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

This is a contested legal question — I'll survey the genocide definition and international rulings and reports on Gaza since October 7.

Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023 have been alleged to constitute genocide by some states, UN bodies and human rights organizations, denied by Israel, and have not been finally determined by an international court. Whether they constitute genocide remains a contested legal and factual question that hinges on the interpretation of genocidal intent.

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, as such.

The acts include:

The key legal element beyond the acts themselves is dolus specialis - specific intent to destroy the group as such. Proving intent is considered the most difficult part of a genocide determination.

2. Allegations before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed an application with the ICJ, accusing Israel of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

South Africa argued that a pattern of extensive civilian casualties, targeted destruction of infrastructure, and severe living conditions that risk eradicating Palestinian life in Gaza collectively meet the definition of genocide.

3. What the ICJ has and has not decided

In January 2024 the ICJ issued provisional measures. It found that the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention was plausible.

The Court found that Palestinians in Gaza had a plausible right to protection from acts of genocide and imposed binding provisional measures while the case proceeded. It did not find that Israel had plausibly committed genocide, much less rule that genocide had actually occurred.

The provisional order is not a verdict on South Africa's allegation of genocide — that judgment is not expected for years. The Court issued three sets of provisional measures in January, March and May 2024, all of which directed Israel to prevent acts of genocide, prevent and punish public and direct incitement.

The case on the merits remains pending, with Israel's counter-memorial deadline extended to January 2026.

4. Bodies and experts concluding genocide has occurred

United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry:

On September 16, 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory confirmed that the Israeli occupation has committed genocide over the past two years against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The commission stated it concluded that Israeli authorities and security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Convention; killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in whole or in part and imposing measures intended to prevent births.

It stressed that explicit statements by Israeli political and military authorities as well as the pattern of conduct demonstrate that the acts were committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part Palestinians in Gaza as a group. The Chair, Navi Pillay, said: "It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the Genocide Convention".

A summary of that report also describes the four acts as mass killings, inflicting serious physical and mental harm, creating conditions of life calculated to destroy a group, and preventing births.

Human rights organizations:

Other groups cited as reaching similar conclusions include B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Médecins Sans Frontières, and others.

Scholarly associations:

In August 2025 the International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution with 86 percent of voting members in favor. It found that Israel's actions meet the legal definition in Article II of the Genocide Convention.

Subsequent reporting clarified that approximately 28 percent of the total membership participated, and about 24 percent of the whole membership voted yes. Another analysis noted about 28 percent of the association's members took part, and 86 percent of those voting supported its resolution.

5. Israel's denial and counter-arguments

Israel denies genocide, asserting self-defense against Hamas, compliance with humanitarian law, and lack of intent.

At the ICJ hearing, Israel's representatives said South Africa's case was "unfounded", "absurd" and amounting to "libel", and said Israel sought not to destroy a people but to protect its people.

Israel's position was that the war in Gaza was fought in self-defense, targeting Hamas rather than the Palestinian population, and that its leadership did not harbor genocidal intent.

Arguments made by those rejecting the genocide label include:

These critics argue that high civilian casualties, while constituting potential war crimes or crimes against humanity, do not alone establish genocidal intent without evidence that the destruction of the group as such is the purpose, and point to Israeli measures such as warnings to civilians and facilitation of aid as inconsistent with genocidal intent.

6. Current status

There is no final binding judicial determination that Israel has or has not committed genocide in Gaza:

Any definitive legal conclusion under the Genocide Convention would ultimately require a merits judgment by the ICJ or a criminal conviction by a competent international or domestic court.