The UN Commission of Inquiry, set up to investigate alleged human rights violations by Israeli soldiers at the Palestinian demonstrations for the Return March, presented its findings. At the origin of the investigation there were the repressions of the Tel Aviv military against the protests held between the Israeli border and the Gaza Strip, which began on March 30, 2018 and lasted for six weeks, to support the descendants’ request. refugees to get their property, homes and land, which they lost in 1948 as a result of the Israeli occupation. The phenomenon involved about 750,000 people, who were subtracted all their assets and forced to move to Gaza. In 1948 a UN resolution, number 194, provided for the possibility of the owners returning to their homes, but the state of Israel has always denied this possibility, because a repatriation of a large number of Palestinians could jeopardize the Jewish nature of the nation , a feeling that has become a national law sanctioning, in fact, the essentially Jewish nature of the Israeli country. The victims of Israeli soldiers, including the presence of snipers, were 189, including 35 children, two journalists and three paramedics involved in relief efforts. On the basis of these data the United Nations Commission has deemed to have detected violations of humanitarian law, human rights and even cases that can be configured as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The jurisdiction over these violations is Israel, which should carry out investigations and possibly bring the perpetrators to court. Tel Aviv’s response follows a customary scheme, which provides for the discrediting of the UN Commission’s investigation, considering false the reported news, in addition to the usual definitions of hostility and prevention, which affect any relationship contrary to Israeli interests. However, the global resonance that a UN investigation may have does not constitute a further confirmation of the isolation of much of the international community, even if recent developments in international politics have silenced the Palestinian question in favor of the rapprochement between Tel Aviv and Washington, thanks to the Trump presidency, and for the unofficial alliance between Israel and the Gulf Monarchies as an anti-Iranian function. One of the results of the Commission could, however, be a new focus on the Palestinian question, also in parallel with the approach of the Israeli elections. The fundamental question is whether the international community can still allow a state to act outside the law: if the responsibility for attacks on Israeli forces by Palestinians is to be recognized, for which the status of segregation in which they live in the Gaza Strip, subjected by an almost total embargo of 2007, on the other hand it is necessary to highlight the disproportion of the response, exclusively military operated against civilians. The reasons for self-defense that Israel produces can be valid in the presence of attacks carried out by military means not with the modalities operated by those who wanted to make a protest march. The profound reason is always the lack of a definition of the Palestinian question, the lack of implementation of the two-state policy, the creation of a Palestinian state and the non-compliance with the agreements signed by Israel, repeatedly disregarded, also through illegal settlements in Palestinian territory. The policy of the last Israeli governments, conditioned by an excessive presence of extremists, has gone in the direction of evading the creation of a Palestinian state, procrastinating the solution by all means and exasperating the anger of the Palestinians who have been prevented from any possibility of development. Despite the contingent situation is not favorable, the international community has a duty to put the Palestinian question at the center of attention to arrive at a satisfactory definition for both parties, where the perpetrators of abuses are faced with their responsibilities.