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

Whether Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023, constitute genocide is a subject of intense global debate, profound legal disagreement, and ongoing international litigation.

Currently, there is no international consensus on the matter. The issue is being formally examined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a case brought by South Africa. Because a definitive judicial determination is still pending, various international legal experts, governments, and human rights organizations hold starkly contrasting views.

The debate largely hinges on how international law defines genocide and how the facts on the ground in Gaza are interpreted.

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 meeting an exceptionally high evidentiary threshold, specifically proving "genocidal intent" (dolus specialis). It must be proven that the accused state intends to destroy the group itself, rather than engaging in military operations with other motives, such as counter-terrorism or self-defense.

Arguments That Israel's Actions Constitute Genocide

Proponents of the allegation—including South Africa, several UN human rights experts, and various non-governmental organizations—argue that the scale and nature of Israel's military campaign meet the legal definition of genocide. Their arguments include:

•Mass Civilian Casualties and Destruction: Critics point to the immense scale of death and devastation in Gaza. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, a significant portion of whom are women and children. Widespread bombing has destroyed or severely damaged the majority of Gaza's housing, hospitals, schools, and civil infrastructure.

•Creation of Uninhabitable Conditions: Allegations of genocide often focus on the severe blockades and restrictions placed on food, water, medicine, electricity, and fuel. Proponents argue that depriving a population of these essentials, leading to widespread hunger, malnutrition, and the collapse of healthcare, constitutes deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction.

•Forced Displacement: The military campaign has forced the displacement of the vast majority of Gaza's population. Critics argue that repeatedly forcing civilians into ever-shrinking, unsafe designated zones without basic necessities is part of a pattern of destruction.

•Statements of Intent: South Africa’s legal filings and other critics highlight public statements made by some senior Israeli politicians, military officials, and public figures. They argue these statements—which have included dehumanizing language and calls to "erase" or collectively punish Gaza—demonstrate a top-down genocidal intent.

Arguments That Israel's Actions Do Not Constitute Genocide

Israel, supported by allies such as the United States and several legal scholars, strongly rejects the allegation of genocide, calling it "baseless" and a distortion of international law. Their arguments include:

•Lack of Genocidal Intent: Israel argues that its military actions lack the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people. Rather, its stated and operational goal is self-defense following the October 7, 2023, attacks led by Hamas. The objective of the campaign is to dismantle Hamas's military capabilities and secure the release of hostages, not to target Palestinians as an ethnic or national group.

•Hamas’s Military Tactics: Israel and its defenders argue that the high civilian casualty toll is the tragic but direct result of Hamas’s urban warfare strategy. They assert that Hamas systematically uses "human shields" by embedding its fighters, rocket launchers, and command centers inside and beneath civilian infrastructure, including homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals.

•Precautionary Measures to Protect Civ civilians: Israel points to its efforts to mitigate civilian harm as evidence that contradicts genocidal intent. These measures include issuing evacuation warnings via leaflets, phone calls, and text messages, establishing humanitarian corridors, and designating safe zones, even if those measures are criticized as insufficient by humanitarian groups.

•Facilitation of Humanitarian Aid: Israel maintains that it facilitates the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, arguing that any bottlenecks or shortages are due to logistical challenges, Hamas's diversion of goods, or the inability of international agencies to distribute aid safely in an active war zone.

The Status of the ICJ Case (South Africa v. Israel)

In December 2023, South Africa formally instituted proceedings against Israel at the ICJ.

•Provisional Measures: In January 2024, and in subsequent orders, the ICJ issued legally binding "provisional measures." The court ruled that it was "plausible" that the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention were at risk of irreparable harm. It ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide, prevent and punish direct incitement to genocide, and ensure the delivery of basic services and humanitarian aid.

•No Final Ruling on Genocide: The ICJ’s provisional measures did not decide whether Israel has actually committed genocide. Determining whether genocide has occurred requires a full trial on the merits, a highly complex legal process.

•Extended Timeline: The court has set a lengthy schedule for both countries to submit their full written arguments. South Africa has been given until late 2027 to file its reply to Israel's defense, and Israel has until mid-2029 to file its rejoinder. Consequently, a final, definitive ruling by the ICJ on whether Israel's actions constitute genocide is not expected for several years.

Citations (6)

1mg.co.zaNews and media
mg.co.za
Backs: “Whether Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023, constitute genocide is a subject of intense global debate, profound legal disagreement, and ongoing international litigation.”
2jns.orgNews and mediaquality 0.78
jns.org
Backs: “Because a definitive judicial determination is still pending, various international legal experts, governments, and human rights organizations hold starkly contrasting views.”
3orfonline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
orfonline.org
Backs: “Because a definitive judicial determination is still pending, various international legal experts, governments, and human rights organizations hold starkly contrasting views.”
4amnesty.orgNonprofits and think tanks
amnesty.org
Backs: “Proponents of the allegation—including South Africa, several UN human rights experts, and various non-governmental organizations—argue that the scale and nature of Israel's military campaign meet the legal definition of genocide. Their arguments include:”
5dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Creation of Uninhabitable Conditions: Allegations of genocide often focus on the severe blockades and restrictions placed on food, water, medicine, electricity, and fuel. Proponents argue that depriving a population of these essentials, leading to widespread hunger, malnutrition, and the collapse of healthcare,…”
6un.orgGovernment
un.org
Backs: “Israel, supported by allies such as the United States and several legal scholars, strongly rejects the allegation of genocide, calling it "baseless" and a distortion of international law. Their arguments include:”