Reasonable to believe targeted killing of children part of larger plan for genocide of the Palestinian people, Justice Muralidhar says
Here's an important international law story. Justice S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and now Chair of the UN's Independent Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, said there's reasonable cause to believe Israeli forces committed genocide against Palestinian children. Over 20,000 children have been killed since October 2023. What this really means is international humanitarian law, the laws of armed conflict, is being tested on a global stage. For CLAT prep, know the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court, and India's position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
S.Muralidhar, Former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court at The Hindu Justice Unplugged 2026 in New Delhi on February 28, 2026.
Justice S. Muralidhar, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, discusses theUnited Nations panel’s report on crimes committed on Palestinian children by Israeli security forcesresulting in the death of at least 20,179 and injury of 44,143 children since the October 7, 2023 armed incursions by Hamas. The former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and currently a senior advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India, in an interview withThe Hindu, explains findings of systematic targeting of the most vulnerable Palestinian populations — women, children, and the elderly.
One of the objectives of the Commission is to find the root causes of recurrent tensions, systematic discrimination, and repression. What is driving this specific targeting of the most vulnerable sections of the population—women, children, and the elderly?
The conflict can be traced in the modern era to the 1947 United Nations resolution based on the two-state framework of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine. There has always been a grievance by the Palestinian people that they were not consulted on what should constitute the territory of either state. These boiling issues have never been resolved. We have had the Nakba—the en masse exodus of Palestinian people driven from their land—and the Yom Kippur war. Every time, Israel tries to expand its territorial limits, a process that continues today. Israel’s vision of what constitutes its state stands at odds with the UN resolution itself. Hence, it tries to present a fait accompli, operating on the premise that once they have occupied these territories, they cannot be asked to leave.
The geographical mandate of the Commission spans the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including Gaza and East Jerusalem) and Israel. When we look at human rights and humanitarian law violations, we look at occurrences across all these areas. Our reports must address underlying root causes, which is a highly sensitive topic because, at times, those causes can be traced back to Biblical times.
The report touches upon previous violations against Israeli children by the military wing of Hamas and other groups, alongside actions by Israel against Palestinian children. Has the child ceased to be a protected entity and been reduced to a deliberate weapon of war?
A child as young as 10 years old is labelled a terrorist. Once you shift the label from “child” to “terrorist”, you strip that person of all rights. The child becomes “free game” or “target practice”. Israeli soldiers are able to shoot at sight by simply claiming, “I am not shooting a child, I am shooting a terrorist”.
The Commission has labelled Gaza “the most dangerous place to be a child”. Given the scale of destruction, at what point does the legal definition shift from crimes against humanity to outright, calculated genocide?
Deliberate intent is one of the parameters used to establish genocide. This means an intent to destroy a group of persons. The Commission’s detailed report in September 2025 described a constant attack on Palestinians as a group to deprive them of land, resources, and cultural roots, and to drive them from their habitations. It is a risk to their whole entity and continuation. In that process, the targeting of children becomes a device to ensure the biological and social discontinuity of the Palestinian people as a group, because children constitute that continuity. It targets the root itself to ensure there are no more Palestinian children. This manifests in multiple ways - ensuring children are not conceived in the first place, treating pregnant women as legitimate targets, and leaving mothers malnourished. There are no incubators available for newborns, causing many babies to die at birth or be born at extremely low weights, such as 900 grams. Furthermore, children are driven to displacement camps, 97% of schools have been destroyed, and minors are specifically targeted by quadcopters, snipers, and drones.
When you see the entire pattern, it becomes abundantly clear that this plan of genocide involves the deliberate targeting of children. However, people should make the distinction between a judicial body and an investigating body. For the purposes of investigation, the standard is “reasonable grounds to believe”. We have concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe that this targeted killing of children is part of a larger plan for the genocide of the Palestinian people as a group.
The report documents chilling testimonies, such as a doctor stating soldiers used children as target practice. In the face of absolute non-cooperation from Israel, what verification standards did the Commission employ to ensure these testimonies are legally ironclad?
We pick up only evidence that can be corroborated by independent sources. If a child testifies about what they underwent in an Israeli prison, we do not simply rely on that testimony. We look for forensic ways to establish the presence of that child, while ensuring the process does not re-traumatise them. We also receive information from healthcare workers, academics, journalists, lawyers, victims, and families. We utilise photographs, videos, audio statements, medical reports, and oral testimonies from doctors. On top of all this, we have footage of Israeli soldiers filming themselves and uploading it to social media. Notably, when Israel prepared an 18-page rebuttal to this report, they did not dispute any of those pieces of evidence.
The report explicitly names the Israeli military brigades and divisions operating during these atrocities. Is this the baseline framework for a future international war crimes prosecution process?
It should be. What we find is that accountability mechanisms are often not properly activated when these reports come out. We made it a point to tell the world that we have evidence to pinpoint who could be held responsible. There are over 12,000 U.S. nationals serving in the Israeli Defence Forces, alongside over 6,000 French, 5,000 Russian, 4,000 German, 3,000 Ukrainian, and nearly 2,000 British nationals. In total, 16 to 17 countries have nationals serving in the IDF. Many return home after a single stint.
If they have been named as being involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, there is an obligation on these countries—who are treaty parties—to investigate them. If they want evidence, this Commission will be happy to share what it has. They can use our report as a starting point to probe further. Even if the crime did not happen in their territory, they could exercise “universal jurisdiction” because the perpetrator is within their territory. This often happens selectively due to political compulsions, but we hope there are no political compulsions when it involves crimes against children. One crime cannot be substituted by another crime; that is not the way of doing justice.
The report describes the deployment of quadcopters, with soldiers equating the remote killing of children to “watching a video game”. How does international law address this psychological decoupling of tech-driven warfare from the reality of slaughter?
International law allows for interpretation. When a soldier notes that a quadcopter “does not hesitate, does not stop and almost never makes mistakes”, equating its operation to a video game, they know fully well what the consequences are. It is technological, but it is still a weapon. The wielding of a weapon to inflict maximum damage is something international law accommodates without needing structural amendments. The only requirement is to demonstrate the extent of the damage caused, the disproportionate impact that technology has had on hostilities, and how children are paying with their lives.
When a newbo