This question hinges on contested legal findings — I'll gather recent rulings and expert assessments to give you a balanced answer.
Whether Israel's actions in Gaza since 7 October 2023 legally constitute "genocide" is contested and has not been finally determined by the principal international court with jurisdiction over the Genocide Convention.
1. Legal definition
Genocide is defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
The Convention lists five prohibited acts:
> any of the following acts are committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
including killing members of the group, and requires both prohibited acts and a "special intent" to destroy a protected group in whole or in part.
Genocide requires specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. It is harder to show than other violations because it requires evidence of specific intent.
The International Court of Justice has recognised the Palestinians as a protected group within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.
2. International Court of Justice case - no final judgment
•South Africa lodged its genocide complaint against Israel at the ICJ on 29 December 2023, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza, after the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023.
•On 26 January 2024 the ICJ found it plausible that Israel's acts could amount to genocide and issued six provisional measures, ordering Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts. The court found the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide was plausible.
•The court issued three sets of provisional measures in January, March and May 2024, all of which directed Israel to prevent acts of genocide.
•The order was not a final judgment on whether Israel is in breach of the Genocide Convention. The Court said that at that stage it was not required to ascertain whether violations had occurred, and that such a finding could be made only when the merits were examined.
•As of September 2025, the International Court of Justice has ordered provisional measures but has not delivered a final judgment on the genocide allegation. A final decision could take several years.
3. Findings by UN bodies and experts that conclude genocide
Several UN bodies and independent experts have concluded the threshold has been met, using standards such as "reasonable grounds":
•UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese reported in 2024 there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide...has been met.
•In November 2024 a UN special committee concluded that Israel was conducting a genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, finding Israel's war in Gaza is consistent with the characteristics of genocide.
•An independent commission of inquiry established by the UN Human Rights Council concluded in September 2025 that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. The commission concluded there were reasonable grounds to determine that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
•That commission found that Israel has committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention, specifically: killing members of the protected group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction, and imposing measures intended to prevent births. A separate UN summary stated the legal analysis published on 16 September 2025 found Israel's actions constitute genocide in four out of five categories as defined by 1948 convention.
To establish intent the U.N. commission said it analysed statements made by Israeli authorities and the pattern of conduct and found that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference.
4. Findings by major human rights organizations and scholars
•In December 2024 Amnesty International issued an extensive study concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza arguing that Israel had carried out three acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, including killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction. The 296-page report titled "'You Feel Like You Are Subhuman': Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza" concluded the actions meet the legal threshold.
•Human Rights Watch in a December 2024 report accused Israel of committing acts of genocide in Gaza by targeting water and sanitation infrastructure. It concluded Israeli authorities have intentionally inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, amounting to an "act of genocide" under the Convention. Human Rights Watch also noted the broader crime of genocide requires proof of genocidal intent.
•Other groups cited include Médecins Sans Frontières concluding ethnic cleansing and genocide are taking place.
•On 31 August 2025, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), the world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars, passed a resolution saying that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, with 86% support of those who voted in its 500-member association. The resolution lists actions from mass displacement to systematic, indiscriminate and deliberate attacks on civilians, homes, and hospitals.
Through 2024 and 2025, an increasing number of genocide scholars have concluded that Israel's actions during the Gaza war amount to genocide.
The Gaza health ministry, which is under Hamas control, reported in November 2025 that over 70,000 Palestinians had died in Gaza since the offensive began.
5. Israeli and opposing position
Israel denies the allegations:
•Israel denies genocide, asserting self-defense against Hamas, compliance with humanitarian law, and lack of intent. Israel has rejected accusations while arguing before the ICJ that its military operations were self-defence. The head of Israel's delegation called the case a distortion of reality.
•Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed genocide claims as "the biggest lie of the century" and stated "Israel did not commit genocide. Israel prevented genocide", framing strikes as within the state's right to self-defense after the Oct. 7 massacre.
•Israel's argument includes that it warned civilians with millions of texts, calls and leaflets and highlighted continued humanitarian flows into Gaza, arguing such actions are inconsistent with genocide, that its objective was not to destroy Palestinians but to neutralize Hamas, and that genocide requires specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group, which it says is not met. Critics of the genocide label also argue the number killed does not by itself establish genocide.
Separately, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024 over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, not genocide, with Israel rejecting that finding as well.
Conclusion
•There is no final binding judicial ruling that Israel has committed genocide. The ICJ's provisional measures find a plausible risk of irreparable prejudice to rights under the Genocide Convention, but explicitly defer judgment on the merits.
•A significant body of UN commissions, UN experts, leading human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch), and the world's largest association of genocide scholars have concluded that Israel's actions since October 7, 2023 do constitute genocide or acts of genocide, citing killings, serious harm, and deliberate infliction of destructive conditions of life with specific intent.
•Israel and its supporters reject that characterization, arguing the campaign is defensive against Hamas, lacks genocidal intent, includes measures to warn civilians and allow aid, and therefore constitutes war or war crimes but not genocide under the strict legal definition requiring special intent.
Therefore, whether the actions constitute genocide depends on the legal assessment of intent and evidence, which remains under active litigation at the ICJ and is subject to sharply divergent expert assessments.