 6 percent of the land of Palestine. They had no title to the country, and the Assembly had no right to give it away. The people of Palestine were never asked. The terror against them had begun long before, when in 1937 and 1938 the bombs of the Irgun killed scores of people in the markets of Haifa and Jerusalem, and British officers trained the Haganah in raids on Palestinian villages. After the vote of November 1947 the terrorist organisations opened their campaign of massacre and forcible transfer, and Britain stood by while it was carried out. British forces remained in Palestine until 15 May 1948, and in Haifa until 30 June. Under their eyes the Irgun and Lehi, acting with the Haganah, massacred the people of Deir Yassin on 9 April 1948. Britain knew what had been done. On 20 April 1948 its delegation transmitted a report on the massacre to the United Nations Palestine Commission (A/AC.21/UK/113) (155). In Haifa on 21 April the British commander withdrew his troops from the town, and the terrorist organisations seized it within a day and forcibly transferred its people by terror. By the time Britain declared its occupation at an end, the terrorist organisations had already forcibly transferred about a quarter of a million Palestinians from their homes. Palestine was a crime scene, and the occupying power was present at it.

296. Britain did not protect the Palestinian people. In Haifa, in April 1948, the British commander, Major-General Hugh Stockwell, withdrew British troops from the positions that separated the Palestinian quarters from the quarters of the illegal immigrants, and he informed the Zionist leadership in advance. Within days the Haganah seized the city and, by mortar fire and terror, forced tens of thousands of Palestinian residents of Haifa to the port and onto boats. British forces withdrew from Tiberias and Safad in the same manner and left their Palestinian people to forcible transfer by the Haganah. On 14 May 1948, one day before the occupation ended, the proxy proclaimed itself.

297. The American Protestant Christian Zionist actors had prepared the way. In the 1940s the American Palestine Committee and the Christian Council on Palestine, which merged in 1946 into the American Christian Palestine Committee, organised thousands of American Protestant clergy and members of Congress to press for a state of the illegal immigrants in Palestine.

298. On 14 May 1948, eleven minutes after the proxy was proclaimed, Harry Truman, head of the United States government and a Baptist, recognised it. In 1953, introduced to an audience in New York as the man who had helped create the state, Truman answered in these words.

“What do you mean ‘helped create’? I am Cyrus. I am Cyrus.”

299. Cyrus is the Persian king whom the biblical text credits with returning the exiles to Jerusalem. Here we see the head of the United States government placing himself inside the biblical story and casting the creation of the proxy as the fulfilment of scripture.

300. The Palestinian Genocide was conceived in London and Washington before it was carried out in Palestine. Britain and the United States broke the independence pledged to the indigenous people and the trust of the Covenant. They transferred into Palestine, under foreign military occupation, illegal immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe whom they had refused to admit at home, clothed them in the false identity claim of the British Protestant establishment, and wrote that claim into law as if it were an ancestral title to the land. Britain armed that population, stood aside while its terrorist organisations began the genocide, and withdrew in a manner that left the Palestinian people exposed. The United States recognised the result within minutes.

E. The Structure of the Proxy and the Authority Retained

301. The Palestinian Genocide is carried out through a structure of three parts. At its head stand the responsible States, Britain and the United States, and the Protestant Christian Zionist network that directs their policy toward Palestine. Below them stands the proxy, the state that the terrorist organisations of illegal immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe declared in 1948 under the stolen name of “Israel.” Between them stands the shield, the legal fiction that the proxy is an independent State acting on its own account.

302. The responsible States supply the money, the weapons, the intelligence and the diplomatic protection on which the genocide depends, and they supply the claim of divine right with which it is justified. The proxy carries out the killing, the forcible transfer and the confinement of the indigenous people on the ground. The shield places the legal responsibility for those acts on the proxy alone and presents a genocide as a “conflict” between States and peoples.

303. With the identity transferred to the proxy, the authority that the Protestant Christian Zionist actors had sought since the break from Rome was held in their interest by a proxy bearing the stolen name. The responsible States no longer had to govern Palestine in their own name. They kept the authority and gave up only the liability. The religious language in which they presented their claim does not excuse it, because no religious belief confers a right to seize the land of another people or to commit genocide against them.

304. The structure is deliberate. A State that supplies the means of a crime committed through another does not stand apart from that crime (Section IV.G). The arrangement allows the responsible States to supply the means while denying direction. The law of complicity and of aid or assistance reaches that arrangement (Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention; Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles; Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024) (2), (12), (26), and where actual direction and control is shown Article 17 reaches it in the alternative. This Report treats the arrangement as evidence of the intent of the responsible States and not as a defence against it.

F. Weapons, Funding and Intelligence

305. Under Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention (2) and Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), a State that supplies the means of genocide with knowledge of the circumstances is responsible for complicity and for aid or assistance. The question this section answers for the court is whether the United States, Britain and Germany knowingly supplied the means by which the genocide is committed.

306. Under the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2016 (156), the United States committed 38 billion dollars in military aid to the proxy for the years 2019 to 2028, made up of 3.3 billion dollars each year in Foreign Military Financing and 500 million dollars each year for missile defence. After October 2023 the United States Congress passed the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, signed into law on 24 April 2024 (157), which provided about 26 billion dollars, most of it military. The Costs of War research programme of Brown University calculated that United States military aid to the proxy between October 2023 and September 2025 came to at least 21.7 billion dollars (158). This money is raised from United States taxpayers and spent on the bombardment and demolition of Gaza by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state.

307. In June 2024 Reuters reported (159), citing United States officials, that since 7 October 2023 the United States had transferred to the proxy at least 14,000 MK-84 bombs of 2,000 pounds, 6,500 bombs of 500 pounds, 3,000 Hellfire missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs and 2,600 small-diameter bombs. A single MK-84 kills and wounds people hundreds of metres from the point of impact. These are the bombs that the army of the Nazi-Zionist state dropped on whole residential blocks in Jabalia, Khan Yunis and Rafah. By August 2024 the proxy’s Ministry of Defence reported that more than 500 cargo flights and 107 ships had delivered over 50,000 tons of weapons and military equipment from the United States.

308. The United States executive went around its own Congress to speed these deliveries. In December 2023 it twice invoked emergency authority to transfer tank shells and artillery components without congressional review. In January 2025 it released the 2,000-pound bombs whose delivery had been briefly held, and in early 2025 it again declared an emergency to push through about 4 billion dollars in further sales. United States law forbids assistance to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country where there is credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights (22 U.S.C. § 2378d) (160), and to any country whose government restricts the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance (22 U.S.C. § 2378e). The executive did not apply them to the proxy. In May 2024, under National Security Memorandum 20 (161), the State Department accepted written assurances from the proxy that it was using United States weapons lawfully and was not obstructing aid. It did so after experts in the government’s own aid agency and refugee bureau had concluded that the proxy was obstructing aid to Gaza.

309. Since December 2023 the Royal Air Force has flown Shadow R1 surveillance aircraft over Gaza from its base at Akrotiri in Cyprus. The investigative outlet Declassified UK has recorded hundreds of these flights (162). The British government says the flights serve only to locate hostages, and it refuses to disclose what intelligence it shares with the proxy or how that intelligence is used.

310. British industry produces about 15 percent of the components of every F-35 combat aircraft, among them the rear fuselage made by BAE Systems in Lancashire. The proxy has used the F-35 throughout its bombardment of Gaza. In September 2024 the British government suspended about 30 of some 350 arms export licences to the proxy (163) and expressly excluded F-35 components, which continue to flow into the global supply pool from which the proxy draws its parts.

