This is a complex legal question with active international proceedings — I'll gather recent findings from courts and human rights bodies to lay out how genocide is assessed.
Whether Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023 constitute genocide is a contested legal and political question. There is no final binding judicial ruling, while a number of UN bodies, human rights organizations and scholarly associations have concluded that it does, and Israel and its supporters reject that characterization.
1. Legal definition of genocide
Under Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:
> (a) Killing members of the group
> (b) Causing serious physical or mental harm to members of the group
> (c) Intentionally subjecting the group to living conditions intended to cause its physical destruction, in whole or in part
> (d) Imposing measures aimed at preventing the birth of children within the group
> (e) Forcibly transferring children from the group to another group
The Convention defines five acts, but the crime requires special intent (dolus specialis) to destroy the protected group as such. The text notes:
> The Genocide Convention defines genocide as specified acts committed with intent to destroy a protected group in whole or in part; death, suffering, or destruction without that required intent does not establish genocide as defined by the Convention.
Mass killing, persecution or forced displacement may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity without meeting that definition.
2. No final determination by the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
South Africa filed a case against Israel at the ICJ on 29 December 2023 under the Genocide Convention, alleging Israel "has failed to prevent genocide and has failed to prosecute direct and overt incitement to genocide".
On 26 January 2024 the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling:
> acknowledging the plausibility of South Africa's claims and ordering Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide, including allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza.
More precisely, the court has issued several provisional measures since January 2024, finding a 'plausible risk' that Palestinians in Gaza face acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention.
These orders require Israel to prevent genocidal acts, ensure humanitarian aid delivery, and report compliance, but:
> no final ruling on the merits—whether genocide occurred—has been made.
The ICJ has not issued a final ruling on whether genocide has occurred, and the full proceedings will take many years.
Legal interpretation of the January 2024 order is itself disputed:
•Some describe it as finding Palestinians had a "plausible right" to be protected from genocide, and that former ICJ president Joan Donoghue clarified the ruling determined Palestinians have a "plausible right" to be protected from genocide, not a ruling on the plausibility of genocide itself.
•Others emphasize the court found it plausible that Israel's acts could amount to genocide and issued six provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts.
•Analysts note the court did not rule that Israel is committing genocide, but did find the facts presented if proven could fall within the scope of the Convention.
A final ICJ decision is not expected before late 2027.
3. Bodies that have concluded genocide is occurring
Several independent investigations have concluded the legal threshold is met:
•UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory: In September 2025, the Commission concluded that Israel had committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Genocide Convention, with genocidal intent. The acts cited were killings, serious bodily or mental harm, conditions of life intended to bring about the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, and measures intended to prevent births. Its conclusion was: "Israel is responsible for genocide in Gaza". In September 2025 the commission concluded Israel was "responsible for the commission of four genocidal acts in Gaza with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza".
•International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS): On 31 August 2025 the world's largest professional association of genocide scholars resolved that Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in Article II. The resolution states the legal criteria have been met, with more than 80% of the 500-member body voting in favor; another tally puts it at 86 percent of those who voted among the 500-member association.
•Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: A United Nations commission, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have all separately concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Amnesty International's investigation concluded that Israel had "committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip", asserting three of five prohibited acts: "namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and" deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to destroy. Human Rights Watch has concluded that Israeli authorities are responsible for acts of genocide, including deprivation of water.
•Other Israeli and Palestinian groups cited include B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, Al-Haq and others.
These findings cite:
•Death toll: more than 70,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to Gaza health authorities since the war began; over 60,000 Palestinians confirmed killed by July 29, 2025, rising to over 74,000 including over 21,000 children according to later reports
•Destruction of homes, neighbourhoods, hospitals, schools, universities, water systems and infrastructure necessary to sustain human life
•Famine: Famine in Gaza Governorate was declared on 22 August 2025, with over 500,000 people trapped in famine conditions, documenting hundreds of malnutrition-related deaths since October 2023.
4. Arguments that it does not constitute genocide
Israel, the United States and other scholars and legal experts reject the genocide label:
•Israeli government position: Israel has in the past strongly denied that its actions in Gaza amount to genocide and says they are justified as self defence. Israeli officials say its war aims were to dismantle Hamas's military and governing capabilities, secure the release of hostages and prevent another October 7 style attack, not to destroy the Palestinian population. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel's actions as a response to the Hamas attack that resulted in approximately 1,200 deaths, emphasizing the right to defend itself.
•Legal argument on intent: Opposing analysts argue military actions are an exercise of self-defense targeted exclusively at Hamas following the October 7 attacks, not at the Palestinian people as a group. They maintain "Israel's actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide — they are legitimate acts of self-defense against an organization that seeks Israel's destruction".
•Military and legal professionals: On the third anniversary of Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack, more than 75 retired senior American military officers and legal experts issued an open letter stating: "we reject claims that Israel committed genocide in Gaza", arguing: "Genocide is a grave and exceptional violation of international law, defined and prohibited by the Genocide Convention" and the allegations do not meet that standard, and that "Israel has not committed genocide but rather set a high bar for how to conduct urban warfare against an enemy who will stop at nothing".
•Scholarly disagreement: A January-February 2025 survey among Middle East scholars found 46.0% defined the campaign as genocide, while 36.0% chose "Major war crimes akin to genocide", showing significant academic division.
5. Summary
There is no international consensus:
•According to the law as written, genocide requires both prohibited acts and specific intent to destroy a protected group. Without that intent, large-scale death and destruction does not meet the Convention's legal definition.
•Those who assert genocide — including the UN Commission of Inquiry and Amnesty International — have attempted to establish intent through official statements, pattern of attacks, blockade and deprivation of conditions of life, and concluded the threshold is met.
•The highest court seized of the issue, the ICJ, has found a plausible risk and ordered provisional measures to prevent genocidal acts but has not issued a final merits ruling on whether genocide has occurred.
Therefore, whether Israel's actions since October 7, 2023 legally constitute genocide depends on the contested assessment of intent and remains under adjudication, with major human rights bodies answering "yes," Israel and some Western governments and experts answering "no," and the ICJ's final judgment pending.