Your question touches evolving legal findings and competing expert assessments — I'll gather the latest UN, court, and human rights positions before laying out the arguments on both sides.
There is no final binding legal determination that Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023 constitute genocide, but the question is actively before international courts and has produced sharply divergent assessments.
1. Legal definition of genocide
Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948):
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
The five acts are:
> ( a ) Killing members of the group; ( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; ( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; ( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; ( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
International law requires both the acts (actus reus) and a specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy the group as such.
2. Status of International Court of Justice (ICJ) case
South Africa brought a case against Israel in December 2023 under the Genocide Convention, alleging violations in Gaza.
The ICJ has not issued a final judgment on the merits. It has issued provisional measures:
•In January 2024, the court ruled that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa under the Genocide Convention and for which it was seeking protection on behalf of Gazans were "plausible"
•It ordered Israel not to commit genocide, to allow humanitarian aid, not to destroy evidence, and to cooperate with UN investigators, specifically to prevent: "(a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"
Provisional measures are not a final determination:
> Such measures are intended to protect rights that may be at risk while proceedings continue. They are not, by themselves, a final determination that genocide has occurred
> The ICJ notes that at the provisional measures stage, the Court does not determine the merits of the case. It therefore has yet to make a determination whether Israel has committed, sanctioned, or incited genocide
A final ruling is expected to take years.
3. Views that the actions do constitute genocide
Several UN bodies, human rights organizations and scholarly groups have concluded the threshold has been met:
•On September 16, 2025, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory declared Israel's current occupation of the Gaza Strip a genocide. According to the 1948 Genocide Convention, any "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" is considered genocide. The panel found Israel guilty of four of the five acts: (i) killing members of the group; (ii) causing serious bodily or mental harm; (iii) deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction; and (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births
•Amnesty International concluded in December 2024 that Israel had committed and was continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Human Rights Watch has found that Israel's deliberate acts in Gaza represent a crime against humanity and to acts of genocide
•The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), described as the world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars, passed a resolution on Sept 1, 2025 saying the legal criteria have been met to establish Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Reuters reported that 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
These assessments cite:
•Scale of casualties: According to Gaza's Health Ministry, over 66,000 Palestinians have died since Israel invaded, with other tallies citing over 72,000 Palestinians so far according to local health authorities
•Widespread destruction of densely populated areas, hospitals and clinics
•Blockade and restrictions on humanitarian aid, food, water and medical evacuation
•Statements by Israeli officials - including President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant - cited by the Commission as revealing genocidal intent
Advocates also note the UN itself says it "cannot decide whether something is considered genocide under international law" in a binding judicial sense, and therefore its requests were recommendations, but that states have an obligation to prevent genocide.
4. Views that the actions do not constitute genocide
The Israeli government and its supporters reject the genocide allegation:
•Israel has repeatedly rejected accusations of genocide, asserting that its actions are justified as self-defense against Hamas, which it accuses of using civilians as human shields
•Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed allegations that Israel had committed genocide in the Gaza Strip as "the biggest lie of the century" and described Israel's military campaign as self-defence following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, an attack that resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people
•Israel's Foreign Ministry called the genocide scholars' statement disgraceful and "entirely based on Hamas' campaign of lies" and says its actions in Gaza are justified as self defence
•The formal defense presented at the ICJ argued: "There is clearly no plausible argument that Israel is committing genocide as alleged. It targets only Hamas military infrastructure, and makes great efforts to minimise civilian casualties, including through warnings to evacuate, establishing safe zones, and pausing military activity for hours each day to allow residents to seek food and water"
A letter by 75 retired senior military leaders and legal experts rejected accusations that Israel committed genocide in Gaza, arguing Israel's conduct does not meet the legal definition of genocide, which requires evidence of an intention to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part
General arguments against the genocide characterization include:
•Lack of genocidal intent: Israel's war is against Hamas, not the Palestinian people as a group. Proponents of this view note that Israel has repeatedly asserted its campaign is solely against the terrorist organization Hamas
•Military objective rather than destruction of a group: Operations are framed as neutralizing Hamas to ensure long-term security and securing the release of hostages, not destroying Palestinians as such
•Measures to mitigate civilian harm: evacuation warnings, safe zones, and allowance of humanitarian aid at Gaza's borders, cited as inconsistent with intent to destroy
•That civilian deaths, however high, result from urban warfare against an armed group embedded in civilian areas, and constitute alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity but not genocide without the specific intent element.
5. Conclusion
Whether Israel's actions legally constitute genocide hinges on the interpretation of intent, not only on the scale of death and destruction.
•No final judgment from the International Court of Justice has declared that genocide has occurred; the court has only found a plausible risk to rights under the Genocide Convention and ordered provisional measures.
•An independent UN Commission of Inquiry, major human rights NGOs, and a majority of voting members of the International Association of Genocide Scholars have concluded that Israel's policies and actions in Gaza do meet the legal definition.
•Israel, the United States and other governments, and a number of legal and military experts dispute that conclusion, arguing the specific intent to destroy Palestinians as a group has not been established and that the campaign is a lawful act of self-defense against Hamas.
Until the ICJ issues a judgment on the merits or other competent tribunal adjudicates the claim, characterization of the conflict as genocide remains contested and depends on which legal interpretation of intent and evidence is accepted.