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

Both sidesSays it is contested

Whether Israel's military actions in Gaza since the October 7, 2023, attacks constitute a genocide is a subject of intense legal, political, and moral debate. As of 2026, there is no international consensus, and no definitive judicial ruling on the merits has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The question is currently at the center of ongoing proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), while the International Criminal Court (ICC) has also pursued actions related to the conflict.

The Legal Proceedings

1. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In December 2023, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the ICJ (the principal judicial organ of the UN), accusing it of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention in Gaza.

•The "Plausibility" Ruling: In January 2024, the ICJ ruled that it is "plausible" that Israel’s actions could infringe upon the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention. It issued "provisional measures," ordering Israel to take all steps within its power to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish direct incitement to genocide, and ensure the provision of basic services and humanitarian aid. It did not order a complete halt to the war at that time, though it later issued orders directing Israel to halt its military offensive in Rafah.

•Current Status of the Case: The case is a multi-year process. South Africa filed its formal evidentiary "memorial" in October 2024. Israel submitted its Counter-Memorial in March 2026, wherein it formally objected to the court's jurisdiction and denied the charges. The ICJ has scheduled the next round of written pleadings, setting a deadline of November 22, 2027, for South Africa’s Reply and May 22, 2029, for Israel’s Rejoinder. A final judgment on whether genocide occurred is not expected for several years.

2. The International Criminal Court (ICC)

Unlike the ICJ, which adjudicates disputes between states, the ICC prosecutes individuals. In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Crucially, the ICC warrants were issued for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity—specifically including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, and persecution—not for the crime of genocide. Both leaders deny the charges, and the warrants remain active.

Arguments Asserting that Israel is Committing Genocide

Proponents of the accusation—including the South African government, several international legal experts, UN Special Rapporteurs, and various human rights organizations—argue that the scale and nature of Israel's military campaign meet the criteria of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Their arguments focus on several key areas:

•Scale of Casualties and Destruction: Critics point to the devastating loss of life. By late 2026, Palestinian health authorities estimated the death toll in Gaza to exceed 74,000, with tens of thousands more injured, the majority of whom are reported to be women and children. The near-total destruction of civilian infrastructure, housing, schools, and hospitals is cited as an effort to make Gaza uninhabitable.

•Deliberate Deprivation of Basic Needs: Proponents argue that the strict blockades on water, food, fuel, electricity, and medical supplies constitute "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" (Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention).

•Evidence of "Genocidal Intent": Under international law, genocide requires proving a specific intent to destroy a group (dolus specialis). Proponents point to statements made by senior Israeli political and military figures early in the conflict that utilized dehumanizing language or suggested collective punishment, arguing these statements reflect an intent to target Palestinians as a group.

Arguments Denying that Israel is Committing Genocide

Opponents of the accusation—including the Israeli government, its legal counsel, and major allies such as the United States—strongly reject the "genocide" label. They argue that the charge is politically motivated, legally unfounded, and mischaracterizes the nature of the conflict:

•Lack of Genocidal Intent: Israel argues that its military operations are directed solely at dismantling the military and governing infrastructure of Hamas (and other militant groups) following the October 7, 2023, attacks, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed and hundreds taken hostage. They contend that because the objective is self-defense against a combatant group, there is no intent to destroy the Palestinian people.

•Urban Warfare and the Use of "Human Shields": Israel and its defenders argue that the high civilian death toll is a tragic but inevitable consequence of intense urban warfare. They accuse Hamas of intentionally embedding its military operations, rocket launchers, and tunnels within densely populated civilian areas, including schools, mosques, and hospitals. Under international humanitarian law, using civilians as "human shields" places the legal responsibility for civilian deaths on the defending force.

•Efforts to Minimize Civilian Harm: Israel points to its implementation of measures to protect civilians, such as issuing millions of evacuation warnings (via leaflets, phone calls, and texts), establishing humanitarian zones, and coordinating the entry of aid trucks. They argue that a state attempting to commit genocide would not take active, resource-intensive measures to warn civilians to evacuate combat zones or facilitate aid.

•The High Legal Bar: Legal scholars opposing the charge argue that "genocide" is a distinct crime under international law with an exceptionally high evidentiary bar. They contend that conflating the high casualty rates of a brutal, conventional war with a systematic attempt at racial or ethnic annihilation degrades the legal definition of the crime.