311. Elbit Systems, the largest weapons manufacturer of the proxy, runs factories in Britain. Its British subsidiary UAV Engines Ltd, in Staffordshire, has produced engines for the Hermes military drones the proxy flies over Gaza. On 1 April 2024 a drone strike killed seven aid workers of World Central Kitchen in Gaza, three of them British citizens. Media reports identified the drone as a Hermes 450.

312. In July 2025 the British government proscribed the protest group Palestine Action under terrorism law after the group targeted Elbit’s British sites. In the weeks that followed British police arrested hundreds of people for holding signs in support of the group. Britain applied terrorism law to the people who acted against the weapons factories, and it protected the factories.

313. Germany is the second largest supplier of weapons to the proxy (164). Its supply continued after the orders of the International Court of Justice of January 2024 (108), and it was the subject of the case brought against Germany by Nicaragua in March 2024 (113) (Section VII.I).

314. The United States is the principal financier and supplier of arms for the Palestinian Genocide in Gaza. It supplied tens of thousands of bombs and missiles, paid for them with tens of billions of dollars of public money, went around its own legislature to deliver them and refused to enforce its own laws prohibiting their transfer. The United Kingdom takes part through surveillance flights, the supply of F-35 components and drone engines and the punishment of those who act against the weapons factories. Both did so with knowledge of the findings of the International Court of Justice.

G. Protection at the United Nations

315. The United States cast its first veto on the question of Palestine on 10 September 1972 (S/10784) (165), and it has since cast more than thirty on the question of Palestine. Between October 2023 and September 2025 it cast six vetoes in the Security Council against draft resolutions on Gaza (166), among them every draft demanding a ceasefire, and on 22 December 2023 it vetoed an amendment calling for the suspension of hostilities (S/2023/1029). In April 2024 it vetoed the admission of the State of Palestine as a full member of the United Nations.

316. The United Kingdom gave diplomatic protection by abstaining on the ceasefire drafts of December 2023 and February 2024, while it went on supplying components for the aircraft bombing Gaza. In September 2025 the United Kingdom recognised the State of Palestine while those components continued to leave British factories.

317. The protection given at the United Nations is not separate from the weapons. It is the means by which the weapons continue to arrive. Each veto kept the bombardment going, and each abstention allowed it. This is the protection described in the title of this Report, and together with recognition and financing it is what the responsible States give the proxy in return for the work it does for them (Section VII.E).

H. From Haavara to the Economy of Genocide

318. The financial support documented in Section VII.F did not begin in 2023. Its structure was first built in 1933 (Section VII.C). The Haavara Agreement joined three kinds of actor. There was a Zionist bank, the Anglo-Palestine Bank. There were private banking houses, M. M. Warburg and A. E. Wassermann, which held the transfer accounts in Germany through Paltreu. And there were the economic ministries of a state, the Reich Ministry of Economics and the Reichsbank, which approved the transfers and supplied the goods. Capital and machinery flowed from that state into the enclaves of the illegal immigrants, and the indigenous people were dispossessed by the economy they built. The same three kinds of actor sustain the Palestinian Genocide today, on a scale many times greater.

319. The Zionist bank is the same institution. The Anglo-Palestine Bank, which administered the Haavara transfers, was renamed Bank Leumi in 1950 and 1951 and is today one of the two largest banks of the proxy. In 2020 the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights listed Bank Leumi in its database (167) of business enterprises involved in the enclaves of the illegal immigrants (described in that database as “settlements”) on occupied Palestinian land, for providing the loans, mortgages and banking services through which those enclaves are built and kept. The bank that financed the enclaves of the illegal immigrants with the capital of Nazi Germany finances the enclaves of the illegal immigrants on occupied Palestinian land today.

320. The private banking houses of 1933 have been replaced by the largest banks and investment funds of the responsible States. In July 2025 Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, presented her report From economy of occupation to economy of genocide (A/HRC/59/23) (168) to the Human Rights Council. She documented that the proxy has financed its assault on Gaza through the sale of government bonds, and that some of the largest banks of the responsible States, among them Barclays of the United Kingdom and BNP Paribas of France, underwrote those bonds. She documented that investment funds of the United States and Europe, among them BlackRock, Vanguard and PIMCO, the last owned by the German insurer Allianz, bought them. In 1933 a few banking houses moved the capital of German emigrants into the economy of the illegal immigrants. Today the global financial system lends the proxy the money with which it bombs Gaza.

321. The state of 1933 has been replaced by the responsible States and the corporations they license. In 1933 the Nazi state supplied machinery, pipes and building materials to build the enclaves of the illegal immigrants. Today Caterpillar of the United States supplies the bulldozers with which the proxy demolishes Palestinian homes, farmland and infrastructure, and Lockheed Martin of the United States leads the production of the F-35 aircraft with which it bombs Gaza, with components made in the United Kingdom (Section VII.F). Technology corporations of the United States, among them Palantir, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon, supply the computing and data systems on which the proxy’s surveillance and targeting depend. The machinery of 1933 built the enclaves on the land of the indigenous people. The machinery of today is used by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state to commit genocide against that people on the land that remains to it.

322. The difference between the two periods is one of scale and of purpose. In 1933 the flow ran from one state into one economy of illegal immigrants, for the dispossession of the indigenous people. Today it runs from the financial systems of the United States and Europe into a proxy state, for the physical destruction of the indigenous people by the army of the Nazi-Zionist state. The Special Rapporteur found that these corporations and financial institutions continued their activities after the International Court of Justice ordered provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel (108) and after its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 (26). They act with knowledge. The companies answer under domestic law, and their officers under Article 25 of the Rome Statute (110). Their home States answer under Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention (2), Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12) and Article I of the Convention where they licensed the supply.

I. Attribution to the Proxy Alone

323. The responsible States have arranged matters so that the courts see only the proxy. This section sets out how that is done in law and in the courts.

324. International law attributes the acts of a State’s soldiers, pilots and officials to that State. Under Article 4 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), a bomb dropped by a pilot of the proxy is an act of the proxy, even when the bomb was made, paid for and delivered by the United States. The responsible States are reached only through secondary rules. Article 16 of the Articles covers aid or assistance given with knowledge of the circumstances, and Articles I and III(e) of the Genocide Convention (2) cover the failure to prevent genocide and complicity in it. Each of these routes requires proof of the responsible State’s knowledge, and each must first pass through a court that has jurisdiction over that State. This is the separation of liability. The proxy stands before the courts. The responsible States stand behind it.

325. On 29 December 2023 the Republic of South Africa instituted proceedings against the proxy before the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention. In orders of 26 January, 28 March and 24 May 2024 (108) the Court found that the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to protection from genocide were plausible and at real risk of irreparable harm. It ordered the proxy to prevent genocidal acts, to punish incitement to genocide, to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza without obstruction and to halt its offensive in Rafah. The proxy did not comply. The case is directed against the proxy alone. The United States, which supplied the bombs, is not a party. The United Kingdom, which flew surveillance missions over Gaza and supplies components for the aircraft bombing it, is not a party.

326. Nicaragua v. Germany and the Monetary Gold rule. On 1 March 2024 Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Germany for facilitating genocide in Gaza. On 30 April 2024 (113) the Court declined to order provisional measures against Germany, while keeping the case on its list and reminding all States of their obligations regarding arms transfers. Germany argued that the case could not go forward without judging the conduct of the proxy, which was not a party. The argument rests on the rule the Court set down in the Monetary Gold case of 1954 (169), under which the Court will not decide a case whose very subject is the responsibility of an absent State. The proxy therefore protects the responsible States twice. It takes the accusation upon itself, and its absence from the proceedings is used to block cases against them.

