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

Whether the military actions of Israel in the Gaza Strip since the October 7, 2023, attacks constitute a genocide is one of the most highly contested legal, ethical, and political debates in modern international relations.

There is currently no international judicial consensus on this question. While international legal proceedings are actively underway, a final determination has not yet been reached. The debate centers on contrasting interpretations of the actions, the scale of civilian casualties, and—crucially—whether there is "genocidal intent" under international law.

The International Legal Framework

To understand the debate, it is necessary to look at how international bodies are handling the issue:

1.The International Court of Justice (ICJ):

In December 2023, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the ICJ (the UN's highest court), alleging violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

•Plausibility Ruling: In January 2024, the ICJ ruled that it was "plausible" that Palestinians in Gaza have a right to be protected from acts of genocide, and it ordered Israel to take provisional measures to prevent such acts.

•Ongoing Case: The court is currently in the "merits" phase of the case, which involves a detailed examination of the evidence. This process is expected to take several years, with formal legal filings scheduled to continue through 2029. The ICJ has not yet made a final ruling on whether genocide has occurred.

2.The International Criminal Court (ICC):

The ICC prosecutes individuals rather than states. In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Crucially, these warrants are for war crimes (such as using starvation as a method of warfare) and crimes against humanity (such as murder and persecution), rather than the crime of genocide.

Arguments That the Actions Constitute Genocide

Those who argue that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide—including South Africa, several other nations, UN human rights experts, and various international NGOs—point to several factors:

•The Scale of Casualties and Displacement: Proponents of this view emphasize the immense civilian death toll (with tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, a high percentage of whom are women and children) and the displacement of nearly the entire population of Gaza.

•Systematic Destruction of Lifeline Infrastructure: Critics argue that the widespread destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, water treatment facilities, and agricultural land represents an attempt to make Gaza permanently uninhabitable. Under the Genocide Convention, "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" is classified as an act of genocide.

•The Humanitarian Blockade: Advocates point to severe restrictions on food, clean water, fuel, and medical supplies—which have led to widespread starvation and preventable disease—as evidence of an intentional effort to destroy the population.

•Evidence of Genocidal Intent (Dolus Specialis): Under international law, genocide requires the specific intent to destroy a group. Those accusing Israel cite public rhetoric from high-ranking Israeli politicians, military commanders, and soldiers. Statements referring to Gazans collectively, utilizing biblical references of total destruction, or calling for the complete erasure of Gaza are presented as proof of an intent to destroy the Palestinian population.

Arguments That the Actions Do Not Constitute Genocide

Israel, supported by allies like the United States and various legal scholars, strongly rejects the allegation of genocide, presenting several counterarguments:

•The Right to Self-Defense against Hamas: Israel argues that its military campaign is a legitimate act of self-defense launched in response to the October 7, 2023, atrocities committed by Hamas. They maintain that the military's objective is to dismantle the military and governing capabilities of a designated terrorist organization and secure the release of hostages, not to target or destroy the Palestinian people.

•Absence of Genocidal Intent: Defenders of Israel's actions emphasize that a high legal threshold is required to prove the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a group. They state that official Israeli government policies, cabinet decisions, and military directives explicitly instruct forces to adhere to international humanitarian law and avoid civilian harm. They argue that inflammatory statements made by individual politicians do not represent official military policy or state intent.

•Measures to Mitigate Civilian Harm: Israel points to steps taken by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to protect civilians, such as issuing advance evacuation warnings via leaflets, phone calls, and text messages, establishing humanitarian corridors, and coordinating the entry of aid. They argue that these actions are fundamentally incompatible with an intent to destroy the population.

•Hamas’s Combat Tactics: Proponents of this view argue that the high civilian death toll is a tragic consequence of Hamas’s military strategy, which involves embedding fighters and military assets within densely populated civilian areas, hospitals, and schools (using civilians as human shields). Under the laws of war, targeting military objectives that results in civilian casualties is considered tragic but distinct from the crime of genocide, provided the principles of military necessity and proportionality are weighed.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the debate is divided between those who view the scale of civilian death, displacement, and rhetoric from Israeli officials as a clear-cut case of genocide, and those who view the conflict as a highly complex war of self-defense against a non-state actor embedding itself in a civilian population, where the strict legal definition of "intent" to destroy a people has not been met. The final legal designation remains an ongoing matter of international adjudication.

Citations (9)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Whether the military actions of Israel in the Gaza Strip since the October 7, 2023, attacks constitute a genocide is one of the most highly contested legal, ethical, and political debates in modern international relations.”
2thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “While international legal proceedings are actively underway, a final determination has not yet been reached.”
3swissinfo.chNot yet classified
swissinfo.ch
Backs: “While international legal proceedings are actively underway, a final determination has not yet been reached.”
4ucla.eduAcademic
ucla.edu
Backs: “The International Court of Justice (ICJ): In December 2023, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the ICJ (the UN's highest court), alleging violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Plausibility Ruling: In January 2024, the ICJ ruled that it was "plausible" that Palestinians in Gaza have a right to be…”
5amnesty.orgNonprofits and think tanks
amnesty.org
Backs: “Plausibility Ruling: In January 2024, the ICJ ruled that it was "plausible" that Palestinians in Gaza have a right to be protected from acts of genocide, and it ordered Israel to take provisional measures to prevent such acts. Ongoing Case: The court is currently in the "merits" phase of the case, which involves a…”
6wikipedia.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. Crucially, these warrants are for war crimes (such as using starvation as a method of warfare) and crimes against humanity (such as murder and persecution), rather than the crime of…”
7timesofisrael.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
timesofisrael.com
Backs: “In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Crucially, these warrants are for war crimes (such as using starvation as a method of warfare) and crimes against humanity (such as murder and persecution), rather than the crime of…”
8courthousenews.comNews and mediaquality 0.87
courthousenews.com
Backs: “Crucially, these warrants are for war crimes (such as using starvation as a method of warfare) and crimes against humanity (such as murder and persecution), rather than the crime of genocide.”
9dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Those who argue that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide—including South Africa, several other nations, UN human rights experts, and various international NGOs—point to several factors: The Scale of Casualties and Displacement: Proponents of this view emphasize the immense civilian death toll (with tens of…”