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 October 7, 2023, constitute genocide is a subject of intense global debate, legal proceedings, and deeply divided international opinion.

Under the 1948 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." Proving genocide in international law requires establishing both the physical acts of destruction and a highly specific mental intent (dolus specialis) to destroy the targeted group.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently reviewing a formal accusation of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel, a final legal determination has not yet been reached and is expected to take several years.

An overview of the arguments on both sides of this debate, along with the status of the legal proceedings, highlights the complexity of the issue:

Arguments Supporting the Claim of Genocide

Proponents of the claim—including South Africa, various UN human rights experts, international legal scholars, and several countries—argue that Israel’s military campaign meets the legal definition of genocide based on several factors:

•Scale of Civilian Casualties and Destruction: Critics point to the unprecedented scale of death and injury in Gaza, where tens of thousands of Palestinians (a high percentage of whom are women and children) have been killed. Proponents argue that the near-total destruction of housing, hospitals, schools, and civic infrastructure has rendered Gaza unlivable, systematically destroying the conditions necessary for the group's long-term survival.

•Deprivation of Basic Needs: Human rights organizations and UN agencies argue that Israel’s blockades and restrictions on the entry of food, water, medicine, and fuel constitute "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction." They contend that the resulting widespread starvation and collapse of the healthcare system are part of a manufactured humanitarian catastrophe.

•Statements of "Genocidal Intent": Proponents of the genocide accusation place heavy emphasis on public statements made by senior Israeli officials. Examples often cited include Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s biblical references to "Amalek" (associated in scripture with total destruction) and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s declaration of a complete siege against "human animals." Critics argue these statements reflect a top-down intent to target the Palestinian population as a whole, rather than just Hamas.

•Findings by UN Experts: In March 2024, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, published a report titled "Anatomy of a Genocide," which concluded there were "reasonable grounds" to believe the threshold indicating the commission of genocide by Israel had been met.

Arguments Opposing the Claim of Genocide

Israel, along with its key allies (including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany), strongly rejects the accusation of genocide as baseless, arguing that the military campaign is a lawful and necessary war of self-defense. Their defense focuses on the following:

•Legitimate Military Objectives: Israel maintains that its military operations are directed solely at destroying the military and governing capabilities of Hamas—the designated terrorist group that carried out the October 7, 2023, attacks—and securing the release of hostages. Israel argues that because its target is a combatant organization rather than the Palestinian people, the essential legal element of "intent to destroy a group" is entirely absent.

•Active Measures to Mitigate Civilian Harm: The Israeli military (IDF) argues that its operations are conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law. Defenders point to Israel's use of evacuation warnings, phone calls, text messages, leafleting, and designated humanitarian zones to move civilians out of harm's way before launching strikes. They argue that a state attempting to save civilian lives cannot logically be accused of intending to destroy them.

•Hamas's Use of "Human Shields": Israel and its defenders argue that the high civilian death toll is a tragic but direct consequence of Hamas’s military strategy. They assert that Hamas deliberately embeds its fighters, ammunition, rocket launchers, and command centers within civilian infrastructure—such as hospitals, schools, mosques, and residential areas. Under the laws of war, targeting these locations is legally permitted if they are being used for military purposes, provided the attack meets the standards of proportionality and military necessity.

•Contextualizing Political Rhetoric: Israeli legal representatives argue that the controversial statements cited by critics have been stripped of context. They contend that these comments were directed specifically at Hamas leadership and combatants, not at the broader Palestinian civilian population.

Status of International Legal Proceedings

The primary venue for resolving this question is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case South Africa v. Israel:

•Provisional Measures: In January 2024, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling finding it "plausible" that Palestinians in Gaza are protected under the Genocide Convention and that their rights are at risk of irreparable harm. The court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, punish public incitement to genocide, and facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid. However, the court did not order an immediate, unilateral ceasefire, nor did it make a final determination on whether genocide was actually occurring.

•Ongoing Case Timeline: The ICJ is currently in the written pleadings phase, where both states submit highly detailed evidence. South Africa submitted its main memorial in late 2024, and Israel filed its Counter-Memorial in March 2026, wherein it formally objected to the court's jurisdiction.

•In May 2026, the ICJ established a timeline for the next round of written responses: South Africa has until November 22, 2027, to file its Reply, and Israel has until May 22, 2029, to submit its Rejoinder. As a result, a final, binding ruling from the ICJ on the merits of the genocide accusation is not expected for several years.

Citations (6)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Under the 1948 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." Proving genocide in international law requires establishing both the physical acts of destruction and a highly specific mental intent…”
2jns.orgNews and mediaquality 0.78
jns.org
Backs: “While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently reviewing a formal accusation of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel, a final legal determination has not yet been reached and is expected to take several years.”
3orfonline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
orfonline.org
Backs: “Proponents of the claim—including South Africa, various UN human rights experts, international legal scholars, and several countries—argue that Israel’s military campaign meets the legal definition of genocide based on several factors:”
4imeu.orgNonprofits and think tanks
imeu.org
Backs: “Scale of Civilian Casualties and Destruction: Critics point to the unprecedented scale of death and injury in Gaza, where tens of thousands of Palestinians (a high percentage of whom are women and children) have been killed. Proponents argue that the near-total destruction of housing, hospitals, schools, and civic…”
5dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Scale of Civilian Casualties and Destruction: Critics point to the unprecedented scale of death and injury in Gaza, where tens of thousands of Palestinians (a high percentage of whom are women and children) have been killed. Proponents argue that the near-total destruction of housing, hospitals, schools, and civic…”
6thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “Israel, along with its key allies (including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany), strongly rejects the accusation of genocide as baseless, arguing that the military campaign is a lawful and necessary war of self-defense. Their defense focuses on the following:”