327. In the United States, Palestinian human rights organisations and Palestinians in Gaza and in the United States sued Joseph Biden, head of the United States government, and the ministers directing its foreign and military policy, for failing to prevent genocide. On 31 January 2024 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case under the “political question” doctrine. In the same decision the court found it “plausible” that the conduct of the proxy amounts to genocide, and it implored the defendants to examine the results of their “unflagging support.” On 15 July 2024 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal (170). In the United Kingdom the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network challenged the British government’s continued supply of F-35 components. On 30 June 2025 the High Court of England and Wales dismissed the challenge, holding that the decision belonged to ministers (171). In February 2024, by contrast, the Court of Appeal of The Hague ordered the Netherlands to stop exporting F-35 parts to the proxy because of the clear risk of their use in serious violations of international humanitarian law (172). The courts of the United States and the United Kingdom refused to act on the same evidence.

328. International law places the crimes of the Palestinian Genocide on the proxy and reaches the responsible States only through rules that require proof of knowledge and a court with jurisdiction over them. The absence of the proxy has been used to block proceedings against the responsible States, and their own courts have refused to judge their governments’ supply of weapons. Liability is directed onto the proxy, and immunity is secured for those who stand behind it. This Report holds that the separation of liability does not exist in law. Under Article 47 of the International Law Commission’s Articles, where several States are responsible for the same wrongful act, the responsibility of each may be invoked, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro the Court held Serbia responsible for failing to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica, committed by forces it supported and financed but did not control, because it knew of the serious risk and did not use the influence it had (paras. 430 to 438; Section IV.G) (21).

J. Concealment of the Record

329. The responsible States and their proxy have hidden, sealed and withdrawn from public access the documents that record the Palestinian Genocide. The Report finds that this is not the ordinary secrecy of governments. It is directed at the evidence of the crime, it is carried out by the authors of the crime, and it continues while the crime continues.

330. At the end of its rule over its overseas territories Britain followed a policy of destroying, or shipping secretly to London, the records that might embarrass it or its officials. In the later withdrawals its own officials named this policy Operation Legacy. The files shipped to London from 41 territories, Palestine among them, were held at Hanslope Park, a government communications site in Buckinghamshire, outside the public record. The British government denied for decades that they existed. It admitted them only in 2011, when Kenyan survivors of torture by British forces brought their case before the High Court in London (145), and it transferred them to The National Archives as the series FCO 141 between 2012 and 2013 (173). Britain has not disclosed whether it destroyed records of its occupation of Palestine at its withdrawal in 1948, or which records it destroyed.

331. Since the early 2000s the security directorate of the proxy’s Ministry of Defence, known by its Hebrew acronym Malmab, has searched the state archive and private archives and ordered files on 1948 withdrawn from public access and sealed. Among them are documents that had already been declassified, read by historians and published, and accounts of the killing of civilians and the demolition of villages by the Haganah and the army of the Nazi-Zionist state. Yehiel Horev, the former head of the directorate, stated that the purpose was to undermine the credibility of research on the origins of the refugee problem. These facts were documented by the Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research in 2019 (174) and reported in Haaretz on 5 July 2019 (175).

332. On 21 January 2019 the head of the proxy’s government signed an amendment to its Archives Regulations that extended the period of secrecy for the files of the Shin Bet, the Mossad, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Institute for Biological Research from 70 years to 90 years. The Supreme Council of Archives, the body charged with advising on access, had recommended an extension of five years only. The security files of 1948 are therefore closed until at least 2038. The photographs of the massacre at Deir Yassin remain sealed in the archives of the proxy, although a petition was brought before its courts for their release.

333. Where the sealed record has come to light, it confirms the crime. On 30 June 1948 the intelligence service of the army of the Nazi-Zionist state reported on the departure of the indigenous population between 1 December 1947 and 1 June 1948. It attributed about 70 percent of the departures to the military operations of the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi and to their direct effects, and about 5 percent to calls from Palestinian or regional leaders. The historian Benny Morris published its contents in 1986 (176). The security directorate then sealed the report, and the Akevot Institute published it again in 2019. For seventy years the proxy and the responsible States have told the world that the Palestinian people left at the call of their own leaders. The proxy’s own intelligence service had found otherwise within weeks of the events.

334. The concealment of the record is conduct of the State that holds the record, attributable to it under Article 4 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), whether the record is held in the archive of the proxy or in that of Britain. In the Corfu Channel case of 1949 (25) the International Court of Justice held that where the facts lie within the exclusive control of one State, the other party is allowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact and circumstantial evidence. The records of 1948 lie within the exclusive control of the proxy and of Britain. On 26 January 2024 the Court ordered the proxy to take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence of acts within the scope of the Genocide Convention (para. 86(5), Section IX.D) (108). The Updated Set of Principles to Combat Impunity, submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2005 (177), recognises the right of victims and of peoples to know the truth about violations and the duty of States to preserve the archives that record them. This Report finds that the sealing of the record of 1948 by the authors of the crime, after that record had been read and published, is evidence of their knowledge of what it shows, and that the specific intent set out in Section I.F may be inferred from it together with the pattern of conduct set out in Sections V and VI.

VIII. Responsibility

A. The United Kingdom and the United States as States

335. The facts set out in Sections III to VII give rise to the responsibility of States under the Genocide Convention and the Articles of the International Law Commission (2), (12). Each State is answerable for its own conduct, and under Article 47 of those Articles the responsibility of each may be invoked even where others are responsible for the same act.

336. Britain occupied Palestine, issued the Balfour Declaration and wrote it into the Mandate for Palestine (6) without the consent of the indigenous people (Section III.I). It moved a foreign population into the country, armed and trained the terrorist organisations that began the genocide and gave them the laws of repression they still use (Sections VII.A and VII.B). It withdrew from Haifa, Tiberias and Safad in a manner that left the Palestinian people exposed to forcible transfer by the Haganah (Section VII.D). Since 2023 it has flown surveillance over Gaza, supplied components for the aircraft that bomb it and protected the factories that make its drone engines (Section VII.F). In 1948 its delegation worked to exclude cultural genocide from the Convention (Section IV.C). This Report finds that the United Kingdom bears responsibility for its failure to prevent genocide under Article I, for complicity in genocide under Article III(e), for aid or assistance under Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles, and in the alternative, for the years of its occupation from 1917 to 1948, for direction and control of the terrorist organisations under Article 17. For the years of its occupation from 1917 to 1948 the acts of the British administration, its army and its police are the conduct of the United Kingdom itself under Article 4 of those Articles.

337. The United States approved the Balfour Declaration before it was issued, endorsed it in the Lodge–Fish Resolution of 1922 (97), and recognised the proxy eleven minutes after it was proclaimed (Section VII.D). It is the principal supplier of the bombs and the money with which the genocide in Gaza is carried out, and it has protected the proxy with its veto (Sections VII.F and VII.G). Its officials, among them members of Congress and its ambassador to the proxy, have made the statements set out in Section VI.E. When it ratified the Genocide Convention in 1988 it entered a reservation to Article IX, so that it cannot be brought before the International Court of Justice under the Convention without its own consent (Section IV.H). This Report finds that the United States bears responsibility, in this order, for its failure to prevent genocide under Article I, for complicity in genocide under Article III(e), for aid or assistance under Article 16, read with the duty of non-assistance declared by the International Court of Justice on 19 July 2024 (26), and for incitement under Article III(c), the Convention binding States not to commit the acts listed in Article III through their organs (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, 2007, paras. 166 and 167) (21), in respect of the statements of its officials dated and quoted in Section VI.E. Members of its Congress and its ambassadors are organs of the United States under Article 4 of the International Law Commission’s Articles. The duty to prevent is breached where a State had the capacity to influence effectively the persons committing genocide, knew or should normally have known of the serious risk that genocide would be committed, and did not use the means reasonably available to it (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, 2007, paras. 430 and 431). The United States has that capacity. In 1956 its threat to withdraw its aid compelled the proxy to withdraw from Sinai and Gaza by March 1957. It remains the principal supplier of the weapons with which the genocide is committed, and it has repeatedly vetoed resolutions of the Security Council demanding a ceasefire in Gaza (Section VII.G). It has known of the serious risk of genocide at the latest since the order of the International Court of Justice of 26 January 2024 (108). The veto does not direct the acts of the proxy, but it is the use of that capacity to prevent others from stopping them.

