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

The question of whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza since the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks constitute a genocide is a subject of intense, highly polarized debate among international lawyers, human rights organizations, governments, and scholars.

While there is no global consensus, the accusation is currently under formal legal review by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

Below is an overview of the legal framework, the arguments presenting the case that Israel is committing genocide, and the arguments presenting the case that it is not, along with the current status of international legal proceedings.

The Legal Definition of Genocide

Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide is defined as specific acts—such as killing members of a group or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction—committed with the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

Under international law, proving genocide requires establishing a very high legal threshold known as specific intent (dolus specialis). Prosecutors or accusing states must prove not only that mass atrocities occurred, but that the perpetrators acted with the explicit purpose of destroying the target group.

Arguments Supporting the Accusation of Genocide

Proponents of the accusation—including the South African government, several United Nations special rapporteurs, and international human rights organizations like Amnesty International—argue that the scale and nature of the military campaign in Gaza point to genocide. Their arguments center on several key elements:

1.The Scale of Death and Destruction: Proponents point to the massive humanitarian toll. Since October 7, 2023, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed (comprising more than 1% of the Gaza Strip's population), and a substantial portion of the population has been injured. South Africa’s legal filings have argued that the sheer volume of civilian casualties, combined with the destruction of over 60% of Gaza's housing and infrastructure, indicates a systematic effort to erase the conditions necessary for Palestinian life.

2.Deliberate Infliction of Unbearable Conditions: Critics and human rights groups emphasize Israel's imposition of a near-total siege on Gaza. They argue that restricting food, clean water, electricity, fuel, and medical supplies constitutes the "deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction." Independent international bodies have raised alarms over widespread starvation, famine, and the collapse of the medical system as direct consequences of these policies.

3.Statements of Intent: South Africa’s legal team presented numerous public statements by high-ranking Israeli officials—including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and other cabinet ministers—as evidence of genocidal intent. Rhetorical statements referring to Hamas as "human animals," invoking biblical references of total destruction (such as the story of Amalek), and calling for the resettlement or flattening of Gaza are argued by critics to reflect a top-down intent to destroy the Palestinian population.

4.The ICJ's "Plausibility" Ruling: In January 2024, the ICJ ruled that it was "plausible" that Palestinians in Gaza have a right to be protected from acts of genocide under the Convention. While this was not a final ruling on whether genocide had occurred, the court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, prevent incitement, and allow humanitarian aid.

Arguments Rejecting the Accusation of Genocide

The Israeli government, along with several of its international allies (including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany), and various legal scholars strongly reject the characterization of the war as genocide. Their counterarguments include:

1.Lack of Genocidal Intent: Opponents argue that Israel’s military campaign has a defined, lawful objective under international law: self-defense following the October 7, 2023 massacres, the destruction of Hamas’s military capabilities, and the rescue of hostages. They assert that Israel is targeting a terrorist organization, not the Palestinian people as an ethnic or national group, which negates the specific intent (dolus specialis) required for genocide.

2.Mitigation of Civilian Harm: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) argue that they take extensive measures to minimize civilian casualties, which they claim is incompatible with genocidal intent. These measures include issuing advance evacuation warnings via leaflets, phone calls, and text messages, establishing humanitarian corridors, and designating safe zones for civilians.

3.Hamas’s Military Tactics (Human Shields): Supporters of Israel's military actions argue that the high civilian death toll is a tragic but inevitable consequence of urban warfare in an exceptionally dense environment. They accuse Hamas of routinely using Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and intentionally embedding its combatants, weapons, rocket launchers, and command tunnels within civilian infrastructure, including schools, mosques, and hospitals. Under the laws of war, targeting these embedded military assets is considered lawful, even if it results in tragic collateral damage, provided the attack is proportional to the military objective.

4.Facilitation of Humanitarian Aid: Israel maintains that it has facilitated the entry of hundreds of thousands of tons of humanitarian aid, food, and medical supplies into Gaza. While acknowledging coordination difficulties and security challenges, they argue that a state actively working to allow aid to enter a conflict zone is not executing a policy of systematic physical destruction.

Current Status of International Legal Proceedings

To date, no international judicial body has made a final, definitive ruling on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. The primary legal processes are ongoing:

•The International Court of Justice (ICJ): The case brought by South Africa (South Africa v. Israel) is still in its written pleadings phase. Following several extensions, Israel submitted its formal counter-memorial (defense) in March 2026. The ICJ has set deadlines extending into late 2027 for South Africa's reply and mid-2029 for Israel's final rejoinder. A final judgment on the merits of the genocide allegation is expected to take several years.

