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

Both sidesSays it is contested

This is a contested legal question — I'll gather recent rulings, definitions, and evidence to lay out both sides.

Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023 are the subject of an unresolved legal dispute over whether they meet the legal definition of genocide. No international court has issued a final determination.

1. Legal definition

Under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is defined as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

The acts in question include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group, more formally listed as:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Article II defines genocide as specified acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.

The specific-intent element — sometimes called dolus specialis — is central to the genocide definition. Intent to destroy a protected group as such must be established; widespread killing, extensive destruction, or inflammatory rhetoric are not, by themselves, sufficient to satisfy the legal standard.

The ICJ has stated that the targeted part of the group must be substantial enough to affect the group as a whole.

2. South Africa v. Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The allegation was formally institutionalized when South Africa filed proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice on 29 December 2023, in the case formally titled Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).

South Africa alleged that Israel had taken actions intended to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as part of the broader Palestinian national, racial, and ethnic group.

Israel has rejected the allegation in its entirety, with its legal representative Malcolm Shaw declaring before the Court: "This is no genocide."

Israel has consistently maintained that its military campaign was directed against Hamas and that it acted in self-defense following the group's October 7, 2023, attack. Its representatives have argued Israel was acting in self-defense against Hamas rather than targeting the Palestinian population, and maintained that civilian suffering resulted primarily from Hamas's strategy of embedding military infrastructure among civilians.

What the ICJ has and has not decided

The ICJ's provisional-measures order of 26 January 2024 found prima facie jurisdiction and identified certain rights as plausible, but expressly declined to determine whether Israel had violated the Genocide Convention, leaving that question to the merits stage.

Specifically, the Court:

•Found prima facie jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention and concluded that at least some of the alleged acts and omissions appeared capable of falling within the Convention

•Found that certain rights claimed by South Africa — including the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts — were plausible, and that there existed a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to those plausible rights

•Did not grant South Africa's request to order Israel to halt its military operations

The measures ordered on 26 January 2024 required Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts falling within Article II of the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza; ensure that its military did not commit those acts; prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide; enable urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance; preserve evidence related to the alleged acts.

The ICJ was explicit that its provisional-measures order was not a finding on the merits. The Court stated that it was not required at that stage to determine whether Israel had violated the Genocide Convention, that definitive findings of fact could be made only during the merits examination, and that the order did not prejudge jurisdiction, admissibility, or the substance of the dispute.

Former ICJ President Joan Donoghue explained publicly that the January 2024 ruling recognized that "the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide, and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court" — a formulation that underscores the distinction between a preliminary finding of plausibility and a final merits judgment.

The Court issued two further sets of provisional measures in March and May 2024, including an order on 24 May 2024 directed at the Rafah governorate. Each order was framed as a provisional measure intended to protect rights while the merits case proceeded, and none constituted a final determination that Israel had violated the Genocide Convention.

The International Court of Justice has not issued a final judgment determining whether Israel has committed genocide.

A report on an ICJ scheduling order issued on 21 May 2026 states that South Africa was given until 22 November 2027 to file its reply and Israel until 22 May 2029 to submit its rejoinder. As reported there, the case remained pending without a final judgment on the merits. Other reporting states the ICJ directed South Africa to file its Reply by November 22, 2027 and Israel until May 22, 2029, to submit its Rejoinder.

3. Positions that Israel's actions do constitute genocide

Several UN bodies, human rights organizations, and scholarly associations have concluded that the threshold is met:

•The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel reported in September 2025 that Israel had committed and was continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The Commission stated that it found reasonable grounds for four of the five genocidal acts listed in the Genocide Convention: killing; causing serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction; and imposing measures intended to prevent births. It further reported finding both general intent to commit the underlying acts and specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, in whole or in part — the dolus specialis required for genocide.

•In December 2024, Amnesty International became the first major organisation to conclude that Israel had committed genocide during its war on Gaza, while Human Rights Watch more conservatively concluded that "genocidal acts" had been committed.

•Amnesty International's December 2024 report asserted that Israel was committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

•The International Association of Genocide Scholars adopted a resolution stating that Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide under Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Eighty-six percent of participating voters from the 500-member association supported the resolution. This was an academic-organizational determination rather than a judgment by an international court.

These findings typically rely on the scale and pattern of killing and destruction, statements by Israeli officials interpreted as showing intent, and restrictions on humanitarian access, blockade and conditions of life inflicted on the population.

4. Positions that Israel's actions do not constitute genocide

•Israel has consistently and categorically rejected the genocide allegation. Its core argument is that the military campaign in Gaza is directed at Hamas — a terrorist organization responsible for the 7 October 2023 attacks — and not at the Palestinian population as a protected group.

•Yad Vashem describes genocide as requiring intent to annihilate or destroy the ability of a racial, national, ethnic, or religious group to exist as a group, and has stated that, in its assessment, the term genocide is not applicable to the war situation in Gaza.

•The Anti-Defamation League likewise states that accusations that Israel is committing genocide do not meet the legal threshold, which requires both prohibited acts and intent to exterminate the Palestinian people in whole or in part.

•UK Lawyers for Israel, in a published briefing note, concluded that it found no evidential basis for asserting that IDF operations were conducted with genocidal intent, while acknowledging the seriousness of Palestinian casualties. The organization emphasized that killing a large number of people without the required specific intent does not constitute genocide under international law.

•UN Watch argued that genocide requires specific intent — dolus specialis — to destroy a protected group as such, and that widespread civilian casualties, extensive destruction, and inflammatory rhetoric are insufficient by themselves to establish that standard.

•The United States government stated that it was "not seeing any acts that constitute genocide" and characterized South Africa's ICJ case as "meritless."

Israel's supporters also point to Israeli measures such as warnings to civilians, temporary evacuation calls, delays to ground operations to allow civilians time to heed warnings, and facilitation of humanitarian aid as inconsistent with genocidal intent, and argue that stated Israeli objectives — destroying Hamas, recovering hostages, and restoring security — are directed at Hamas rather than at destroying Palestinians as a protected group.

5. Summary of current legal status

•There is no final ICJ judgment on whether genocide has occurred; the merits phase is pending for several years.

•The ICJ's January, March and May 2024 orders were provisional measures to prevent irreparable harm to plausible rights, not determinations of violation.

•A number of UN-mandated and non-governmental bodies have concluded that Israel's actions amount to genocide or genocidal acts, based on their interpretation of acts and intent.

•Israel, several legal analyses, and the U.S. government reject that conclusion, arguing the specific intent to destroy Palestinians as a group has not been established and that the operation is a war against Hamas governed by international humanitarian law.

Whether the legal term "genocide" applies therefore depends on whether the required specific intent (dolus specialis) can be proven to accompany the prohibited acts — a question that remains contested and will ultimately be for the ICJ to decide on the merits.

Citations (1)

1israelpedia.orgNot yet classified
Gaza Genocide Allegation
Backs: “(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Article II defines genocide as specified acts committed with the intent to destroy, in…”
background, article, neutral. Claim: Article II of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as specified acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.