“Anti-Zionism”, explained Adam Louis-Klein, is, like its ideological cousin, antisemitism, supported by a series of myths. For anti-Zionists, this includes libels such as settler-colonialism, apartheid and now genocide—all “ritually deployed not to clarify but to accuse, forming a closed circuit of moral judgment, reproduced across academia, media, and international organizations”.
By repeating such accusations, Louis-Klein added, “without serious demonstration or credible sourcing, they produce the appearance of an incontestable reality: a displaced evil attributed to ‘Israel'”.
The Guardian, naturally, was among the earliest purveyors of the genocide libel – having introduced the charge a mere seven days after the deadliest and most barbaric antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust – and is the most aggressive purveyor of that cruel and toxic calumny, one which has contributed the tsunami of antisemitism in the UK,
A recent article (“A single shell, fired by the IDF at a fertility clinic: peace prize recipient explains what lies behind her genocide finding“, at the outlet, by Ben Doherty, promoted one among the litany of myths concerning the genocide libel: the accusation that the IDF intentional bombed a fertility clinic in Gaza, which is framed as “evidence” that Israel is trying to prevent births in the territory.
The peace prize recipient Doherty is referring to is Navi Pillay, a co-author of the truly farcical “genocide finding” in question by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry – a group under the auspices of the dictators’ club known as the UN Human Rights Council.
The Guardian journalist, uncritically promoting the charge in Pillay’s report, writes that a “lone” IDF shell hit the “Al-Basma fertility clinic in December 2023”, an “intentional strike” meant to wipe out “4,000 embryos in a moment”.
While almost all of most article consists of uncritical amplification of Pillay’s claims, including, but not limited to, the “fertility clinic” allegation, Doherty’s only attempt at balance is to cite a statement by Israel’s military that “they take extensive measures to mitigate civilian harm and did not deliberately target civilian infrastructure, including IVF clinics”.
Of course, if Doherty had decided to engage in professional (Western-style) journalism by critically scrutinising Pillay’s allegation about the ‘intentional murder of 4,000 embryos’, he would have cited the in-depth rebuttal by Salo Aizenberg published at UN Watch on the very day Pillay and her colleagues issued their report.
Here are the relevant paragraphs from Aizenberg’s report:
One of the central claims in the report is that the IDF intentionally struck the Al-Basma IVF clinic in December 2023, destroying 4,000 embryos. The Commission devotes seven paragraphs to this incident, alleging that it was an act of “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” and presenting it as evidence of genocide. This single incident anchors a key section of the report addressing measures aimed at restricting reproduction and features in the false claim that Israel targeted Gaza’s healthcare system.
The idea that the IDF knowingly directed its forces to deliberately target an IVF clinic in order to destroy embryos and prevent Palestinians from procreating is a baseless accusation presented without a shred of proof.
The report’s footnotes supposedly evidencing this incident lead nowhere. In Para. 57 and 79, it cites a prior document, but the paragraphs there merely repeat the assertion that the IDF “intentionally attacked and destroyed the Basma IVF clinic which was the main fertility centre in Gaza,” without evidence or sources.
The current report goes further, claiming that through “visual analysis” of photographs, the Commission concluded the damage was “most probably a shell fired from an Israeli security forces tank.” It then cites American ABC News, which only reported that the clinic’s director alleged an Israeli shelling, while noting Israel’s spokesperson said the IDF was not aware of a strike on the building.
Despite the Report noting uncertainty about whether it was even an Israeli shell, the Commission still concludes “that the Israeli authorities knew that the medical centre was a fertility clinic and that they intended to destroy it. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the destruction of the Al Basma IVF clinic was a measure intended to prevent births among Palestinians in Gaza.”
The Commission then makes the farcical claim that because five liquid nitrogen tanks inside the building exploded, the strike must have been a precise, deliberate attack. Yet the building, while damaged, still stands intact, making the notion of targeting nitrogen tanks inside it implausible.
[Then], even weaker “evidence” [is presented]: “the Commission also heard from a witness who testified that munitions experts consulted were able to conclude that the clinic had been ‘under significant direct attack.’”
The Commission admits it did not consult experts themselves, relying instead on vague hearsay from an unnamed witness. The ABC News article cited by the Commission also offers no proof of an Israeli strike. It simply reported: “A single explosion resulting from an Israeli shelling in December destroyed more than 5,000 specimens in Gaza’s largest and oldest IVF clinic, according to the director of the medical center.”
The Commission builds its entire case on this one source—the testimony to a media outlet by the clinic’s medical director who cannot assess what kind of ordnance hit the building. Within the same article, another clinic director admitted, “We don’t know if this was a deliberate targeting or not.” The IDF stated it was unaware of a strike at this location, and the Commission itself cannot confirm whether it was even an Israeli she
Like so many of the Commission’s charges, the allegation rests on speculation and recycled testimony, not actual proof.
Additionally, in a long post on X, Aizenberg addresses
Photographs also contradict the UN’s case. ABC News images show the clinic still standing with limited interior damage, while a Reuters photo omitted from the UN report depicts an adjacent multi-story tower with a gaping hole at its center, far more consistent with being the real target of IDF fire.
The claim that the clinic suffered the most damage is plainly false. The photos reveal active combat in the area and evidence of a possible threat from the adjacent building. There is no proof the clinic was struck by Israeli fire; it could just as easily have been hit by a Hamas RPG or misfired rocket. Even if it was an IDF shell, nothing shows the clinic was the target. Furthermore, the idea of a “precision strike” on nitrogen tanks inside a largely intact structure is implausible.
As you can see, if the Guardian journalist wanted to do his job, he would have informed readers that – like almost all of the accusations in service of the genocide libel – that charge that the IDF intentionally bombed a fertility clinic, in order to prevent several thousand future births in the territory, is devoid of anything resembling evidence.
Related Posts
Guardian’s anti-Israel conclusion contradicts its own reporting
Why do they need fertility clinics in Gaza when they already breed like rabbits? Where half the population already are children, perhaps with all their tunnels they think they are rabbits. Trust the Grauniad to twist the facts and not adhere to reporting standards, another Qatar funded pile of poo