Conclusion

Whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide remains a highly polarized debate. While critics and some international observers argue that the sheer scale of civilian suffering, blockades, and rhetoric point to genocide, Israel and its supporters maintain that the actions represent a legitimate, lawful war of self-defense fought under extremely challenging urban conditions. The official, legal determination will ultimately rest on the final ruling of the International Court of Justice.

Citations (11)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “In December 2023, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the ICJ (the principal judicial organ of the UN), accusing it of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention in Gaza.”
evidence, reference entry, neutral. Claim: South Africa filed a case against Israel at the ICJ in December 2023 alleging violations of the Genocide Convention.
2amnesty.orgNonprofits and think tanks
amnesty.org
Backs: “The "Plausibility" Ruling: In January 2024, the ICJ ruled that it is "plausible" that Israel’s actions could infringe upon the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention. It issued "provisional measures," ordering Israel to take all steps within its power to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish…”
evidence, article, points to yes. Claim: In January 2024 the ICJ ruled it plausible that Israel's actions could infringe Palestinians' rights under the Genocide Convention.
3thepresidency.gov.zaGovernment
thepresidency.gov.za
Backs: “It issued "provisional measures," ordering Israel to take all steps within its power to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish direct incitement to genocide, and ensure the provision of basic services and humanitarian aid. It did not order a complete halt to the war at that time, though it later issued orders…”
evidence, official document, points to yes. Claim: ICJ issued provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, punish incitement, and ensure basic services and humanitarian aid.
4kohenavocats.comCompanies
kohenavocats.com
Backs: “It did not order a complete halt to the war at that time, though it later issued orders directing Israel to halt its military offensive in Rafah. Current Status of the Case: The case is a multi-year process.”
evidence, article, neutral. Claim: ICJ did not order a complete halt to the war initially but later ordered Israel to halt its Rafah offensive.
5jns.orgNews and mediaquality 0.78
jns.org
Backs: “Israel submitted its Counter-Memorial in March 2026, wherein it formally objected to the court's jurisdiction and denied the charges. The ICJ has scheduled the next round of written pleadings, setting a deadline of November 22, 2027, for South Africa’s Reply and May 22, 2029, for Israel’s Rejoinder.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Israel submitted its Counter-Memorial in March 2026, objecting to jurisdiction and denying the genocide charges.
6wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Crucially, the ICC warrants were issued for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity—specifically including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, and persecution—not for…”
evidence, reference entry, neutral. Claim: The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in November 2024.
7un.orgGovernment
un.org
Backs: “In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Crucially, the ICC warrants were issued for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity—specifically including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, and persecution—not for…”
evidence, official document, neutral. Claim: The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in November 2024.
8hindustantimes.comNews and mediaquality 0.72
hindustantimes.com
Backs: “Crucially, the ICC warrants were issued for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity—specifically including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, and persecution—not for the crime of genocide. Both leaders deny the charges, and the warrants remain active.”
evidence, article, neutral. Claim: ICC warrants were for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation, murder, persecution, not genocide.
9middleeasteye.netNews and mediaquality 0.79
middleeasteye.net
Backs: “Both leaders deny the charges, and the warrants remain active. ---. Arguments Asserting that Israel is Committing Genocide”
evidence, article, neutral. Claim: Both leaders deny the charges and the warrants remain active.
10dirco.gov.zaGovernment
dirco.gov.za
Backs: “By late 2026, Palestinian health authorities estimated the death toll in Gaza to exceed 74,000, with tens of thousands more injured, the majority of whom are reported to be women and children. The near-total destruction of civilian infrastructure, housing, schools, and hospitals is cited as an effort to make Gaza…”
statistic, official document, points to yes. Claim: Palestinian health authorities estimated Gaza's death toll exceeds 74,000, mostly women and children, with extensive destruction of infrastructure.
11aa.com.trNews and mediaquality 0.61
aa.com.tr
Backs: “By late 2026, Palestinian health authorities estimated the death toll in Gaza to exceed 74,000, with tens of thousands more injured, the majority of whom are reported to be women and children. The near-total destruction of civilian infrastructure, housing, schools, and hospitals is cited as an effort to make Gaza…”
statistic, article, points to yes. Claim: Palestinian health authorities estimated Gaza's death toll exceeds 74,000, mostly women and children, with extensive destruction of infrastructure.