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 a highly contentious issue. It is currently the subject of intense international legal, political, and academic debate, with deeply polarized views.

Under the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide is defined as acts committed with the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Legally proving genocide requires meeting a very high threshold: establishing both specific prohibited acts (such as killing members of the group or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction) and specific genocidal intent (dolus specialis).

Below is an overview of the ongoing legal proceedings, as well as the primary arguments presented by those who accuse Israel of genocide and those who reject the accusation.

The Legal Status at the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In December 2023, South Africa formally instituted proceedings against Israel at the ICJ, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention.

•Provisional Measures: In January 2024, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling stating that it is "plausible" that Israel's conduct could fall under the Genocide Convention and that the Palestinian population in Gaza has a right to be protected from genocide. The court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide, prevent and punish incitement to genocide, and ensure the unhindered provision of basic services and humanitarian aid. The court has since updated and reinforced these provisional measures multiple times.

•No Final Ruling Yet: The ICJ has not yet determined whether genocide has actually occurred. The legal process is expected to take several years. Following Israel's formal submission of its counter-memorial in March 2026, the ICJ extended the timeline for written pleadings, granting South Africa until November 2027 to file its reply and Israel until May 2029 to submit its rejoinder.

Arguments That Israel's Actions Constitute Genocide

Human rights organizations (including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), various UN experts, multiple states supporting South Africa's case, and academic bodies—such as the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), which passed a formal resolution in August 2025—argue that Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide. Their arguments focus on several key areas:

1.Evidence of Intent: Proponents of this view point to public statements made by high-ranking Israeli politicians, ministers, and military commanders since October 2023. They argue that rhetoric referencing "human animals," calls to "erase Gaza," and comparisons to historical biblical enemies (such as Amalek) demonstrate a clear, state-led genocidal intent (dolus specialis) directed at the Palestinian population as a whole.

2.Inflicting Unbearable Conditions of Life: Critics point to the severe and systematic restriction of food, clean water, medical supplies, electricity, and fuel. They argue that enforcing near-famine conditions and decimating Gaza's healthcare system constitute the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group.

3.Scale of Casualties and Destruction: Opponents highlight the immense scale of civilian deaths (exceeding 40,000+), the high proportion of women and children among the dead, and the displacement of over 90% of Gaza's population. They argue that the systemic bombardment and demolition of entire residential neighborhoods, universities, schools, and cultural sites indicate a campaign aimed at destroying Palestinian society in Gaza.

Arguments Rejecting the Accusation of Genocide

Israel, along with its key allies (including the United States, Germany, Hungary, and others), strongly rejects the genocide accusation, labeling it "baseless," "unfounded," and a "blood libel". Their defense centers on the following points:

1.Lack of Genocidal Intent: Israel maintains that its military campaign has a legitimate, non-genocidal objective: the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities and the rescue of hostages taken during the October 7, 2023, attacks. They argue that Israel is engaged in a lawful war of self-defense against a designated terrorist organization, not a campaign to destroy a national or ethnic group.

2.Efforts to Minimize Civilian Harm: Proponents of Israel's defense argue that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) take extensive precautions to prevent civilian casualties. These measures include issuing advance evacuation warnings via phone calls, text messages, and leaflets, as well as establishing humanitarian corridors. They assert that a military possessing genocidal intent would not expend significant effort to warn civilians to evacuate combat zones.

3.The "Human Shields" Strategy of Hamas: Israel and its supporters attribute the high civilian death toll and extensive infrastructure damage to Hamas's systematic embedding of fighters, command centers, rocket launchers, and underground tunnel networks within civilian areas, including schools, mosques, and hospitals. They argue that Hamas's use of human shields turns civilian structures into legitimate military targets under international humanitarian law, complicating urban combat and inevitably leading to collateral damage.

