The question of genocide in Gaza is before international courts — I'll gather the legal definitions, case filings, and expert assessments to examine the claim.
Whether Israel's military operations in Gaza since October 7, 2023 constitute genocide is legally contested and has not been finally determined by a court.
1. What genocide means in law
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: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm; (c) Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births; (e) Forcibly transferring children.
The definition also emphasizes the intent element:
> the intent to exterminate, "in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group"
And:
> The definition of genocide requires that the perpetrator have a specific state of mind: the "intent to destroy" a group
Proving genocide therefore requires both prohibited acts and specific intent to destroy the protected group as such. Motive, such as counter-insurgency or self-defense, is legally distinct from intent.
2. The case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel at the ICJ in December 2023, alleging violations of obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The case was brought following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks that killed about 1,200 people and saw over 250 taken hostage.
The ICJ has not issued a final judgment on the merits.
•In January 2024, the Court considered South Africa's request for provisional measures, not the merits.
•The Court 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, requiring binding provisional measures.
•It ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent commission of acts within Article II, to ensure its military does not commit such acts, to prevent and punish direct and public incitement, and to enable provision of urgently needed basic assistance. The Court issued three sets of provisional measures in January, March and May 2024.
The Court did not find that Israel had plausibly committed genocide, much less rule that genocide had occurred. This point has been a source of public misinterpretation; former ICJ President Joan Donoghue clarified the Court did not decide that claim.
The merits remain pending. Case No. 192 is listed as merits pending with major deadlines for written pleadings in November 2027 and May 2029. Israel was given until January 12, 2026 to respond to South Africa's memorial.
These interim orders do not constitute a final finding that Israel has committed genocide.
3. Findings by UN bodies, human rights organizations and scholars that Israel is committing genocide
Several investigative bodies and NGOs have concluded that the threshold for genocide is met:
•Amnesty International: In a report published December 2024, Amnesty's research found sufficient basis to conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip. The organization said it documented that Israel committed acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention with specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, as such. A December 2024 report by Amnesty determined that Israel had committed genocide.
•Human Rights Watch (HRW): In December 2024, HRW published Extermination and Acts of Genocide: Israel Deliberately Depriving Palestinians in Gaza of Water, concluding that Israel has committed acts of genocide and the crime against humanity of extermination by intentionally depriving Gaza's population of access to drinking water. HRW said Israeli authorities have intentionally deprived civilians of adequate water since October 2023, committing the crime against humanity of extermination and acts of genocide.
•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 Convention, with genocidal intent. The independent UN Commission of Inquiry concluded in September 2025 that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, finding both prohibited acts and necessary intent. Its September 16, 2025 legal analysis (A/HRC/60/CRP.3) concluded that Israeli authorities and security forces had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023. The Commission's conclusion is an investigative finding, distinct from a court judgment.
•International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS): On 31 August 2025, the IAGS, the world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars, passed a resolution saying that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Eighty-six percent of those who voted among the 500-member association backed the resolution declaring Israel's "policies and actions in Gaza" had met the legal definition. The resolution was passed on August 30, 2025 declaring Israel's actions since October 7, 2023 as meeting the legal definition under the UN Genocide Convention.
These bodies cite as evidence:
•Mass killing and serious bodily/mental harm — Gaza's Health Ministry reporting over 65,000 deaths, half women and children, with other reports citing over 72,000
•Creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, including total siege, systematic destruction of hospitals, schools and infrastructure and deprivation of water, food and sanitation
•Statements by Israeli officials cited as evidence of intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group
•The UN commission's finding that it has also led to destruction of much of Gaza's cultural heritage, which the Convention includes under causing serious harm or deliberately inflicting conditions of life
B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, and other Israeli and international NGOs have issued similar findings, as referenced in the IAGS resolution.
4. Israel's denial and counter-arguments
Israel has strongly denied that its actions amount to genocide and says they are justified as self-defence.
Key arguments made by the Israeli government and by scholars and advocacy groups that reject the genocide label include:
•Target is Hamas, not Palestinians as a group: Israel says its war is against Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian people or the Palestinian population of Gaza, which would be required to apply the term genocide. Israel is seeking the destruction of Hamas, a terror group that states its intent to destroy the state of Israel.
•Lack of specific intent: Genocide requires intent to destroy a people. Israel's stated objective is to dismantle Hamas and remove the terrorist threat — not to destroy the Palestinian people.
•Steps to limit civilian harm: Supporters of this view point to efforts to warn civilians, facilitate evacuations, and provide humanitarian assistance as inconsistent with an intent to destroy Gaza's population. Similarly, they argue Israel's actions reflected a desire to limit incidental harm, not deliberately harm civilians, and that problematic comments by some ministers cited by South Africa did not reflect military planning.
•Self-defence and laws of war: Israeli officials defended military actions after the October 7, 2023 attack that killed approximately 1,200 people as justification for its response, and rejected genocide accusations as baseless and libellous, calling South Africa a mouthpiece for Hamas.
These assessments are contested. Organizations that support the genocide determination argue that warnings, evacuations and aid deliveries have been inadequate and that patterns of killing, blockade and destruction of infrastructure calculated to make life unsustainable, combined with official statements, do demonstrate genocidal intent.
There is also scholarly disagreement. While the IAGS resolution is described as a definitive statement from experts, other scholars have publicly rejected the charge. More than 6,000 signatories, including prominent scholars and legal experts, signed a letter rejecting the Gaza genocide accusation, noting that IAGS and UN commission assessments are not a final ICJ judgment. Israel called the IAGS statement disgraceful and "entirely based on Hamas' campaign of lies".
5. Current status
•No final binding judicial ruling that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza exists. The ICJ merits case is ongoing.
•Multiple leading human rights organizations, a UN commission of inquiry, and the largest association of genocide scholars have concluded that Israel's conduct meets the legal definition of genocide.
•Israel, the United States and other states, and a number of legal scholars dispute that conclusion, arguing the high bar for specific intent has not been met and that the campaign is a war against Hamas, not a campaign to destroy Palestinians as such.
Under international law, a definitive legal determination of state responsibility for genocide would come from a competent court such as the ICJ (for state responsibility) or the International Criminal Court (for individual criminal responsibility), neither of which has issued such a final judgment regarding Gaza as of October 2025-2026.