338. Germany entered the record through the Haavara Agreement of 1933 and has financed and armed the proxy since the Luxembourg Agreement of 1952 (Sections VII.A, VII.C and VII.F). This Report finds that Germany bears responsibility for complicity under Article III(e), for aid or assistance under Article 16 and for its failure to prevent genocide under Article I. The Federal Republic is the same State in international law as the German Reich and bears its responsibilities. The Haavara Agreement is relied on as evidence and not as a charged act.

339. In its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 the International Court of Justice found the occupation of the Palestinian territory unlawful and held that all States are under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining it (para. 279). Every transfer of weapons and every veto made after that date was made with knowledge of that finding.

340. A religious belief held by officials does not relieve a State of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. The Abraham Accords of 2020 (40) cannot give any legal effect to the seizure of Palestinian land or to the denial of Palestinian rights, because no agreement between third States can dispose of the rights of a people who were not party to it, under the rule that a treaty does not create obligations or rights for a third State or people without its consent (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 34) (178), and because the right of peoples to self-determination is a peremptory norm from which no agreement may derogate (Commentary of the International Law Commission to Article 26 of its Articles). The rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and to redress for lands confiscated without their consent are affirmed in Articles 26 and 28 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (31) (Section III.F).

341. The responsibility of States does not displace the responsibility of individuals. Under Articles 6 and 25(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (110), those who order, solicit, aid, abet or otherwise assist in the commission of genocide, and those who directly and publicly incite it, are individually responsible.

B. Churches, Institutions and Individuals

342. The States did not act alone. Behind their policy stands a network of Protestant churches, organisations and individuals that supplied the doctrine and the political direction, and that supplies money and people today.

343. The line of this network has been followed through the Report, from Foxe and the Puritans (Section III.D) to Ashley-Cooper, the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Archbishop of York (Section III.H), to Blackstone and his petition of 1891, to Balfour, Lloyd George and Wingate (Sections III.I and VII.B), and to the American Christian Palestine Committee that pressed for the proxy in the 1940s (Section VII.D). In 1948 John Foster Dulles, a Presbyterian layman who had chaired the Federal Council of Churches’ Commission on a Just and Durable Peace, sat in the United States delegation that worked to narrow the Genocide Convention (Section IV.C).

344. Christians United for Israel was founded by the Texas pastor John Hagee in 2006 and states on its own account that it has more than ten million members. The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem was founded in 1980. These and other Protestant Christian Zionist organisations raise money, much of it given as tax-deductible charitable donations in the United States, to support the proxy and the enclaves of the illegal immigrants built on occupied Palestinian land. The organisation HaYovel sends Christian volunteers from the United States to work in the vineyards of the enclaves of the illegal immigrants in the occupied West Bank. Here we see the United States paying twice, once through the military aid of its government and again through the tax exemptions it gives to the organisations that finance the enclaves of the illegal immigrants.

345. In 2013 the Pew Research Center (179) found that 82 percent of white evangelical Protestants in the United States believed that God gave the land of Palestine to those it called “the Jewish people,” against 40 percent of those Pew counted as “American Jews.” This Report does not judge the faith of any person. It records that the doctrine of Christian Zionism, which the churches of Palestine have rejected as false teaching (Section VI.G), has a mass following among American Protestants larger than among the community in whose name the land is claimed, and that this following is organised as political pressure on the government that arms the proxy.

346. The churches, organisations and individuals named in this Report are not bystanders. They gave the doctrine, they raised the money and they directed the votes. Where their conduct meets the terms of Article III of the Genocide Convention (2) and Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute (110), their officers and members answer for it as individuals under Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute and under the domestic law of genocide. The organisations answer under domestic law, including the law of charitable tax exemption.

C. Concealment and Obstruction

347. The responsible States have not only supplied the genocide. They have worked to keep it from being judged and its record from being read (Section VII.J).

348. In the United States the case brought by Palestinian human rights organisations against the head of the United States government was dismissed on 31 January 2024 under the “political question” doctrine, even as the judge wrote, referring to the findings of the International Court of Justice, that “it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide” (Section VII.I) (170). In the United Kingdom the High Court dismissed the challenge of Al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network to the supply of F-35 components on 30 June 2025 (171). The courts of the responsible States declined to judge what the court of The Hague was willing to judge.

349. In 2002 the United States withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute (110) and enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (180), which authorises the head of its government to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to bring about the release of the persons it covers from detention by or on behalf of the Court. On 21 November 2024 the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the head of the proxy’s government and its former minister of defence for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The United States answered with punishment. On 9 January 2025 its House of Representatives passed H.R. 23, a bill to sanction the Court. H.R. 23 was not enacted. On 6 February 2025 the head of the United States government signed Executive Order 14203 (181), which authorised sanctions on those who work with the Court against the proxy. On 13 February 2025 the United States sanctioned the Prosecutor, Karim Khan. On 5 June 2025 it sanctioned four judges of the Court. On 9 July 2025 it sanctioned Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur whose findings are set out in Section VII.H. On 20 August 2025 it sanctioned further judges and two deputy prosecutors. In 2024 the previous British government sought to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over the arrest warrants, and the new government withdrew the challenge in July 2024.

350. The United States has placed itself beyond the reach of the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention by its reservation to Article IX (Section VIII.A), and the United States, which accepts no jurisdiction under Article IX, cannot be joined to such a case (Section VII.I).

351. More than thirty-five states of the United States have passed laws that penalise boycotts of the proxy. In Britain a bill to forbid public bodies from boycotting the proxy lapsed in 2024, and in 2025 the British government proscribed Palestine Action and arrested hundreds of people for signs supporting it (Section VII.F).

352. The responsible States have closed their own courts to the charge, sanctioned the judges and the prosecutor of the court that took it up, withdrawn their consent to the jurisdiction of the court that could judge them, and punished those who protest. These acts are evidence of the knowledge and intent set out in Section VI. A State that did not know what its weapons were doing would not need to sanction the judges who said so.

D. Consolidated Findings

353. On the evidence set out in this Report, the Tribe of Abimelech makes the following findings.

354. Towns stood in Palestine thousands of years before the first written records, at Tell al-Sakan and ʿAyn al-Asawir (Section III.A). Egyptian sources from about 1950 to 1850 BC record the tribes and rulers of the land, among them Abisha at Beni Hasan. The Mari letters of the eighteenth century BC record tribal confederations with names later given to the tribes of Israel, among them the Banu Yamina, and the cities of Hazor and Laish. The ruler Yaʿqub-Har reigned in Egypt and Sharuhen stood near Gaza. In the fifteenth century BC the name Yaʿqub-El appears in the lists of Thutmose III, and the genetic studies show that the people of the Bronze Age southern Levant are among the ancestors of the people of the land today. Gerar, in Wadi al-Shariʿa, is the ancestral land of the Tribe of Abimelech (Section III.B). El is the god of Kanaʿan, and the name Israel is built on his name (Section III.C).