4.Facilitation of Humanitarian Aid: Israeli authorities argue that they do not have a policy of starvation and have consistently coordinated the entry of thousands of humanitarian aid trucks into Gaza. They attribute shortages and distribution failures to UN logistical challenges, security risks in combat zones, and the theft or hoarding of aid by Hamas.

Other International Legal Rulings

In addition to the ICJ genocide case, the International Criminal Court (ICC)—a separate tribunal that prosecutes individuals rather than states—has issued arrest warrants for senior Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Hamas leaders. However, these warrants are for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity (such as starvation as a method of warfare and targeting civilians), which are legally distinct from the specific crime of genocide.

Summary

While a growing consensus among international human rights groups, UN experts, and academic genocide scholars maintains that Israel’s military campaign has crossed the threshold into genocide, Israel and several Western allies vigorously dispute this, maintaining that the war is a legitimate defense against terrorism. The definitive legal determination of whether these actions constitute genocide remains pending and will ultimately be decided by the International Court of Justice over the coming years.

Citations (12)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza since the October 7, 2023, attacks constitute a genocide is a highly contentious issue. It is currently the subject of intense international legal, political, and academic debate, with deeply polarized views.”
2wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza since the October 7, 2023, attacks constitute a genocide is a highly contentious issue. It is currently the subject of intense international legal, political, and academic debate, with deeply polarized views.”
3asil.orgNonprofits and think tanks
asil.org
Backs: “In December 2023, South Africa formally instituted proceedings against Israel at the ICJ, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention.”
4amnesty.orgNonprofits and think tanks
amnesty.org
Backs: “Provisional Measures: In January 2024, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling stating that it is "plausible" that Israel's conduct could fall under the Genocide Convention and that the Palestinian population in Gaza has a right to be protected from genocide. The court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power…”
5jns.orgNews and mediaquality 0.78
jns.org
Backs: “Following Israel's formal submission of its counter-memorial in March 2026, the ICJ extended the timeline for written pleadings, granting South Africa until November 2027 to file its reply and Israel until May 2029 to submit its rejoinder.”
6thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “Following Israel's formal submission of its counter-memorial in March 2026, the ICJ extended the timeline for written pleadings, granting South Africa until November 2027 to file its reply and Israel until May 2029 to submit its rejoinder.”
7pbs.orgNews and mediaquality 0.87
pbs.org
Backs: “Human rights organizations (including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), various UN experts, multiple states supporting South Africa's case, and academic bodies—such as the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), which passed a formal resolution in August 2025—argue that Israel’s actions…”
8commondreams.orgNews and mediaquality 0.54
commondreams.org
Backs: “Evidence of Intent: Proponents of this view point to public statements made by high-ranking Israeli politicians, ministers, and military commanders since October 2023. They argue that rhetoric referencing "human animals," calls to "erase Gaza," and comparisons to historical biblical enemies (such as Amalek)…”
9dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Inflicting Unbearable Conditions of Life: Critics point to the severe and systematic restriction of food, clean water, medical supplies, electricity, and fuel. They argue that enforcing near-famine conditions and decimating Gaza's healthcare system constitute the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated…”
10imeupolicyproject.orgNot yet classified
imeupolicyproject.org
Backs: “They argue that enforcing near-famine conditions and decimating Gaza's healthcare system constitute the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. Scale of Casualties and Destruction: Opponents highlight the immense scale of civilian deaths (exceeding…”
11jpost.comNews and mediaquality 0.81
jpost.com
Backs: “Israel, along with its key allies (including the United States, Germany, Hungary, and others), strongly rejects the genocide accusation, labeling it "baseless," "unfounded," and a "blood libel". Their defense centers on the following points:”
12newlinesmag.comNews and media
newlinesmag.com
Backs: “The "Human Shields" Strategy of Hamas: Israel and its supporters attribute the high civilian death toll and extensive infrastructure damage to Hamas's systematic embedding of fighters, command centers, rocket launchers, and underground tunnel networks within civilian areas, including schools, mosques, and hospitals.…”