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 highly complex, intensely debated question. It has divided international legal scholars, human rights organizations, and governments.

At the core of the debate is the tension between the severe humanitarian devastation in Gaza and the highly specific, stringent legal definition of genocide. The dispute is currently being litigated before the United Nations’ highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the case of South Africa v. Israel.

The Legal Context: South Africa v. Israel at the ICJ

In December 2023, South Africa filed a lawsuit at the ICJ alleging that Israel is violating the 1948 Genocide Convention in its military campaign in Gaza.

•Provisional Measures (January 2024): The ICJ issued preliminary rulings stating that it was "plausible" that Palestinians in Gaza are protected under the Genocide Convention and are at risk of irreparable harm. The court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide, punish incitement to genocide, and ensure the immediate entry of humanitarian aid. It did not, however, order an immediate ceasefire.

•Ongoing Merits Case: A final, binding ruling on whether Israel’s actions legally constitute genocide has not yet been made. The ICJ’s procedural schedule for written pleadings extends through November 2027 for South Africa and May 2029 for Israel. A final judgment on the merits is expected to take several years.

Arguments Supporting the Allegation of Genocide

Proponents of the argument that Israel is committing genocide—including the South African government, several international human rights organizations, and some United Nations experts—rely on several key arguments:

1.The Scale of Death and Destruction: Critics point to the immense human toll of the war. By late 2024, the death toll in Gaza had exceeded 40,000, with a significant portion of the casualties being women and children. Proponents of the genocide label argue that the systematic destruction of over 70% of Gaza's housing, the targeting of hospitals, universities, and infrastructure, and the displacement of roughly 90% of the population represent a deliberate effort to destroy the foundations of Palestinian life.

2.Intentional Imposition of Destructive Conditions: Under Article II of the Genocide Convention, genocide includes "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction." Advocates of this view argue that Israel’s blockade of food, water, medicine, and fuel, which has led to widespread famine and medical collapse, constitutes a deliberate attempt to physically destroy the population.

3.Statements of Intent: To prove genocide, international law requires demonstrating "specific intent" (dolus specialis) to destroy a protected group in whole or in part. Proponents of the accusation cite highly public, aggressive statements made by senior Israeli political and military leaders early in the conflict. They argue these statements show a top-down intent to treat the entire population of Gaza as combatants or to render the territory uninhabitable.

4.Findings by UN Officials: UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has issued multiple reports concluding that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide has been met, characterizing the campaign as part of a broader settler-colonial effort to erase the Palestinian presence.

Arguments Opposing the Allegation of Genocide

Israel, the United States, and several other allied nations (such as Hungary, Fiji, and Paraguay) strongly reject the genocide accusation, calling it "unfounded" and "false". Their arguments include:

1.Self-Defense and the Target of the War: Israel and its defenders argue that the military campaign is a legitimate exercise of self-defense following the October 7, 2023, attacks led by Hamas, which killed approximately 1,200 people. They assert that the war’s explicit and sole objective is to dismantle the military and governing capabilities of Hamas—a recognized terrorist organization—not to destroy the Palestinian people.

2.The Nature of Urban Warfare: Israel’s defenders argue that the high civilian casualty toll is a tragic but inevitable consequence of dense urban warfare. They point out that Hamas deliberately embeds its military assets, tunnels, and combatants within civilian infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals, and residential areas, effectively using Gazan civilians as human shields.

3.Absence of Specific Intent (Dolus Specialis): Legal scholars opposing the genocide label argue that high civilian casualties and widespread destruction do not legally equal genocide without clear proof of specific intent to destroy the group. They contend that Israel's military objectives do not meet this high legal threshold. In filings to the ICJ, the United States argued that "civilian casualties, even widespread civilian casualties, are not necessarily probative of genocidal intent, particularly when they occur in the context of an armed conflict involving urban combat."

4.Humanitarian Mitigation Efforts: Israel and its supporters highlight measures taken by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to mitigate civilian harm, which they argue are incompatible with genocidal intent. These include issuing millions of evacuation warnings (via leaflets, phone calls, and texts), establishing humanitarian corridors and safe zones, facilitating humanitarian aid deliveries, and cooperating on massive medical campaigns, such as polio vaccinations.

Conclusion

While there is universal agreement on the catastrophic scale of civilian suffering and physical destruction in the Gaza Strip, there is no international consensus on whether Israel’s actions constitute a genocide. Those who argue yes point to the severe conditions of life, massive civilian death toll, and statements by officials as evidence of a systematic effort to destroy the population. Those who argue no view the conflict as a legally justified, highly complex war of self-defense against Hamas, arguing that Israel’s active efforts to warn civilians and allow aid disprove the specific intent required by international law to define a campaign as genocide.

