More answers like this
Muse Spark 1.2Oct 2, 2026meta/muse-spark-1.2-20260805

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

This legal question turns on how genocide is defined and what courts and experts have found — I'll examine the current cases and evidence around Gaza.

Whether Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023 constitute genocide is legally contested and has not been definitively decided by an international court.

1. Legal definition

The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

It is considered a crime of special intent (dolus specialis); it is carried out deliberately. Under the Convention, genocide requires specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a protected group "in whole or in part". This "intent to destroy" element has been the decisive hurdle in past cases, such as the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) ruling.

2. What has happened since October 7, 2023

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 which resulted in around 1,200 deaths and 251 hostages.

Since then, casualties in Gaza have been large. Figures vary by source and date, but UN bodies and the Gaza Ministry of Health report tens of thousands of deaths. For example, UN-related reporting has cited 63,746 fatalitiesand other counts of ~38,400 to over 70,000 deaths since 7 October 2023. By November 2025, the health ministry, which is under Hamas control, reported that over 70,000 Palestinians had died.

3. The case that it does constitute genocide

In December 2023 South Africa asked the ICJ — the principal judicial organ of the UN — to rule that Israel's conduct in Gaza breaches the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

In March 2024, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese said:
> "I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide against Palestinians as a group in Gaza has been met".

In December 2024, Amnesty International concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, arguing that it had carried out acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza. Amnesty said Israel had carried out three acts prohibited under the Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, including killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.

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 that Israel had committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention: 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 later summary states the Commission found Israel guilty of four out of five acts specified in Article 2 of the 1948 Convention.

In the academic sphere, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution declaring Israel's actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide. Eighty-six percent of those who voted among the 500-member association backed the resolution declaring Israel's "policies and actions in Gaza" had met the legal definition set out in Article II of the 1948 UN convention.

These findings cite killings, aid blockages, destruction of healthcare and housing, famine conditions, and statements by Israeli officials as evidence of genocidal intent.

4. The case that it has not been established as genocide

Israel rejects the commission's findings. Its Foreign Ministry has called the reports "distorted, false," while the government says its forces target Hamas and act in self-defense. Speaking at the UN, Prime Minister Netanyahu called genocide allegations "the Biggest Lie of the Century" and pointed to aid deliveries and vaccination efforts.

Israel's position, as summarized in response to the ICJ case, is that it denies genocide, asserting self-defense against Hamas, compliance with humanitarian law, and lack of intent. Israel denies that intent, maintaining that it is fighting Hamas after the atrocities of October 7, not seeking to destroy Palestinians as a people.

Under the Genocide Convention, the central question is whether Israel acted with the specific intent to physically or biologically destroy Palestinians, in whole or in substantial part, as a group. Some legal analyses have concluded the evidence reviewed does not establish that intent.

5. What the International Court of Justice has and has not decided

This is a key point of confusion. In its January 2024 order, the ICJ was considering South Africa's request for provisional measures, not deciding the merits of its genocide case against Israel. The Court found that Palestinians in Gaza had a plausible right to protection from acts of genocide and imposed binding provisional measures while the case proceeded. It did not find that Israel had plausibly committed genocide, much less rule that genocide had actually occurred.

The Court itself was explicit that at that stage it was not required to ascertain whether violations of Israel's obligations under the Genocide Convention had occurred , and that such a finding could be made only when the merits of the case were examined.

The ICJ Order was not in any way a final judgement on whether Israel is in breach of the Genocide Convention but rather provided provisional measures on the basis that the rights of the Palestinians to be protected from genocidal acts are plausible.

As of 2026, the ICJ has never ruled that Israel committed genocide. Further written pleadings were scheduled into 2027-2029, and there is no final judgment.

Even the IAGS resolution is contested. Only 28 percent of the IAGS cast a ballot in the resolution declaring Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza, and critics argue the vote was based on disputed sources and procedural issues, while supporters call it a definitive expert statement.

6. Summary

•No final judicial verdict: The ICJ's South Africa v. Israel case is ongoing. The Court has ordered provisional measures (January, March and May 2024) directing Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts prohibited by the Convention and to enable humanitarian aid, but has not ruled on the merits.
•Several human rights and UN expert bodies say the threshold for genocide has been met: Amnesty International (Dec. 2024), the UN Special Rapporteur (March 2024), and the UN Human Rights Council's Independent International Commission of Inquiry (September 2025).
•Israel, and some legal scholars and states (including the United States and Germany), say the specific intent (dolus specialis) required for genocide has not been proven, and that military operations target Hamas, not Palestinians as a group, and therefore constitute war crimes or violations of international humanitarian law at most, not genocide.

In international law, a definitive determination that genocide has occurred requires a court with jurisdiction finding both the prohibited acts and the specific intent to destroy the group as such. That determination has not been made for Gaza as of October 2026.

Citations (0)