355. The patriarchal narrative was composed long after the age it describes and was drawn from the names and customs of the indigenous tribes of the land (Section III.F). The racial category of “Semite” was invented in 1781 and was used in Europe to divide peoples into races.

356. From the break with Rome in 1534 the Protestant establishments of England, and later of the United States, claimed the identity of Israel for themselves and then transferred the claim to a population of illegal immigrants that they transferred into Palestine as their instrument (Sections III.D, III.E, III.H and VI.A).

357. The claim of an empty land and the claim of a divine deed to the land were false, and the responsible States knew it from their own records (Sections III.G and VI.D).

358. In 1948 the same States narrowed the Genocide Convention so that the destruction of a people’s culture, language and heritage would not count as genocide (Section IV.C).

359. From 1947 to 1950 and again since October 2023 the proxy, whose conduct before 14 May 1948 is attributed to it under Article 10(2) (Section II.D), has killed members of the Palestinian people, caused them serious harm and inflicted on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction, with the intent to destroy them as such (Sections V and VI). The terrorist organisations, by then the army of the Nazi-Zionist state, forcibly transferred the Tribe of Abimelech from its land by terror in the operations of October and November 1948 that began with Operation Yoav, and its members have been killed in Gaza since 2023 (Section V.D).

360. The United Kingdom and the United States, joined by Germany (Section VIII.A), conceived the doctrine behind these acts and aided, armed, financed and protected them with knowledge of their character. They are responsible for failing to prevent them, for complicity in them and for aid or assistance in them, and Britain, for the years of its occupation, in the alternative for their direction and control, under the Genocide Convention and the law of State responsibility (Sections VII and VIII.A).

IX. Conclusion and Recommendations

A. Conclusion

361. The Palestinian Genocide did not begin in 1948 and it did not begin in 2023. Its doctrine was formed in England after 1534, and its intent was carried out from 1947. The doctrine was formed when a Protestant establishment that had broken with Rome claimed for itself the identity of Israel and then looked to the land of Palestine as the place where that identity would be made real. It passed to the United States with the Puritans and returned to London in the doctrine of Darby and the policy of Ashley-Cooper and Balfour. It was carried out in Palestine by a proxy that Britain armed and the United States recognised, and it is sustained today by the weapons, the money and the protection of both.

362. The genocide was a theft, a lie and a murder. The responsible States and the proxy seized the land and the heritage of the indigenous people. The seizure was covered by the lie that the land was empty and that a divine deed gave it to others. And the people whose presence disproved the lie were killed, forcibly transferred and confined by the terrorist organisations and the army of the Nazi-Zionist state. The States that did this also narrowed the law in 1948 with the effect that the theft would not be named, and they have since closed their courts and sanctioned the judges who tried to name the murder.

363. The Tribe of Abimelech, whose ancestors lived at Gerar before any of these claims were made, stands as a living witness against them. It asks the courts and bodies of the world to see the whole crime, and not only the part of it that the responsible States have arranged for them to see.

B. Submissions of the Tribe

364. Under Articles 31 and 35 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12), a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act must make full reparation for the injury caused, and restitution comes first wherever it is possible. On that basis the Tribe of Abimelech makes the following submissions to every competent court and body.

365. First, that the acts committed against the Palestinian people from 1947 to 1950 be recognised as genocide under customary international law, and that the acts committed since 1951, including those in Gaza since October 2023, be recognised as genocide under the Convention forming one course of conduct with them.

366. Second, that the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and every State that supplies weapons, components, intelligence or finance to the proxy be investigated for complicity in genocide under Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention (2), for failure to prevent it under Article I, for aid or assistance under Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles and in breach of the duty not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the unlawful presence of the proxy in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which the International Court of Justice declared in its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 (para. 279) (26), and, in the case of the United Kingdom for the years 1917 to 1948, in the alternative for direction and control under Article 17, and that all such transfers be stopped.

367. Third, that the officers and members of the churches and organisations, and the officials, who directed, financed and incited the genocide, among them those named in Sections VI.E and VIII.B, be investigated under Article III of the Genocide Convention and Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute (110).

368. Fourth, that no court, State or body give any legal effect to a claim of title to land founded on a divine deed or on a claim of biblical descent, in accordance with the rule that historical or religious ties do not establish territorial sovereignty or override the right of self-determination (Western Sahara, 1975, para. 162) (88).

369. Fifth, that the Palestinian people, the Tribe of Abimelech among them, be allowed to return to their homes and lands in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) (105), Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (32) and Article 5(d)(ii) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (33), that their property be restored by way of restitution under Article 35 of the International Law Commission’s Articles and that they be compensated for what cannot be restored, and that the Arabic names of their towns, villages, wells and lands be restored.

370. Sixth, that Palestinian cemeteries, archives, libraries and places of heritage be protected, and that their destruction be investigated as part of the genocide.

371. The seventh and eighth submissions are set out in Section IX.C.

C. Restitution after the Identity Theft

372. The theft of a heritage cannot be repaired by money alone. It can be repaired only by restoring the heritage to those from whom it was stolen.

373. Seventh, that the courts and bodies of the world recognise the Canaanite heritage of the land, its towns, its tribal names and customs and its god El, from whom the name Israel is formed (Section III.C), as part of the heritage of the indigenous people of Palestine, and that they cease to treat any claim to that heritage as a title to Palestinian land or as a ground for the forcible transfer of the people who live on it, in accordance with the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 (182) and the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 (183).

374. Eighth, that the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany make full reparation under Articles 31 and 35 of the International Law Commission’s Articles (12). Reparation must include cessation and guarantees of non-repetition under Article 30 and satisfaction by public acknowledgement of their part in the Palestinian Genocide under Article 37, by their governments. The Tribe calls on the churches and organisations through which they acted to make the same acknowledgement.

375. The Tribe does not ask that any people be stripped of its faith or its name. It asks that its own heritage, and that of the Palestinian people, no longer be used as a deed to their land or as a sentence of death against them.

D. Preservation of Evidence

376. Under Article 41 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (184) the Court may order provisional measures to preserve the rights of the parties, and in its order of 26 January 2024 in South Africa v. Israel it ordered the proxy to take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence (para. 86(5)) (108). Lemkin counted the destruction of a people’s culture and records among the techniques of genocide (1) (Section IV.B). The evidence of the Palestinian Genocide is being destroyed with the people, and its preservation is a duty of all.

377. The Tribe of Abimelech calls on every Palestinian family to record its lineage, the names of its dead and its missing, the boundaries of its lands, the location of its wells and cemeteries, and the circumstances of its forcible transfer and by whom it was committed. These records should be written down by the elders while they live, and kept in several copies in separate places, so that no single bombardment or seizure can erase them. A family’s record of its own history is evidence before a court, and it is the inheritance of its children.

Video. The Battle for Survival: Protecting Bloodlines and Land from Eradication (Arabic). Tribe of Abimelech Platform.
{“src”: “VIDEO_URL”, “poster”: “POSTER_URL”}

378. The archives of the responsible States hold the record of their part in the genocide. The records of the British occupation from 1917, of the Palestine Exploration Fund from 1865, of the British consulate in Jerusalem from 1838, and of the supply of weapons and funds to the proxy since 1948 must be preserved and opened. The files of Palestine among the migrated archives of Britain (FCO 141) (173) must be opened in full, with an account of whether any records of Palestine were destroyed at its withdrawal in 1948. The files of 1948 that the proxy’s security directorate has sealed since the early 2000s, and the files it holds closed under the regulations of 2019, must be opened, among them the photographs of Deir Yassin and the intelligence report of 30 June 1948. The antiquities carried out of Palestine to the museums of London, Berlin, New York and elsewhere are evidence of the heritage of the indigenous people and must be accounted for.