Citations (19)

1timesofisrael.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
timesofisrael.com
Backs: “Whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023, constitute a genocide is a highly complex, intensely debated question. It has divided international legal scholars, human rights organizations, and governments.”
2orfonline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
orfonline.org
Backs: “It has divided international legal scholars, human rights organizations, and governments.”
3gmu.eduAcademic
gmu.edu
Backs: “At the core of the debate is the tension between the severe humanitarian devastation in Gaza and the highly specific, stringent legal definition of genocide. The dispute is currently being litigated before the United Nations’ highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the case of South Africa…”
4dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “Israel.”
5jta.orgNews and mediaquality 0.93
jta.org
Backs: “Israel.”
6mlfa.orgNot yet classified
mlfa.org
Backs: “Provisional Measures (January 2024): The ICJ issued preliminary rulings stating that it was "plausible" that Palestinians in Gaza are protected under the Genocide Convention and are at risk of irreparable harm. The court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide, punish…”
7justsecurity.orgNews and mediaquality 0.77
justsecurity.org
Backs: “It did not, however, order an immediate ceasefire. Ongoing Merits Case: A final, binding ruling on whether Israel’s actions legally constitute genocide has not yet been made.”
8washingtoninstitute.orgNot yet classified
washingtoninstitute.org
Backs: “Ongoing Merits Case: A final, binding ruling on whether Israel’s actions legally constitute genocide has not yet been made. The ICJ’s procedural schedule for written pleadings extends through November 2027 for South Africa and May 2029 for Israel.”
9thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “The ICJ’s procedural schedule for written pleadings extends through November 2027 for South Africa and May 2029 for Israel. A final judgment on the merits is expected to take several years.”
10jpost.comNews and mediaquality 0.81
jpost.com
Backs: “A final judgment on the merits is expected to take several years.”
11reliefweb.intGovernment
reliefweb.int
Backs: “Proponents of the genocide label argue that the systematic destruction of over 70% of Gaza's housing, the targeting of hospitals, universities, and infrastructure, and the displacement of roughly 90% of the population represent a deliberate effort to destroy the foundations of Palestinian life. Intentional”
12law4palestine.orgNot yet classified
law4palestine.org
Backs: “Intentional Imposition of Destructive Conditions: Under Article II of the Genocide Convention, genocide includes "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction." Advocates of this view argue that Israel’s blockade of food, water, medicine, and fuel, which…”
13opiniojuris.orgNot yet classified
opiniojuris.org
Backs: “Proponents of the accusation cite highly public, aggressive statements made by senior Israeli political and military leaders early in the conflict. They argue these statements show a top-down intent to treat the entire population of Gaza as combatants or to render the territory uninhabitable.”
14youtube.comSocial media and video
youtube.com
Backs: “Proponents of the accusation cite highly public, aggressive statements made by senior Israeli political and military leaders early in the conflict. They argue these statements show a top-down intent to treat the entire population of Gaza as combatants or to render the territory uninhabitable.”
15youtube.comSocial media and video
youtube.com
Backs: “Findings by UN Officials: UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has issued multiple reports concluding that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide has been met, characterizing the campaign as part of a broader settler-colonial effort to erase the…”
16youtube.comSocial media and video
youtube.com
Backs: “Arguments Opposing the Allegation of Genocide. Israel, the United States, and several other allied nations (such as Hungary, Fiji, and Paraguay) strongly reject the genocide accusation, calling it "unfounded" and "false". Their arguments include:”
17youtube.comSocial media and video
youtube.com
Backs: “Self-Defense and the Target of the War: Israel and its defenders argue that the military campaign is a legitimate exercise of self-defense following the October 7, 2023, attacks led by Hamas, which killed approximately 1,200 people. They assert that the war’s explicit and sole objective is to dismantle the military…”
18nih.govGovernment
nih.gov
Backs: “They point out that Hamas deliberately embeds its military assets, tunnels, and combatants within civilian infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals, and residential areas, effectively using Gazan civilians as human shields. Absence of Specific Intent (Dolus Specialis): Legal scholars opposing the genocide label…”
19middleeasteye.netNews and mediaquality 0.79
middleeasteye.net
Backs: “They contend that Israel's military objectives do not meet this high legal threshold. In filings to the ICJ, the United States argued that "civilian casualties, even widespread civilian casualties, are not necessarily probative of genocidal intent, particularly when they occur in the context of an armed conflict…”