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

This is a deeply contested question involving international law, politics, and ongoing legal proceedings. Let me look into the current state of this debate.This is one of the most contentious legal and political questions of the current era, with serious bodies on different sides of the debate. There is no single definitive legal verdict yet, but here's where things stand:

Positions finding genocide

UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry: In September 2025, this UN Human Rights Council-mandated body concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and that the country's top leaders have incited genocide, finding Israel has "committed four genocidal acts" in the enclave since October 7, 2023. The commission's chair, Navi Pillay (a former ICC/ICTR judge), stated "Genocide is occurring in Gaza," and that "the responsibility for these atrocity crimes lies with Israeli authorities at the highest echelons who have orchestrated a genocidal campaign for almost two years now with the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian group in Gaza." The commission's legal analysis cited evidence including evidence of four of the five acts listed in the Genocide Convention, citing the killing of Palestinians, serious physical and mental harm, and conditions of life that threatened the population's survival, as well as the destruction of reproductive healthcare facilities, including Gaza's largest IVF clinic, in their finding that measures had been taken to prevent births. The commission reaffirmed this finding again in mid-2026.

Many governments and legal bodies have reached similar conclusions or are formally pursuing the charge. South Africa brought a case to the ICJ in December 2023, and multiple countries have since formally joined—including Brazil, Colombia, Ireland, Mexico, Spain and Turkiye, with Belgium joining as recently as December 2025.

The ICJ's position (the actual binding legal body)

This is crucial: the International Court of Justice—the only body that can issue a legally binding genocide determination against a state—has not yet ruled on the merits. The International Court of Justice, for its part, has not ruled on the merits: its written phase runs until 2029. In January 2024, the ICJ issued a provisional ruling finding Palestinians have a "plausible" right to protection from genocide in Gaza and that Israel must take all measures to prevent a genocide from occurring—but "plausible risk" is a much lower bar than a final determination of genocide, which requires proving specific genocidal intent, often the hardest element to establish.

Notably, a separate October 2025 ICJ advisory opinion on Israel's occupation rejected the argument that the opinion might prejudge elements relevant to the genocide case, noting there is a clear difference between the respective subject-matters of the two proceedings—meaning the Court has deliberately kept the genocide question open and unresolved.

Israel's position

Israel categorically rejects the charge. When the UN Commission's genocide finding was released, Israel didn't participate in the inquiry; its ambassador to Geneva calls finding a 'libellous rant.' Israel's ambassador called the report "scandalous" and "fake," saying it had been authored by "Hamas proxies." Israel's general position (as also reflected in other statements) is that it is fighting a war against Hamas following the October 7 attack and that civilian casualties, while tragic, result from Hamas embedding itself among civilians—not from genocidal intent.

Where other governments and experts stand

Most Western governments have avoided using the term "genocide" themselves while awaiting the ICJ's eventual ruling. For example, Australia's Foreign Minister said "Israel will be judged in the international courts" and that "the position we've always taken as a country is that questions relating to genocide are matters where we respect the independence of international courts and tribunals and their role in upholding international law." Austria's foreign minister similarly said she "think[s] one should be very careful with the term 'genocide' and it will ultimately be the [International Court of Justice] that has to judge it." Even some officials expressing personal views, like Belgium's foreign minister, hedge carefully: "As the foreign minister, it is not up to me to make such statements. But my personal opinion is that this is very close to genocide. I don't know what other horrors have yet to occur before that word can be used."

Legal scholars themselves are divided—a recent survey of experts noted the question of what constitutes a genocide, what the legal standard is, and whether the evidence, in their view, shows one is occurring produces varying answers even among specialists in international law and genocide studies.

Bottom line

There is no single, universally accepted answer. A UN commission of independent experts and a growing number of governments have concluded genocide is occurring or has occurred, pointing to the scale of civilian deaths, starvation policies, displacement, and statements by Israeli officials as evidence of genocidal intent. Israel disputes this entirely, framing its actions as self-defense against Hamas. The only body with authority to issue a binding legal verdict—the ICJ—has found a "plausible risk" of genocide but has not reached a final ruling, with proceedings expected to continue for years. Whether you view this as "genocide" currently depends heavily on which authority's determination you weight most heavily, and the matter remains legally unresolved even as humanitarian and human-rights bodies increasingly use the term.