379. The sites of the more than 530 Palestinian localities whose people the terrorist organisations and the army of the Nazi-Zionist state forcibly transferred in 1948 (117), including the wells, cemeteries and lands of the Tribe of Abimelech in the Naqab, must be protected from further demolition, construction or alteration.

Annex. Audiovisual Material

The following videos of the Tribe of Abimelech Platform treat periods that fall after the evidentiary window of this Report. They are listed for the reader and the Report does not rely on them as evidence.

Video. The Genetic and Historical Truth and the Fabricated Time Gap (Arabic). Tribe of Abimelech Platform.
{“src”: “VIDEO_URL”, “poster”: “POSTER_URL”}

Video. The Philistines and the Canaanite Fabric (Arabic). Tribe of Abimelech Platform.
{“src”: “VIDEO_URL”, “poster”: “POSTER_URL”}

Video. The Doctrinal Theft of British Protestantism (Arabic). Tribe of Abimelech Platform.
{“src”: “VIDEO_URL”, “poster”: “POSTER_URL”}

Notes

Notes to Section I

Notes to I.A

(1)   Lemkin, Raphael. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944.

Notes to I.B

(2)   Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Adopted 9 December 1948, 78 UNTS 277.

(3)   Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 3 February 2015, ICJ Reports 2015, p. 3.

(4)   Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annexed Regulations. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

(5)   Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 June 1919.

(6)   League of Nations. Mandate for Palestine, 24 July 1922.

(7)   Charter of the International Military Tribunal, annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945.

(8)   United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 95 (I), 11 December 1946.

(9)   United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 96 (I), 11 December 1946.

(10)                       International Court of Justice. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 15.

(11)                       Absentees’ Property Law, 5710-1950.

(12)                       International Law Commission. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001.

(13)                       United Kingdom. Draft convention submitted to the Sixth Committee, A/C.6/236, 1948.

(14)                       United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Vol. I, Part 1, Documents 185 and 186.

Notes to I.C

(15)                       Foxe, John. Acts and Monuments. London, 1563.

(16)                       Winthrop, John. A Model of Christian Charity. 1630.

(17)                       Palestine Exploration Fund. Report of the inaugural meeting, 22 June 1865. London, 1865.

Notes to I.D

(18)                       Barron, J. B. Palestine: Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922. Jerusalem, 1923.

Notes to I.E

(19)                       Ministry of Health, Gaza. Casualty report of 13 August 2026.

(20)                       Tribe of Abimelech. “Partial List of Martyrs of the Hasanat Abu Mu’ailiq Tribe in Gaza During the 2023–2025 Genocide.” 27 November 2025. abimelech.org/en/blog/post/martyrs-of-hasanat-abu-muailiq-tribe-in-gaza.

Notes to I.F

(21)                       Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43.

(22)                       Herzl, Theodor. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, ed. Raphael Patai. Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960.

(23)                       Balfour, Arthur James. Memorandum of 11 August 1919. In Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919–1939, First Series, Vol. IV.

(24)                       Michigan Public. “Walberg on Gaza. ‘It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick.’” 30 March 2024.

(25)                       Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4.

Notes to I.G

(26)                       International Court of Justice. Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024.

(27)                       The Balfour Declaration, 2 November 1917.

Notes to Section II

Notes to II.C

(28)                       Raheb, Mitri. “The beginnings of modern Christian Zionism.” Baptist News Global. baptistnews.com/article/the-beginnings-of-modern-christian-zionism.

Notes to II.D

(29)                       Martínez Cobo, José R. Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4. United Nations, 1986.

(30)                       International Labour Organization. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169).

(31)                       United Nations General Assembly. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Resolution 61/295, 13 September 2007.

(32)                       International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Adopted 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 and 993 UNTS 3.

(33)                       International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Adopted 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195.

(34)                       International Court of Justice. East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 90.

(35)                       International Court of Justice. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, ICJ Reports 2019, p. 95.

(36)                       King–Crane Commission. Report of the American Section of the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey, 28 August 1919.

(37)                       United Kingdom. Report of the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929 (Shaw Report), Cmd. 3530, 1930.

(38)                       United Kingdom. Palestine. Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development (Hope Simpson Report), Cmd. 3686, 1930.

(39)                       Provisional Government of Israel. Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance No. 33 of 5708-1948, 23 September 1948.

(40)                       Abraham Accords Peace Agreement between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel, and Abraham Accords Declaration, Washington, D.C., 15 September 2020.

Notes to Section III

Notes to III.A

(41)                       de Miroschedji, Pierre, and Moain Sadeq. “Tell es-Sakan, un site du Bronze ancien découvert dans la région de Gaza.” Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 145 (2001).

(42)                       Israel Antiquities Authority. Announcement of the excavation at ʿEn Esur (ʿAyn al-Asawir), 6 October 2019.

(43)                       Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vols. I and II. University of California Press, 1973 and 1976. (Inscription of Weni, The Story of Sinuhe, Autobiography of Ahmose son of Ebana.)

(44)                       Petrie, W. M. Flinders. Deshasheh 1897. Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898.

(45)                       Newberry, Percy E. Beni Hasan, Part I. Egypt Exploration Fund, 1893.

(46)                       Kamrin, Janice. “The Aamu of Shu in the Tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hassan.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1:3 (2009).

(47)                       Stele of Khu-Sebek. Manchester Museum, acc. no. 3306.

(48)                       Archives royales de Mari (ARM), Vol. 2, text 37.

(49)                       Bietak, Manfred. Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos. British Museum Press, 1996.

(50)                       Stantis, Chris, Arwa Kharobi, Nina Maaranen, Geoff M. Nowell, Manfred Bietak, Silvia Prell, and Holger Schutkowski. “Who were the Hyksos? Challenging traditional narratives using strontium isotope (87Sr/86Sr) analysis of human remains from ancient Egypt.” PLOS ONE 15(7): e0235414 (2020).

(51)                       Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II. University of Chicago Press, 1906. (Annals of Thutmose III.)

(52)                       Simons, Jan. Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia. Brill, 1937.

(53)                       Glock, Albert E. “Texts and Archaeology at Tell Taʿannek.” Berytus 31 (1983).

(54)                       Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton University Press, 1969. (Memphis stele of Amenhotep II.)

(55)                       Agranat-Tamir, Lily, et al. “The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant.” Cell 181 (2020): 1146–1157.

(56)                       Haber, Marc, et al. “Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences.” American Journal of Human Genetics 101, no. 2 (2017): 274–282. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.013.

(57)                       Leclant, Jean. “Le ‘Tétragramme’ à l’époque d’Aménophis III.” In Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa. Harrassowitz, 1991.

(58)                       Albanese, Francesca. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, A/77/356. United Nations General Assembly, 21 September 2022.

(59)                       Albanese, Francesca. Genocide as colonial erasure. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, A/79/384. United Nations General Assembly, 1 October 2024.

(60)                       Lynk, Michael. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, A/HRC/49/87. United Nations Human Rights Council, 2022.

(61)                       United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid. E/ESCWA/ECRI/2017/1. Beirut, 2017.

Notes to III.B

(62)                       Aharoni, Yohanan. “The Land of Gerar.” Israel Exploration Journal 6 (1956): 26–32.

(63)                       Oren, Eliezer D. “Haror, Tel.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by Ephraim Stern, Vol. 2. Israel Exploration Society, 1993.

