One of the commissioners who authored the U.N. report on genocide that was released last fall stumbled in a debate with U.S. Army veteran Brian Cox and private investor Mark Kuperholz, unable to answer their questions on the report’s accusation that Israel deliberately targeted a fertility clinic in Gaza to prevent live births.

When presented with evidence that Sidoti had testified before the U.N. General Assembly giving one account but gave a conflicting report to the Human Rights council, saying in the first instance that it was an Israeli airstrike and in the second instance that it was a tank shell, Sidoti said he had no recollection of the exchange but insisted it was a tank shell.

Sidoti was one of three commissioners on the United Nations Commission of Inquiry who authored the report. All three violated the U.N.’s own standard to avoid even the appearance of bias, since Sidoti, along with the other two commissioners, boasted a record of antisemitic and anti-Israel activity:

Sidoti, for example, said that every IDF soldier who served in Gaza should be investigated for crimes against humanity. He has called for boycotts against Israel and has complained that Jews were “throwing around accusations of antisemitism like rice at a wedding.” The antisemitic record of the commissioners was so egregious that member nations of the United Nations were moved to issue condemnations.

The transcript of the video clip in which Sidoti was thoroughly humiliated follows.

Kuperholz: This is one of the four areas of genocide that they picked Israel on. And it was a fertility clinic in the middle of a battle. Professor Parrin from the Chicago Law School said the nitrogen had already failed and that 2,000 specimens were sacrificed and thrown away before the staff abandoned the building in late, in the middle of November. So how did your commission confirm that an Israeli tank was responsible?

Sidoti: Firstly, let me say, I can’t give you detailed response because I’ve not looked at this now for two years, that one on the 5,000 or whatever.

Kuperholz: You’ve said Israel committed genocide. You should know your facts.

Sidoti: I know my facts, Mark, but I don’t necessarily sit here without notice being able to go through the information on every single case. But I can tell you that it was a tank shell. Hamas doesn’t have tanks.

Kuperholz: But they’ve got Kornet missiles, they’ve got RPGs, they have multiple…

Sidoti: It was a tank shell. It was a tank shell. Look, I’m stumbling, and I know that I shouldn’t be stumbling in front of this particular audience. But I don’t want to answer the question on this unless I’ve gone back and looked at it again. The one thing that I would add though is that the finding of genocidedal act was not dependent solely on the attack on the facility clinic. Rather, we said that the attack on the facility clinic combined with what appeared to us we concluded to be deliberately targeting of maternity facilities in hospitals, generally indicated that there was an attempt to prevent live births.

Kuperholz: I want to ask you one question. When you reported it to the general assembly, you said that Israel blew it up with a bomb from an airplane.

Sidoti: I didn’t…

Kuperholz: Yes, you did. I’ll I read to you: To the General Assembly on the September 11, 2024, paragraph 30, the clinic was the direct target of an airstrike. And in December 2023, 3,000 embryos were destroyed, which is actually the number your expert gave…

Sidoti: Yeah, I thought it was three.

Kuperholz: CRP.6 on the 13th of March 2025, footnoted, copied back to your own report CRP.3 of the 16th of September with a genocide claim. You changed it to a tank shell and 4,000 embryos plus 1,000 other specimens lost in its entirety when the sperm bank was attacked in early December. And by the way, you can’t date it from the second of December to the second of January. You have no visibility in that period. You don’t know which week it happened. Why? Was your report wrong to the General Assembly or was your report wrong to the Human Rights Council? Same attack, two methods.

Sidoti: I have … no, it was a tank. I have no recollection of saying … show me it to me, Mark. I have no recollection of ever saying it to them.

Cox: But I’ll just say very briefly in response to the fertility clinic issue is even if it was an Israeli tank shell that damaged the fertility clinic, I’ve been involved in street fighting, house to house, street to street; in order for this to be evidence that Israel intends to prevent births in Gaza and is therefore destroying a fertility clinic, we would need to know that the tank driver, or in this case, the gun operator on the tank, was aware there was a fertility clinic, fired the tank shell with the intent to destroy the nitrogen system and destroy the embryos that we’re there.

 If we don’t have that, for me, as someone who has been involved in literally street-to-street, house-to-house fighting, all we have is a case of a tank shell hitting a building; and we have no idea the context of what that person intended at the time, whether it was intending to attack a Hamas fighter who was in this building or maybe to destroy the embryos that were there, and that could be evidence of genocidal intent.

But I would suggest that if our standard is reasonable grounds to believe, reasonable grounds to conclude, we have not met that standard based on the available evidence.