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

Whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023, constitute a genocide is a subject of intense international debate, deep legal scrutiny, and profound disagreement.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently hearing a landmark case brought by South Africa (South Africa v. Israel) to determine whether Israel’s actions violate the 1948 Genocide Convention. However, because international legal cases of this magnitude are highly complex, a final ruling on the merits is not expected for several years.

To understand the debate, it is necessary to examine the legal definition of genocide and the core arguments presented by both sides, as well as the current status of the legal proceedings.

The Legal Framework of Genocide

Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide is defined as specific acts—such as killing members of a protected group or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction—committed with the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such."

In international law, the most difficult element to prove is specific intent (dolus specialis). To secure a conviction of genocide, prosecutors or plaintiff states must prove not only that massive casualties and destruction occurred, but that the primary and deliberate objective of those actions was the physical destruction of the group.

Arguments That Israel’s Actions Constitute Genocide

Those who argue that Israel's military campaign in Gaza constitutes genocide—including the government of South Africa, several United Nations human rights experts, and various international NGOs—base their claims on several key points:

1.Scale of Death and Devastation: Proponents of this view point to the unprecedented scale of civilian casualties—with tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, a high percentage of whom are women and children—alongside the near-total destruction of Gaza’s housing, schools, universities, and medical infrastructure.

2.Deprivation of Essentials (Conditions of Life): Accusers argue that Israel’s tight blockades on food, water, electricity, fuel, and medical supplies constitute the deliberate infliction of "conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction." International bodies have warned of widespread displacement, disease, and starvation.

3.Statements of Intent: South Africa’s legal team and other critics highlight numerous public statements made by Israeli political, military, and religious leaders. They argue these statements—which have included calling for Gaza to be "flattened," referring to adversaries as "human animals," and invoking biblical stories of total destruction (such as Amalek)—demonstrate a genocidal intent or incitement to genocide.

4.Institutional Findings: In late 2025, a UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, led by former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, concluded that Israel was guilty of genocidal acts in Gaza with "specific intent to destroy".

Arguments That Israel’s Actions Do Not Constitute Genocide

Israel, its legal defense team, and its international allies (including the United States) strongly reject the accusation of genocide, calling it a "scandalous" distortion of international law. Their counterarguments include:

1.Absence of Genocidal Intent: Israel argues its military campaign is an act of legitimate self-defense following the October 7, 2023, attacks led by Hamas. The state asserts that its explicit and sole objective is the dismantling of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities and the rescue of hostages, not the destruction of the Palestinian people.

2.Efforts to Minimize Civilian Harm: Israel’s defenders point to measures taken by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that they argue are fundamentally incompatible with genocidal intent. These include issuing millions of evacuation warnings via phone calls, flyers, and texts, establishing humanitarian zones, and mapping out safe corridors for civilians to escape active combat zones.

3.Hamas's Use of Human Shields: Israel argues that the high civilian death toll is the tragic but direct result of Hamas’s military strategy, which involves embedding fighters, weapon caches, and command centers deep within densely populated civilian areas, including schools, mosques, and hospitals. Under international humanitarian law, targeting a legitimate military objective that is shielded by civilians does not inherently constitute a war crime or genocide, provided proportionality is maintained.

4.Facilitation of Humanitarian Aid: Israel asserts that it has continuously worked to coordinate and facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid, medical supplies, and food into Gaza. They argue that a state intending to physically destroy a population would not facilitate millions of tons of aid or coordinate public health campaigns (such as polio vaccinations) for that same population.

Status of the ICJ Case (South Africa v. Israel)

The legal dispute remains ongoing at the International Court of Justice:

•Provisional Measures: In January 2024, the ICJ issued an initial ruling stating it was "plausible" that the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention were at risk. The court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, punish incitement to genocide, and ensure the delivery of basic humanitarian aid. Notably, the court did not order a unilateral halt to Israel's military operations at that time, though it did issue subsequent orders in March and May 2024 regarding aid access and the offensive in Rafah.

•The Merits Phase: The ICJ has not yet ruled on whether genocide has actually occurred. South Africa submitted its formal written arguments (the Memorial) in late 2024. Israel filed its response (the Counter-Memorial) in March 2026, raising legal objections to the court's jurisdiction.

•Timeline: The court has set a deadline of November 22, 2027 for South Africa to file its reply, and May 22, 2029 for Israel to submit its final rejoinder. A final, legally binding judgment on the merits of the genocide charge is not expected until after these filings have been processed and argued in court.

Conclusion

Ultimately, whether Israel's actions constitute genocide is a complex legal question that hinges on proving "specific intent" under international law. While critics and several international bodies argue that the scale of civilian suffering and the rhetoric of leadership point to genocide, Israel and its allies maintain that the war is a lawful, albeit devastating, defensive campaign against a terrorist organization that uses its own population as shields. The definitive legal ruling remains in the hands of the ICJ.

Citations (6)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Israel) to determine whether Israel’s actions violate the 1948 Genocide Convention. However, because international legal cases of this magnitude are highly complex, a final ruling on the merits is not expected for several years.”
2opiniojuris.orgNot yet classified
opiniojuris.org
Backs: “However, because international legal cases of this magnitude are highly complex, a final ruling on the merits is not expected for several years. To understand the debate, it is necessary to examine the legal definition of genocide and the core arguments presented by both sides, as well as the current status of the…”
3ucla.eduAcademic
ucla.edu
Backs: “However, because international legal cases of this magnitude are highly complex, a final ruling on the merits is not expected for several years. To understand the debate, it is necessary to examine the legal definition of genocide and the core arguments presented by both sides, as well as the current status of the…”
4dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Scale of Death and Devastation: Proponents of this view point to the unprecedented scale of civilian casualties—with tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, a high percentage of whom are women and children—alongside the near-total destruction of Gaza’s housing, schools, universities, and medical infrastructure.”
5theguardian.comNews and mediaquality 0.75
theguardian.com
Backs: “Statements of Intent: South Africa’s legal team and other critics highlight numerous public statements made by Israeli political, military, and religious leaders. They argue these statements—which have included calling for Gaza to be "flattened," referring to adversaries as "human animals," and invoking biblical…”
6thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “Absence of Genocidal Intent: Israel argues its military campaign is an act of legitimate self-defense following the October 7, 2023, attacks led by Hamas. The state asserts that its explicit and sole objective is the dismantling of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities and the rescue of hostages, not the…”