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

The question of whether Israel’s military campaign in Gaza since October 7, 2023, constitutes a genocide is one of the most highly contested, legally complex, and deeply polarizing issues in modern international relations.

There is currently no international legal consensus or final judicial ruling declaring that Israel's actions constitute genocide. However, the issue is being actively litigated and debated in international courts, among legal scholars, and by governments worldwide.

The primary arguments from both perspectives, along with the status of the ongoing international legal proceedings, outline the complexity of this debate.

Arguments Asserting That Israel’s Actions Constitute Genocide

Proponents of this argument—including South Africa, various United Nations human rights experts, and several international non-governmental organizations—argue that the scale and nature of the military campaign meet the criteria of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Their core arguments include:

•Scale of Destruction and Loss of Life: Critics point to the devastating human toll of the conflict. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, a high percentage of whom are women and children, with vast numbers of survivors suffering severe, life-altering injuries. The near-total displacement of Gaza's population and the systematic destruction of housing, schools, universities, and hospitals are cited as evidence of a campaign aimed at making the territory unlivable.

•Deliberately Inflicting Unbearable Conditions of Life: Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Accusers argue that Israel’s strict blockades on food, water, electricity, fuel, and medical supplies—which have led to widespread malnutrition, near-famine conditions, and a collapse of the healthcare system—constitute a violation of this article.

•Evidence of Genocidal Intent (Dolus Specialis): Under international law, proving genocide requires establishing "specific intent" to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. Those accusing Israel point to public statements made by high-ranking Israeli political and military leaders early in the conflict—which used dehumanizing language, referenced biblical stories of total destruction, or called for a complete siege on civilians—as evidence of an intent to destroy the Palestinian population in Gaza.

•The ICJ’s Preliminary Rulings: In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that South Africa’s claim that Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from acts of genocide had merit. The court issued legally binding provisional measures ordering Israel to take all steps within its power to prevent genocidal acts, punish public incitement to genocide, and ensure the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid.

Arguments Rejecting the Accusation of Genocide

Israel, its key allies (including the United States and Germany), and various international legal scholars strongly reject the accusation of genocide, calling the charge baseless, a distortion of international law, and a weaponization of the term. Their main arguments include:

•The Right to Self-Defense against Terror: Israel and its supporters argue that the military campaign is a legitimate and necessary exercise of self-defense following the October 7, 2023, attacks led by Hamas. Those attacks resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the abduction of hundreds of hostages.

•Targeting Hamas, Not the Palestinian People: Israel asserts that its military objective is the dismantling of Hamas (a designated terrorist organization) and the repatriation of hostages, not the destruction of the Palestinian population. They argue that the high civilian casualty toll, while tragic, is a consequence of Hamas's systematic practice of "human shielding"—specifically, embedding its fighters, weapon depots, and tunnel networks deep within civilian infrastructure like hospitals, schools, and residential buildings.

•Efforts to Minimize Civilian Harm: Proponents of this view argue that Israel’s actions are fundamentally incompatible with an intent to commit genocide. They point to the Israeli military's use of evacuation orders, warning leaflets, phone calls, and the establishment of humanitarian corridors and safe zones to move civilians out of harm's way, as well as efforts to facilitate humanitarian aid deliveries.

•The High Legal Bar of "Specific Intent": Many legal experts emphasize that "specific intent" is the most difficult standard to prove in international criminal law. They argue that while Israel's military tactics can be critiqued under the laws of war (such as proportionality and distinction), the intent to physically destroy the Palestinian people as a group has not been legally demonstrated. They contend that high civilian casualties in intense urban warfare do not automatically equate to genocide.

Status of International Legal Proceedings

To understand where the international community stands legally, it is helpful to look at the actions of the two primary international courts in The Hague:

1. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) – State Responsibility

The ICJ deals with disputes between states. South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is ongoing. Because international legal proceedings move slowly, a final ruling on whether Israel actually committed genocide is not expected for several years. The court's schedule for exchanging detailed legal arguments (the Reply and Rejoinder stages) runs through May 2029. Until a final ruling is reached, the ICJ's binding provisional measures—which instruct Israel to prevent genocidal acts—remain in effect.

2. The International Criminal Court (ICC) – Individual Responsibility

The ICC prosecutes individuals for specific international crimes. In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. However, the charges brought by the ICC prosecutor are for war crimes and crimes against humanity (including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, and persecution), rather than the crime of genocide.

Conclusion

Ultimately, whether Israel's military actions constitute a genocide remains a deeply divided question. To critics and some international legal experts, the catastrophic level of destruction and civilian suffering represents a clear violation of the Genocide Convention. To Israel and its defenders, the campaign is a defensive war fought under exceptionally difficult urban conditions against an adversary embedded in civilian areas, making the accusation of genocide a political distortion.

Citations (11)

1mg.co.zaNews and media
mg.co.za
Backs: “There is currently no international legal consensus or final judicial ruling declaring that Israel's actions constitute genocide. However, the issue is being actively litigated and debated in international courts, among legal scholars, and by governments worldwide.”
2dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Proponents of this argument—including South Africa, various United Nations human rights experts, and several international non-governmental organizations—argue that the scale and nature of the military campaign meet the criteria of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Their core arguments include:”
3wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Proponents of this argument—including South Africa, various United Nations human rights experts, and several international non-governmental organizations—argue that the scale and nature of the military campaign meet the criteria of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Their core arguments include:”
4hrw.orgNonprofits and think tanks
hrw.org
Backs: “The near-total displacement of Gaza's population and the systematic destruction of housing, schools, universities, and hospitals are cited as evidence of a campaign aimed at making the territory unlivable. Deliberately”
5jns.orgNews and mediaquality 0.78
jns.org
Backs: “Those accusing Israel point to public statements made by high-ranking Israeli political and military leaders early in the conflict—which used dehumanizing language, referenced biblical stories of total destruction, or called for a complete siege on civilians—as evidence of an intent to destroy the Palestinian…”
6amnesty.orgNonprofits and think tanks
amnesty.org
Backs: “The ICJ’s Preliminary Rulings: In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that South Africa’s claim that Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from acts of genocide had merit. The court issued legally binding provisional measures ordering Israel to take all steps within its power to…”
7thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “The court issued legally binding provisional measures ordering Israel to take all steps within its power to prevent genocidal acts, punish public incitement to genocide, and ensure the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid. ---. Arguments Rejecting the Accusation of Genocide”
8alhaq.orgNot yet classified
alhaq.org
Backs: “Israel, its key allies (including the United States and Germany), and various international legal scholars strongly reject the accusation of genocide, calling the charge baseless, a distortion of international law, and a weaponization of the term. Their main arguments include:”
9diplomacyandlaw.comNot yet classified
diplomacyandlaw.com
Backs: “Those attacks resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the abduction of hundreds of hostages. Targeting Hamas, Not the Palestinian People: Israel asserts that its military objective is the dismantling of Hamas (a designated terrorist organization) and the repatriation of hostages,…”
10timesofisrael.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
timesofisrael.com
Backs: “Targeting Hamas, Not the Palestinian People: Israel asserts that its military objective is the dismantling of Hamas (a designated terrorist organization) and the repatriation of hostages, not the destruction of the Palestinian population. They argue that the high civilian casualty toll, while tragic, is a consequence…”
11wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. However, the charges brought by the ICC prosecutor are for war crimes and crimes against humanity (including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, and persecution), rather than…”