This is a contested legal question — I'll survey the core genocide criteria, court proceedings, and positions on both sides.
Whether Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023 constitute genocide is legally contested and has not been finally determined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
1. Legal definition
The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as “acts committed with an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
The Convention defines genocide as crimes committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such". Key to this definition is the specific intent to annihilate a group.
The prohibited acts include killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and imposing measures intended to prevent births, among others.
2. ICJ case - South Africa v. Israel
South Africa filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on 29 December 2023, alleging that Israel's military campaign in Gaza violates the UN Genocide Convention.
The ICJ has not issued a final ruling on whether genocide has occurred. A final legal clarification is not expected to occur before late 2027 when it issues its final decision.
In a preliminary ruling on January 26, 2024:
•The court ordered six provisional measures, including for Israel to take action to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective steps to ensure provision of humanitarian assistance
•It ordered that Israel must prevent actions against the protected "group," which the court defined as the Palestinians of Gaza: "(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."
•The Court repeatedly stressed that it had not determined that any violations of the Genocide Convention had occurred.
The meaning of the interim ruling is disputed. Former ICJ president Joan Donoghue clarified that the ruling determined Palestinians have a "plausible right" to be protected from genocide under the Genocide Convention, and South Africa had the right to bring the case. The court did not rule on the plausibility of genocide itself but noted a risk of "irreparable harm". Other legal scholars interpret the ruling as finding a plausible risk of genocide, with some UN Special Rapporteurs describing it as the ICJ determining Israel was plausibly committing genocide.
3. Bodies and experts that have concluded genocide has occurred
Several UN bodies, human rights organizations, and scholarly associations have concluded the threshold is met:
•UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory: In a report released on 16 September 2025, it said Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The Commission’s findings, published on 16 September 2025, mark the most authoritative determination by a UN body to date that Israel's actions meet the legal definition of genocide under international law.
The commission found that Israel has committed four of the five genocidal acts as defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Since at least one of these acts was found to be true, the commission declared the conflict a genocide. It stated in a 72-page report that since October 2023 Israel has committed four of the five acts: mass killings, inflicting serious physical and mental harm, creating conditions of life calculated to destroy a group, and preventing births.
A separate UN finding cited the deliberate targeting of children as among the elements establishing genocidal intent, documenting the killing of at least 20,179 children and wounding of 44,143 others in Gaza between 7 October 2023 and 7 October 2025. A United Nations commission also concluded that Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide, and the failure to punish perpetrators.
•Amnesty International: A December 2024 report determined that Israel had committed genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. In December 2024, Amnesty International released a 296-page report formally concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza through the imposition of a total blockade, indiscriminate bombing, and deliberate dismantling of health and food systems. The report was based on Israel's policies, actions, and omissions between October 7, 2023 and early July 2024.
•International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS): The world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars passed a resolution saying that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. The resolution passed on 31 August 2025 that Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in Article II. Therefore, the International Association of Genocide Scholars: Declares that Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in Article II of the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). More than 80% of the 500-member IAGS voted in favor, with other reports putting support at 86% of members who voted.
•Scholarly opinion: In a January–February 2025 survey among Middle East scholars, answers to "How would you define Israel's military campaign in Gaza?" were Genocide (46.0%), Major war crimes akin to genocide (36.0%), Major war crimes but not akin to genocide (9.00%).
The war in Gaza has killed more than 64,000 people, according to Gaza health officials, with other tallies citing more than 70,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, over 66,000 Palestinians, and more than 73,920 people according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
4. Positions that reject the genocide characterization
Israel rejects the allegation, arguing that its military operations were launched in response to the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023 and are an exercise of its right to self-defence.
•Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firmly denied allegations of genocide during his address to the United Nations General Assembly, defending Israel's military actions and underscoring the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack that resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people as justification. Israel has rejected genocide accusations, and says that its war has been against Hamas, not the Palestinians.
•Israel's ambassador said the U.N.'s claims spread a "malicious genocide narrative…serving Hamas and its supporters", and Israel's Foreign Ministry called the IAGS statement disgraceful and "entirely based on Hamas' campaign of lies".
•At the ICJ, Israel's legal team said South Africa brought "a grossly distorted story" with "curated" allegations, describing its war in Gaza as a legitimate defense and saying it was Hamas militants who were guilty of genocide.
Other analysts and experts dispute the intent element:
•The "Scholars for Truth" argue that the high threshold for genocidal intent (dolus specialis) has not been met, arguing that destruction in Gaza is consistent with conventional urban warfare aimed at neutralizing an entrenched enemy, rather than physical destruction of the Palestinian people as such, and that "plausible alternative inferences" (e.g., military necessity) preclude a finding of genocide.
•Senior retired American generals, admirals and military legal experts say Israel's actions in Gaza do not meet the legal definition of genocide.
•More than 6,000 scholars, historians, legal experts and public figures have signed an open letter rejecting accusations that Israel committed genocide in Gaza, and some assessments describe Israel's military as taking "an unprecedented combination of precautions to avoid civilian casualties," including "calling off strikes because of the presence of civilians".
5. Summary
There is no international judicial consensus:
•No final binding judgment that Israel has committed genocide has been issued; the ICJ found jurisdiction and ordered provisional measures but explicitly did not decide that violations had occurred.
•Multiple UN-mandated inquiries, major human rights organizations, and the world's largest association of genocide scholars have concluded, based on their own investigations and legal analyses, that Israel's conduct since October 2023 meets the legal definition of genocide, citing killing, serious harm, infliction of destructive living conditions, and prevention of births with intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza in whole or in part.
•The Israeli government and a number of legal, military, and scholarly experts reject that conclusion, arguing the essential element of specific genocidal intent is absent and that operations constitute self-defence against Hamas following the October 7 attack, with civilian harm resulting from urban warfare rather than an intent to destroy the Palestinian group as such.