(64)                       Bar-Oz, Guy, Pirhiya Nahshoni, Hadas Motro, and Eliezer D. Oren. “Symbolic Metal Bit and Saddlebag Fastenings in a Middle Bronze Age Donkey Burial.” PLOS ONE 8(3): e58648 (2013).

(65)                       Petrie, W. M. Flinders. Gerar. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1928. Beth-Pelet I (Tell Fara), 1930. Ancient Gaza I–IV (Tell el-ʿAjjul), 1931–1934.

Notes to III.C

(66)                       Huffmon, Herbert B. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.

(67)                       Giveon, Raphael. Les bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens. Brill, 1971.

Notes to III.D

(68)                       United Kingdom. Foreign Office. Henry Temple, Viscount Palmerston, to John Ponsonby, Viscount Ponsonby, 11 August 1840, F.O. 78/390 (No. 134). The National Archives, Kew.

Notes to III.E

(69)                       Milton, John. Areopagitica. London, 1644.

(70)                       Brothers, Richard. A Revealed Knowledge of the Prophecies and Times. London, 1794.

(71)                       Wilson, John. Our Israelitish Origin. London, 1840.

(72)                       Hine, Edward. Identification of the British Nation with Lost Israel. London, 1871.

Notes to III.F

(73)                       Whitelam, Keith W. The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History. Routledge, 1996.

(74)                       Masalha, Nur. The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-Colonialism in Palestine-Israel. Zed Books, 2007.

(75)                       Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. Yale University Press, 1977.

(76)                       Lambert, W. G., and A. R. Millard. Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, with The Sumerian Flood Story by M. Civil. Clarendon Press, 1969.

(77)                       Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Sumerian King List. Assyriological Studies 11. University of Chicago Press, 1939.

(78)                       Thompson, Thomas L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. De Gruyter, 1974.

(79)                       Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. Yale University Press, 1975.

(80)                       Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. Free Press, 2001.

(81)                       Schlözer, August Ludwig von. “Von den Chaldäern.” In Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, ed. Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur, Vol. 8. Leipzig, 1781.

(82)                       Renan, Ernest. Histoire générale et système comparé des langues sémitiques. Paris, 1855.

(83)                       Haynes, Stephen R. Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery. Oxford University Press, 2002.

(84)                       Goldenberg, David M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton University Press, 2003.

(85)                       Treaty of Peace (General Maritime Treaty) between Britain and the rulers of the Persian Gulf coast, 8 January 1820. Perpetual Maritime Truce, 4 May 1853. Exclusive Agreements, March 1892.

(86)                       United States. Proclamation 10126 on Recognizing the Sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco over the Western Sahara, 10 December 2020.

Notes to III.G

(87)                       Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Eerdmans, 2003.

(88)                       International Court of Justice. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975.

(89)                       Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, Article 2(4).

(90)                       United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, 22 November 1967.

Notes to III.H

(91)                       Finch, Henry. The World’s Great Restauration, or Calling of the Jews. London, 1621.

(92)                       Cartwright, Joanna and Ebenezer. Petition to the Council of State, 5 January 1649.

(93)                       Raheb, Mitri. Decolonizing Palestine: The Land, the People, the Bible. Orbis Books, 2023.

(94)                       The Quarterly Review, January 1839.

(95)                       Lewis, Donald M. The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury and Evangelical Support for a Jewish Homeland. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

(96)                       Palestine Exploration Fund. The Survey of Western Palestine. London, 1881–1883.

Notes to III.I

(97)                       United States Congress. H.J. Res. 322 (Lodge–Fish Resolution), approved 21 September 1922.

Notes to Section IV

Notes to IV.A

(98)                       Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 22 July 2022, ICJ Reports 2022, p. 477.

Notes to IV.C

(99)                       “Plan Dalet. General Plan for the Haganah, 10 March 1948.” Journal of Palestine Studies 18:1 (1988).

(100)                   United Nations Economic and Social Council. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide, E/794, 24 May 1948.

(101)                   United Nations General Assembly, Sixth Committee. Summary records A/C.6/SR.75, A/C.6/SR.83, A/C.6/SR.107 and A/C.6/SR.128, October to November 1948.

(102)                   United Nations General Assembly, Third Committee. Summary records A/C.3/SR.161 and A/C.3/SR.162, 26 and 27 November 1948.

(103)                   United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 217 C (III), 10 December 1948, and Resolution 260 A (III), 9 December 1948.

(104)                   United Nations General Assembly. Plenary records A/PV.178 and A/PV.179, 9 December 1948.

(105)                   United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 181 (II), 29 November 1947, and Resolution 194 (III), 11 December 1948.

(106)                   Amit, Gish. “Salvage or Plunder? Israel’s ‘Collection’ of Private Palestinian Libraries in West Jerusalem.” Journal of Palestine Studies 40:4 (2011).

(107)                   Weiss-Wendt, Anton, ed. Documents on the Genocide Convention from the American, British, and Russian Archives. Bloomsbury, 2019.

Notes to IV.D

(108)                   International Court of Justice. South Africa v. Israel, Orders of 26 January, 28 March and 24 May 2024.

Notes to IV.F

(109)                   Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention). Adopted 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287.

(110)                   Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Adopted 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90.

(111)                   International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Adopted 30 November 1973, 1015 UNTS 243.

(112)                   International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment of 2 September 1998.

Notes to IV.G

(113)                   International Court of Justice. Nicaragua v. Germany, Order of 30 April 2024.

(114)                   International Criminal Court, Pre-Trial Chamber I. Decision on the “Prosecution request pursuant to article 19(3) for a ruling on the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine”, ICC-01/18-143, 5 February 2021.

Notes to Section V

Notes to V.A

(115)                   Morris, Benny. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

(116)                   Khalidi, Walid, ed. All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992.

(117)                   Abu Sitta, Salman. Atlas of Palestine 1917–1966. Palestine Land Society, 2010.

(118)                   Abraham, Yuval. “‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza.” +972 Magazine, 3 April 2024.

(119)                   United States. Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Vol. VI, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Documents 697 and 705 (message of the President, 28 May 1949).

(120)                   United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. Final Report of the United Nations Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East. A/AC.25/6, 28 December 1949.

(121)                   General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV), 8 December 1949.

(122)                   International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Krstić, IT-98-33-A, Judgment of 19 April 2004.

Notes to V.B

(123)                   International Court of Justice. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004.

Notes to V.C

(124)                   United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT). Gaza Strip Comprehensive Damage Assessment, July 2025.

(125)                   Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. Famine classification for Gaza Governorate, August 2025.

(126)                   Amnesty International. “You Feel Like You Are Subhuman”: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza. December 2024.

(127)                   B’Tselem. Our Genocide. July 2025.

(128)                   International Association of Genocide Scholars. Resolution on Gaza, September 2025.

(129)                   United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, conference room paper, A/HRC/60/CRP.3, 16 September 2025.

Notes to V.D

(130)                   Tribe of Abimelech community archive. Testimony on the forcible transfer of the Tribe by the terrorist organisations in 1948.

(131)                   Tribe of Abimelech. “Mourning the Death of Ahmad al Hassanat and Calling for UN Protection Under UNDRIP.” Press release, 22 July 2025. abimelech.org/en/blog/post/mourning-the-death-of-ahmad-al-hassanat-and-calling-for-un-protection-under-undrip.

(132)                   Tribe of Abimelech. “When will Terrorism Against Our Children End? In Memory of Ibrahim al-Hasanat.” 30 March 2026. abimelech.org/en/blog/post/in-memory-of-ibrahim-al-hasanat-when-will-terrorism-against-our-children-end.

