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 subject of intense international debate. It is currently the focus of ongoing legal proceedings at the United Nations’ highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the case of South Africa v. Israel.

The legal definition of genocide, established under the 1948 Genocide Convention, requires two core elements:

1.Material acts (such as killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction).

2.Specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.

The primary arguments, perspectives, and legal developments surrounding this question are detailed below.

Arguments that Israel's Actions Constitute Genocide

Proponents of the accusation—including South Africa, numerous international legal scholars, human rights organizations, and several United Nations special rapporteurs—argue that Israel’s military campaign meets the criteria for genocide. Their arguments focus on several key areas:

•Scale of Casualties and Destruction: Critics point to the devastating loss of life (with tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, the majority reportedly women and children) and the near-total destruction of civilian infrastructure, including housing (referred to by some as "domicide"), schools, and hospitals, which they argue has rendered the territory uninhabitable.

•Imposition of Destructive Conditions of Life: Proponents argue that Israel’s blockade of Gaza—severely restricting the entry of food, clean water, medical supplies, and fuel—constitutes the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the population. They point to widespread displacement and warnings of catastrophic hunger and famine as evidence of this.

•Evidence of Genocidal Intent (Dolus Specialis): To establish the required specific intent, accusers highlight numerous public statements made by senior Israeli political and military leaders. These include references to "human animals," biblical comparisons to "Amalek" (a group the Israelites were commanded to destroy), and statements calling for the "erasure" or total flattening of Gaza. Critics argue these statements reflect a state-sanctioned policy of collective punishment and destruction directed at the Palestinian population as a group.

Arguments that Israel's Actions Do Not Constitute Genocide

Israel, supported by allies such as the United States and various legal and military analysts, strongly rejects the allegation of genocide, calling it "baseless" and a "blood libel." Their defense centers on the following arguments:

•Self-Defense and Directing of Targets: Israel asserts that its military operations are a legitimate exercise of self-defense following the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people and the abduction of hundreds of hostages. Israel maintains that its war is strictly directed at Hamas and other militant organizations—not the Palestinian civilian population—with the objective of dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities.

•Absence of Genocidal Intent: Defenders argue that Israel lacks the specific intent (dolus specialis) required to commit genocide. In international law, proving genocidal intent is a very high bar; it must be the "only reasonable inference" to be drawn from a state's conduct. Israel argues that its state policy does not aim to destroy Palestinians as a group, and that isolated or rhetorical statements by individual politicians do not represent official military directives.

•Measures to Mitigate Civilian Harm: Israel points to its efforts to minimize civilian casualties as being fundamentally incompatible with an intent to destroy a population. These measures include issuing advance evacuation warnings via flyers and phone calls, establishing humanitarian corridors and safe zones, coordinating tactical pauses in fighting, and facilitating humanitarian aid, medical evacuations, and large-scale vaccination campaigns.

•Urban Warfare and "Human Shields": Israel and its supporters argue that the tragic and high civilian death toll is not the result of genocidal intent, but rather the reality of conducting intense urban warfare in one of the world's most densely populated areas. They accuse Hamas of systematically using civilians as "human shields" by embedding its fighters, tunnels, and command centers within schools, hospitals, mosques, and residential neighborhoods, thereby turning civilian sites into lawful military targets under international humanitarian law.

Status of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Case

In December 2023, South Africa formally instituted proceedings against Israel under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

•Provisional Measures (January 2024 onward): In its initial rulings, the ICJ determined that it had prima facie jurisdiction and that South Africa’s claims concerning the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide were "plausible". The court ordered several binding provisional measures, instructing Israel to take all steps within its power to prevent acts of genocide, punish public incitement to genocide, and ensure the unhindered provision of humanitarian aid. However, the court stopped short of ordering a unilateral ceasefire.

•Timeline for a Final Ruling: The ICJ has not yet made a final determination on the merits of whether Israel has actually committed genocide. Following the submission of South Africa’s detailed "Memorial" in October 2024 and Israel’s "Counter-Memorial" in March 2026, the court has set deadlines stretching through 2027 and 2029 for further written pleadings. Legal experts estimate that a final, definitive ruling on the merits of the case could take several years.

Citations (9)

1tandfonline.comAcademic
tandfonline.com
Backs: “Whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza since the October 7, 2023, attacks constitute a genocide is a subject of intense international debate. It is currently the focus of ongoing legal proceedings at the United Nations’ highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the case of South Africa v.”
2dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Israel. The legal definition of genocide, established under the 1948 Genocide Convention, requires two core elements:”
3wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Israel. The legal definition of genocide, established under the 1948 Genocide Convention, requires two core elements:”
4genocidewatch.comNonprofits and think tanks
genocidewatch.com
Backs: “Material acts (such as killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction). 2.”
5gmu.eduAcademic
gmu.edu
Backs: “Specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. The primary arguments, perspectives, and legal developments surrounding this question are detailed below.”
6verfassungsblog.deAcademic
verfassungsblog.de
Backs: “Specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. The primary arguments, perspectives, and legal developments surrounding this question are detailed below.”
7youtube.comSocial media and video
youtube.com
Backs: “Israel, supported by allies such as the United States and various legal and military analysts, strongly rejects the allegation of genocide, calling it "baseless" and a "blood libel." Their defense centers on the following arguments:”
8thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “Self-Defense and Directing of Targets: Israel asserts that its military operations are a legitimate exercise of self-defense following the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people and the abduction of hundreds of hostages. Israel maintains that its war is…”
9orfonline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
orfonline.org
Backs: “Provisional Measures (January 2024 onward): In its initial rulings, the ICJ determined that it had prima facie jurisdiction and that South Africa’s claims concerning the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide were "plausible". The court ordered several binding provisional measures, instructing…”