Do Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7th, 2023 constitute a genocide?

Whether Israel's military actions in Gaza since the October 7, 2023, attacks constitute a genocide is one of the most highly contested legal, political, and moral questions in modern international relations.

There is currently no definitive judicial ruling or global consensus on this issue. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is reviewing the allegations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, a final judgment on the merits is expected to take several years.

The primary arguments, legal proceedings, and perspectives surrounding this debate are outlined below.

The Legal Context: Ongoing Proceedings at the ICJ

The core legal debate is centered at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, in the case of *South Africa v. Israel*.

•The "Plausibility" Finding: In January 2024, the ICJ issued provisional measures, determining that it is "plausible" that the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide under the Genocide Convention are at risk of irreparable harm. The court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish incitement to genocide, and ensure the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid.

•No Final Ruling Yet: The ICJ did not rule on whether Israel is actually committing genocide, which is the subject of the main case. The legal process is exceptionally long; the court has set written pleading deadlines extending through November 2027 for South Africa and May 2029 for Israel. A final binding judgment on the merits of the case is not expected until the late 2020s or beyond.

Arguments Supporting the Genocide Allegation

Proponents of the accusation—which include South Africa, several intervening nations, human rights organizations (such as Amnesty International), and various UN special experts—argue that Israel’s military conduct meets the legal definition of genocide. This definition requires proving both a physical act (the destruction of a group) and a mental element (the specific intent to destroy that group, dolus specialis).

1.Destruction and Conditions of Life: Accusers point to the immense scale of destruction and civilian loss of life, noting that tens of thousands of Palestinians (disproportionately women and children) have been killed. They argue that the systematic destruction of housing, hospitals, universities, water treatment facilities, and agricultural land, combined with severe restrictions on food, medical supplies, and fuel, constitutes deliberately inflicting "conditions of life calculated to bring about [the group's] physical destruction in whole or in part" (Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention).

2.Genocidal Intent: To establish the necessary legal intent, advocates of this perspective cite numerous public statements made by high-ranking Israeli officials, cabinet ministers, and military personnel. They argue these statements—which have included calling for the flattening of Gaza, referring to Hamas as "human animals," and invoking historical references to total warfare—reflect an intent to destroy the population rather than just target combatants.

3.Reports by UN Bodies: A UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry and certain UN Special Rapporteurs have released reports concluding that there are reasonable grounds to believe the threshold of genocide has been met, pointing to a pattern of conduct aimed at the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.

Arguments Against the Genocide Allegation

Israel, along with key international allies such as the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, strongly rejects the accusation of genocide, calling it "wholly unfounded in fact and law" and a "manifest misuse of the Genocide Convention."

1.Legitimate Military Objectives and Self-Defense: Israel argues that its military operations in Gaza are a lawful exercise of its right to self-defense following the October 7, 2023, attacks led by Hamas, which resulted in the slaughter of approximately 1,200 people and the abduction of hundreds of hostages. Israel contends that its intent (animus) is the destruction of Hamas—a declared terrorist organization—and the recovery of the hostages, not the destruction of the Palestinian people.

2.Hamas's Use of Human Shields: Israel and its supporters argue that the exceptionally high civilian casualty rate is the direct result of Hamas’s military strategy. They assert that Hamas deliberately embeds its fighters, rocket launchers, command tunnels, and ammunition within civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, mosques, and densely populated residential areas—which turns those civilian sites into legitimate military targets under international humanitarian law.

3.Mitigating Civilian Harm: Israel argues that its active efforts to issue evacuation warnings, map safe zones, and coordinate the entry of thousands of aid trucks directly contradict any claim of genocidal intent. They argue that a state attempting to commit genocide would not actively warn populations to evacuate combat zones or facilitate humanitarian assistance.

4.The High Legal Bar for Genocide: Legal experts and allied nations argue that "genocide" is a highly specific crime under international law that cannot be inferred simply from high civilian casualties or devastating urban warfare. They argue that the specific intent to physically destroy a group is entirely absent from Israel's military doctrine, which is bound by the laws of armed conflict.

Other International Rulings: The ICC

It is also important to distinguish between the ICJ (which rules on state responsibility) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) (which prosecutes individuals).

The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders (such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant). However, the charges brought by the ICC prosecutor were for war crimes and crimes against humanity—specifically pointing to the use of starvation as a method of warfare, persecution, and murder. The ICC prosecutor did not file charges of genocide against the Israeli leaders, a distinction that observers note reflects the exceptionally high evidentiary standard required to charge the crime of genocide.

Summary

Whether the war in Gaza constitutes a genocide is a deeply polarized and unresolved issue:

•To proponents of the accusation, the sheer scale of civilian deaths, displacement, starvation, and official rhetoric represents a clear-cut case of intent to destroy the Palestinian community in Gaza.

•To opponents of the accusation, the campaign is a tragic but legally justified war of self-defense against a terrorist adversary that systematically uses its own civilian population as shields.

The final, legally binding determination on this question remains in the hands of the judges at the International Court of Justice, whose final ruling is still several years away.

Citations (11)

1genocidewatch.comNonprofits and think tanks
genocidewatch.com
Backs: “While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is reviewing the allegations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, a final judgment on the merits is expected to take several years.”
2timesofisrael.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
timesofisrael.com
Backs: “While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is reviewing the allegations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, a final judgment on the merits is expected to take several years.”
3thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “Israel.”
4wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Israel.”
5dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “The "Plausibility" Finding: In January 2024, the ICJ issued provisional measures, determining that it is "plausible" that the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide under the Genocide Convention are at risk of irreparable harm.”
6amnesty.orgNonprofits and think tanks
amnesty.org
Backs: “The "Plausibility" Finding: In January 2024, the ICJ issued provisional measures, determining that it is "plausible" that the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide under the Genocide Convention are at risk of irreparable harm.”
7georgetown.eduAcademic
georgetown.edu
Backs: “Genocidal Intent: To establish the necessary legal intent, advocates of this perspective cite numerous public statements made by high-ranking Israeli officials, cabinet ministers, and military personnel. They argue these statements—which have included calling for the flattening of Gaza, referring to Hamas as "human…”
8pbs.orgNews and mediaquality 0.87
pbs.org
Backs: “They argue these statements—which have included calling for the flattening of Gaza, referring to Hamas as "human animals," and invoking historical references to total warfare—reflect an intent to destroy the population rather than just target combatants. Reports by UN Bodies: A UN Independent International Commission…”
9aljazeera.comNews and mediaquality 0.78
aljazeera.com
Backs: “Reports by UN Bodies: A UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry and certain UN Special Rapporteurs have released reports concluding that there are reasonable grounds to believe the threshold of genocide has been met, pointing to a pattern of conduct aimed at the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.…”
10lemkininstitute.comNonprofits and think tanks
lemkininstitute.com
Backs: “It is also important to distinguish between the ICJ (which rules on state responsibility) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) (which prosecutes individuals). The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders (such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav…”
11courthousenews.comNews and mediaquality 0.87
courthousenews.com
Backs: “It is also important to distinguish between the ICJ (which rules on state responsibility) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) (which prosecutes individuals). The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders (such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav…”