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

This is a deeply contested question where legal scholars, human rights organizations, governments, and international bodies have reached different conclusions. Let me search for the current state of this debate.This is one of the most contentious questions in contemporary international law and politics, and there is no single settled answer—legal bodies, scholars, and governments are sharply divided. Here's where things currently stand:

What international bodies have found

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not yet ruled on the merits of the genocide case. In January 2024, in the case brought by South Africa, the ICJ did not make an official legal determination on whether Israel's actions constitute genocide, but concluded that Palestinians in Gaza have plausible rights to protection under the Genocide Convention and issued binding provisional measures. The ICJ has not ruled on the merits; its written phase runs until 2029. The International Court of Justice has never found Israel guilty of genocide.

Separately, in an October 2025 advisory opinion on a related but distinct question about Israel's obligations as an occupying power, the ICJ addressed Israel's obligations in relation to the UN and other organizations in the occupied Palestinian territory, a matter it distinguished from the separate genocide case—though Hamas characterized the ruling's findings on starvation as confirming genocide, which is a political interpretation rather than the Court's actual legal conclusion.

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry reached a strong conclusion. On 16 September 2025, it found that "the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." The Commission found Israel guilty of four out of five acts specified in Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention against Palestinians—murder, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group, and imposing measures to prevent births—and found statements by senior Israeli officials alongside other evidence sufficient to establish genocidal intent.

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has also concluded genocide occurred, citing evidence including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part, including destruction of healthcare, food, and sanitation systems.

Scholarly consensus is shifting

In September 2025, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), a 500-member body founded in 1994, passed a resolution stating that Israel's policies and actions in Gaza fulfil the definition of genocide set out in the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. A law professor noted that this legal assessment "has become mainstream within academia, particularly in the field of genocide studies." More broadly, a growing number of genocide scholars, including Jewish and Israeli ones, have said they have become convinced that Israel's campaign meets the standard, though some dissenters remain.

Israel's position and dissent

Israel categorically rejects this characterization. Israel's Foreign Ministry rejected the IAGS determination, accusing the scholars of having been swayed by "Hamas' campaign of lies." Israel maintains its military campaign is a legitimate act of self-defense against Hamas following the October 7 attack, targeting a terrorist organization rather than the Palestinian population as a group—the key legal distinction required under the Genocide Convention, which requires proof of specific intent to destroy a group "as such."

Government positions are split

Among states, responses vary widely. Many Western governments have deliberately avoided the term. For example, Austria's foreign minister said in July 2025 that one "should be very careful with the term 'genocide'" and that it will ultimately be the ICJ that has to judge it, while others like Belgium's foreign minister have said personally "this is very close to genocide." Other countries, including Bahrain and Bangladesh, have affirmatively used terms like "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing."

Bottom line

There is no single authoritative legal verdict yet—the ICJ's merits ruling (the body with actual jurisdiction to make a binding determination) is still pending and may not conclude until the end of this decade. In the meantime, UN investigative bodies and a majority of specialist genocide scholars have concluded genocide is occurring, based on documented casualty figures, statements by Israeli officials, and patterns of destruction to essential civilian infrastructure. Israel and its allies reject this, framing the campaign as counterterrorism and self-defense. Given the strength of disagreement even among legal experts, I'd encourage you to review the primary sources—the ICJ provisional orders, the UN Commission of Inquiry report, and Israel's own responses—to form your own assessment rather than relying solely on any single characterization.