(133)                   Tribe of Abimelech. “In memory of Sheikh Kamal Abu Mua’iliq, his wife Huda Abu Mua’iliq, and their three beloved sons.” 2 August 2026. abimelech.org/en/blog/post/mourning-of-our-elder-sheikh-kamal-abu-muailiq.

Notes to Section VI

Notes to VI.D

(134)                   Meir, Golda. Interview. The Sunday Times, 15 June 1969.

(135)                   Peters, Joan. From Time Immemorial. Harper & Row, 1984.

(136)                   Porath, Yehoshua. “Mrs. Peters’s Palestine.” The New York Review of Books, 16 January 1986.

(137)                   Finkelstein, Norman G. Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. Verso, 1995.

(138)                   McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine. Columbia University Press, 1990.

Notes to VI.E

(139)                   Joint statement of nine European Union member states on the designation of six Palestinian civil society organisations, 12 July 2022.

(140)                   Independent Review Group on UNRWA (chaired by Catherine Colonna). Final Report, 20 April 2024.

Notes to VI.F

(141)                   Underhill, John. Newes from America. London, 1638.

(142)                   Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823).

(143)                   Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.

(144)                   Elkins, Caroline. Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. Henry Holt, 2005.

(145)                   Mutua and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2011] EWHC 1913 (QB).

(146)                   Randall-MacIver, David. Mediaeval Rhodesia. London, 1906.

(147)                   Caton-Thompson, Gertrude. The Zimbabwe Culture: Ruins and Reactions. Oxford, 1931.

(148)                   Albanese, Francesca. Anatomy of a Genocide. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, A/HRC/55/73. United Nations Human Rights Council, 25 March 2024.

Notes to VI.G

(149)                   Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, 22 August 2006.

(150)                   Kairos Palestine: A Moment of Truth, 2009.

Notes to Section VII

Notes to VII.A

(151)                   Aliens Act 1905 (5 Edw. 7 c. 13).

Notes to VII.B

(152)                   Khalidi, Walid, ed. From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem until 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies, 1971.

(153)                   Khalidi, Rashid. The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine. Metropolitan Books, 2020.

(154)                   Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945. Palestine Gazette, Supplement No. 2, 27 September 1945.

Notes to VII.D

(155)                   United Kingdom Delegation. Report on Deir Yassin transmitted to the United Nations Palestine Commission. A/AC.21/UK/113, 20 April 1948.

Notes to VII.F

(156)                   Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Israel on military assistance, 14 September 2016.

(157)                   Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024. Public Law 118-50, 24 April 2024.

(158)                   Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University. Costs of War. United States military aid to Israel, October 2023 to September 2025.

(159)                   Reuters. Report on United States weapons transfers since 7 October 2023, 28 June 2024.

(160)                   United States Code, Title 22, §§ 2378d and 2378e.

(161)                   United States Department of State. Report to Congress under National Security Memorandum 20, May 2024.

(162)                   Declassified UK. Reporting on Royal Air Force Shadow R1 flights over Gaza, 2023–2025.

(163)                   United Kingdom Department for Business and Trade. Statement on the suspension of export licences, 2 September 2024.

(164)                   Wezeman, Pieter D., Katarina Djokic, Mathew George, Zain Hussain and Siemon T. Wezeman. Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2023. SIPRI Fact Sheet. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, March 2024.

Notes to VII.G

(165)                   United Nations Security Council. Draft resolution S/10784, 10 September 1972. Amendment S/2023/1029, 22 December 2023.

(166)                   United Nations Security Council. Voting records on draft resolutions concerning Gaza, October 2023 to September 2025.

Notes to VII.H

(167)                   Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of the report of the independent international fact-finding mission, A/HRC/43/71, 12 February 2020; updated 30 June 2023.

(168)                   Albanese, Francesca. From economy of occupation to economy of genocide. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, A/HRC/59/23. United Nations Human Rights Council, 2025.

Notes to VII.I

(169)                   International Court of Justice. Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943, Judgment of 15 June 1954.

(170)                   Defense for Children International–Palestine v. Biden, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:23-cv-05829-JSW, 31 January 2024, affirmed, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 24-704, 15 July 2024.

(171)                   R (Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade, High Court of England and Wales, [2025] EWHC 1615 (Admin), 30 June 2025.

(172)                   Gerechtshof Den Haag. Judgment in the F-35 export case, 12 February 2024.

Notes to VII.J

(173)                   The National Archives (United Kingdom). FCO 141, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and predecessors: Records of Former Colonial Administrations, Migrated Archives.

(174)                   Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research. Silencing: DSDE’s Concealment of Documents in Archives. 2019.

(175)                   Shezaf, Hagar. “Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs.” Haaretz, 5 July 2019.

(176)                   Morris, Benny. “The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948.” Middle Eastern Studies 22, no. 1 (1986): 5–19.

(177)                   United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, 8 February 2005.

Notes to Section VIII

Notes to VIII.A

(178)                   Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Adopted 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

Notes to VIII.B

(179)                   Pew Research Center. A Portrait of Jewish Americans. October 2013.

Notes to VIII.C

(180)                   United States. American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002, 22 U.S.C. § 7421 et seq.

(181)                   United States. Executive Order 14203, 6 February 2025, 90 Fed. Reg. 9369.

Notes to Section IX

Notes to IX.C

(182)                   Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Adopted 16 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151.

(183)                   Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Adopted 14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 240.

Notes to IX.D

(184)                   Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 41.

Further Reading

Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide. Summary record of the fifth meeting, E/AC.25/SR.5, April 1948.

Anglim, Simon. Orde Wingate and the British Army, 1922–1944. Pickering & Chatto, 2010.

Badger, Anthony. “Historians, a Legacy of Suspicion and the ‘Migrated Archives’.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 23, nos. 4–5 (2012): 799–807.

Benvenisti, Meron. Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948. University of California Press, 2000.

Black, Edwin. The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine. Macmillan, 1984.

Fleming, Daniel E. Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Garlake, Peter. Great Zimbabwe. Thames and Hudson, 1973.

Heller, Joseph. The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940–1949. Frank Cass, 1995.

Hofri-Winogradow, Adam S. “The Legal Structure of the Ha’avara (Transfer) Agreement: Design and Operation.” In National Economies: Volks-Wirtschaft, Racism and Economy in Europe between the Wars (1918–1939/45), 97–107. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015.

International Court of Justice. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Appeals Chamber. Nahimana et al. v. Prosecutor, ICTR-99-52-A, Judgment of 28 November 2007.

Malamat, Abraham. Mari and the Early Israelite Experience. Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1989.

Merkley, Paul Charles. The Politics of Christian Zionism, 1891–1948. Frank Cass, 1998.

Nicosia, Francis R. Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Pappé, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld, 2006.

Segev, Tom. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate. Metropolitan Books, 2000.

Sluglett, Peter. Britain in Iraq: Contriving King and Country, 1914–1932. Columbia University Press, 2007.

Tribe of Abimelech. Tribal Families of the Tribe of Abimelech and Territory of the Tribe of Abimelech. Tribe of Abimelech Platform, abimelech.org/en/about/families.

Tribe of Abimelech. Community archive of the Hasanat Abu Muʿailiq: founding lineages, allied families, and tribal territory. Tribe of Abimelech Platform, abimelech.org.

Wilson, Mary C. King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

This report is a working document of the Tribe of Abimelech Platform, subject to revision and expansion as further evidence becomes available and events develop.

This report may be freely distributed for educational and advocacy purposes with attribution to the Tribe of Abimelech Platform.

Powered by AgentMole