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

This is a deeply contested question involving ongoing legal proceedings, and I don't think I should offer my own definitive verdict. Instead, let me lay out the current state of the debate, including the legal processes, major findings, and differing views, based on the most current information.This is one of the most contested and consequential legal and political questions of our time, and I can't give you a definitive personal verdict—but I can lay out where things currently stand across the relevant legal, institutional, and scholarly fronts, since serious, credible voices disagree.

What international bodies have found

UN Independent Commission of Inquiry (September 2025): This is the most authoritative finding to date. An independent United Nations inquiry concluded for the first time that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and that the country's top leaders have incited genocide, describing it as the "most authoritative UN finding to date." The commission found that Israel has committed four genocidal acts in the enclave since October 7, 2023. Specifically, Israel has committed four of the five "genocidal acts" defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention: killing members of a group, causing serious bodily and mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to destroy the group and preventing births, while at least one of five acts must occur for it to count as genocide; the commission found no evidence regarding forcibly transferring children. Commission chair Navi Pillay stated: "The Commission finds that Israel is responsible for the commission of genocide in Gaza... 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."

The Commission's basis included the unprecedented number of Palestinians killed and harmed (physically and mentally), including widespread and systematic torture, sexual and gender-based violence, the intentional and direct targeting of children during military operations, and the nature and duration of the siege and starvation imposed on Palestinians in Gaza. It also concluded that since October 2023, Israeli officials have demonstrated a clear and consistent intent to establish permanent military control over Gaza and to change its demographic composition while systematically destroying Palestinian life in Gaza. This conclusion was reaffirmed in a later report.

Israel's response: Israel rejected this entirely. Israel's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Daniel Meron, called the report "scandalous" and "fake," saying it had been authored by "Hamas proxies." Israel did not participate in the inquiry.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ): This is the actual judicial body with authority to make a legally binding determination, and it has not yet ruled on the merits. South Africa brought a genocide case against Israel in December 2023, and while a final ruling could take years, the ICJ issued provisional measures in January 2024 ordering Israel to take steps to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza and to allow unimpeded access for humanitarian aid. Importantly, these provisional measures are based on a finding of "plausibility," not a final determination of genocide. The case's written phase is expected to run for years—one source notes the International Court of Justice has not ruled on the merits; its written phase runs until 2029. Several countries including Brazil, Colombia, Ireland, Mexico, Spain and Turkiye, and later Belgium, have formally joined South Africa's case.

ICJ Advisory Opinion (October 2025): In a separate proceeding, the ICJ noted Israel's conduct regarding aid, finding that in the course of its military campaign, Israel has substantially restricted — and for significant periods of time, including between 2 March and 18 May 2025, completely prevented — the entry of aid (including food and water) into the Gaza Strip and its distribution to the Palestinian population, with catastrophic consequences for this population.

Other findings and reactions

Human rights organizations have also weighed in critically. Since 18 March 2025, the IDF issued 47 "evacuation orders" effectively forcibly displacing 684,000 Palestinians, and by 25 June 2025 Israeli authorities had placed 82.6 per cent of Gaza's territory within "Israeli-militarized zones" or under displacement orders. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food described what was occurring in Gaza as "a situation of genocide."

International state-level positions remain divided

Governments have taken varying positions. Many are explicitly withholding judgment pending the ICJ's final ruling—for example, Australia is awaiting the ICJ verdict, with its Foreign Minister saying "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 Austria's foreign minister said in July 2025 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." Belgium's prime minister similarly said the genocide claim was "something for the International Court of Justice to determine," while its foreign minister personally stated "this is very close to genocide. I don't know what other horrors have yet to occur before that word can be used." Other states, like Bahrain and Belize, have already explicitly declared it genocide.

Bottom line

There is no single, final, legally binding determination yet. The highest-profile UN human rights body to examine the question in depth—the Commission of Inquiry—has concluded genocide occurred, a view shared by a growing number of genocide scholars, human rights organizations, and governments. Israel categorically rejects this characterization as false and politically motivated. The body with actual jurisdiction to issue a binding legal verdict, the ICJ, has only found the claim "plausible" enough to warrant emergency measures and has not ruled on the merits—a final judgment may still be years away. Given this, it's genuinely a matter of significant ongoing legal and political dispute rather than a settled question, and reasonable, well-informed people and institutions currently land in different places on it.