•The International Criminal Court (ICC): In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. (These warrants were upheld in July 2025 following Israeli legal challenges). Notably, the ICC prosecutor did not charge the Israeli leaders with the crime of genocide. Instead, the warrants charge them with war crimes (such as the use of starvation as a method of warfare) and crimes against humanity (such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts).

Ultimately, whether the military actions constitute a genocide remains one of the most hotly contested legal and political questions of the modern era, with international legal bodies still years away from delivering a final verdict.

Citations (14)

1aa.com.trNews and mediaquality 0.61
aa.com.tr
Backs: “Proponents of the accusation—including the South African government, several United Nations special rapporteurs, and international human rights organizations like Amnesty International—argue that the scale and nature of the military campaign in Gaza point to genocide. Their arguments center on several key elements:”
2amnesty.orgNonprofits and think tanks
amnesty.org
Backs: “Proponents of the accusation—including the South African government, several United Nations special rapporteurs, and international human rights organizations like Amnesty International—argue that the scale and nature of the military campaign in Gaza point to genocide. Their arguments center on several key elements:”
3dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Since October 7, 2023, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed (comprising more than 1% of the Gaza Strip's population), and a substantial portion of the population has been injured. South Africa’s legal filings have argued that the sheer volume of civilian casualties, combined with the destruction of over…”
4wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “South Africa’s legal filings have argued that the sheer volume of civilian casualties, combined with the destruction of over 60% of Gaza's housing and infrastructure, indicates a systematic effort to erase the conditions necessary for Palestinian life. Deliberate Infliction of Unbearable Conditions: Critics and human…”
5wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “South Africa’s legal filings have argued that the sheer volume of civilian casualties, combined with the destruction of over 60% of Gaza's housing and infrastructure, indicates a systematic effort to erase the conditions necessary for Palestinian life. Deliberate Infliction of Unbearable Conditions: Critics and human…”
6ajc.orgNonprofits and think tanks
ajc.org
Backs: “Rhetorical statements referring to Hamas as "human animals," invoking biblical references of total destruction (such as the story of Amalek), and calling for the resettlement or flattening of Gaza are argued by critics to reflect a top-down intent to destroy the Palestinian population. The ICJ's "Plausibility" Ruling:…”
7jns.orgNews and mediaquality 0.78
jns.org
Backs: “The Israeli government, along with several of its international allies (including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany), and various legal scholars strongly reject the characterization of the war as genocide. Their counterarguments include:”
8aljazeera.comNews and mediaquality 0.78
aljazeera.com
Backs: “Lack of Genocidal Intent: Opponents argue that Israel’s military campaign has a defined, lawful objective under international law: self-defense following the October 7, 2023 massacres, the destruction of Hamas’s military capabilities, and the rescue of hostages. They assert that Israel is targeting a terrorist…”
9pbs.orgNews and mediaquality 0.87
pbs.org
Backs: “They accuse Hamas of routinely using Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and intentionally embedding its combatants, weapons, rocket launchers, and command tunnels within civilian infrastructure, including schools, mosques, and hospitals. Under the laws of war, targeting these embedded military assets is…”
10uwa.edu.auAcademic
uwa.edu.au
Backs: “A final judgment on the merits of the genocide allegation is expected to take several years. The International Criminal Court (ICC): In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.”
11wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “The International Criminal Court (ICC): In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. (These warrants were upheld in July 2025 following Israeli legal challenges).”
12un.orgGovernment
un.org
Backs: “The International Criminal Court (ICC): In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. (These warrants were upheld in July 2025 following Israeli legal challenges).”
13palestinechronicle.comNot yet classified
palestinechronicle.com
Backs: “(These warrants were upheld in July 2025 following Israeli legal challenges). Notably, the ICC prosecutor did not charge the Israeli leaders with the crime of genocide.”
14sydneycriminallawyers.com.auNot yet classified
sydneycriminallawyers.com.au
Backs: “Instead, the warrants charge them with war crimes (such as the use of starvation as a method of warfare) and crimes against humanity (such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts). Ultimately, whether the military actions constitute a genocide remains one of the most hotly contested legal and political…”